What you need to know about Bradley Manning

on 15 Comments

In June, Bradley Manning, 25, the army private who caused the greatest security breach in US history by giving hundreds of thousands of classified war and diplomatic documents to Wikileaks, will go on trial at Fort Meade, MD.

Two nights ago at St. Joseph’s College in Brooklyn, Chase Madar, author of the stirring book, The Passion of Bradley Manning, had a dialogue about the case with Sarah Leonard, an editor at The New Inquiry. I extracted the following points from their presentation, under my own headings. All quotations are from Madar.

What did Manning produce?

Bradley Manning leaked three important bodies of documents from his army intelligence service, all of which went to Wikileaks. They are: the Iraq war logs, which comprise 391,000 field reports, most famously the video of the Apache helicopter, opening fire on small crowd of Iraqi civilians in July 2007, killing over a dozen of them, a video seen millions of times around the world, but including documentation of the Haditha massacre in which 24 Iraqi civilians, most of them women, children and the elderly, were killed by American soldiers.
Then there are 90,000 Afghan war logs, which include a document expressing suspicion that the Pakistanis are arming and funding the Afghan insurgency. “Certainly worth knowing,” Madar says.
And Manning released 260,000 diplomatic cables. These include revelations that the U.S. lobbied to keep down the minimum wage in Haiti so as to keep manufacturing costs low for American employers; also the documentation of Tunisian corruption, which played a role in the revolution there.
What was the value of these revelations?
The revelations about Haiti have been thrilling information for the Haitian Diaspora community in its political work. And several Tunisian intellectuals have told Madar that the Tunisian document helped the revolution. “We can’t say it was the cause of the uprising, but it certainly played a role.”
As for Americans, Manning’s revelations forced the US to withdraw its forces from Iraq more quickly than otherwise. The war logs had a big impact on US opinion and on the Iraqi government, which refused to give immunity from prosecution to American soldiers as  a result– which sped our exit.
  “We now have a much clearer sense of how two wars were going and how US diplomacy works in general…. We know a lot more about how our foreign policy works.” Lately, for instance, Hillary Mann Leverett and Flynt Leverett’s book on US policy toward Iran relied on Wikileaks to show that the U.S. had undertaken no good faith effort toward diplomacy with Iran, despite promises.
Bradley Manning was an incongruous figure in the US army. How did he get there and where did he come from?
Manning enlisted in 2007. The evidence is that he felt a real sense of responsibility for his country. “He was pretty critical of the invasion as a young man, and of the Afghan war, but he also felt a sense of responsibility.” He also wanted to go to college, and did not have support from his family, even as tuition costs were rising steadily.
“Bradley Manning is someone who from a very young age according to classmates showed a fierce independence of mind and will.” He shocked classmates when he refused to say the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance because he said he was atheist. “He stood out in smalltown Oklahoma.”
He studied science and computers form a young age, and designed his own website at age 10. It is not surprising that he found his way into army intelligence. He was not classic army material: he had a strong independent streak, and being 5-2, one of his colleagues in basic training had told him, If someone messes with you, you have to take his head off. He wasn’t that kind of person. Also he was gay.
Manning dreamed that Operation Iraqi Freedom was really about Iraqi freedom. He soon found this was not the case. When stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, he learned of the arrest of non violent Iraqi demonstrators, giving out an anodyne leaflet outside a government building that said, “Where does the money go?”
Manning ran to his commanding officer to voice his concern about what would happen to these demonstrators—because it was widely known that Iraqi prisoners were subject to torture. His commanding officer told him to shut up about it. At that time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had issued Fragmentary Order 242: not to do anything in the face of torture, but turn a blind eye to it.
“Bradley Manning later says, Something snaps. He sees things differently, he’s neck deep in the worst foreign policy  disaster since Vietnam.”
How hard was it to sneak out these documents?
Manning pulled off the largest security breach in US history, so you might think he used suction cups on the wall and mounted a big operation. But there was no security to speak of at the base. People were walking in and out with disc drives, no one was checking on anything. Even apart from that, secrets are not so secret in the U.S.: 1.4 million people are eligible for top secret security clearance. It was the hack of the century, “but in the artistic sense it was not, it was easy.”
What does the case tell us about the politics of secrecy?
The rightwing says off with his head, but the predominant response from the liberalish center hasn’t been much better– a kind of panic about too much information out there. In Hillary Clinton’s words, this was “diplomatic armageddon.”
“I think this misinterprets the scale and meaning of the leaks. They are the biggest, but it is also true, that they are altogether less than 1 percent of what Washington classifies in a given year. Despite all the talk about the slippery slope to complete transparency, we are nowhere near that.”
Manning managed to shine a narrow light, “not a blinding klieg light,” on government secrets.
“The slippery slope is not toward too much transparency, but toward a really dystopian level of secrecy.” The idea that government should be as open as possible was not a crazy idea of radical hackers. It is a very old idea in the mainstream liberal political tradition. James Madison wrote that “a popular government without popular information is but a prelude to a tragedy or a farce or perhaps both.”
And Madison would not have anticipated that documents from his administration are still classified 200 years later.
“We have phenomenally out of control over-classification. And declassification is taking place in a geological tempo.” And meantime there is a phenomenon called reclassification.
What about all the leaks we read in the paper?
They are “elite leaks,” Madar said. “In fact the government is incredibly leaky but in a very selective way. Officials leak with total impunity all the time.” You can’t go a week in the New York Times or Washington Post without reading about a top secret document shown to a reporter—whether it be about a drone strike or the National Intelligence Estimate of Iran’s nuclear program or cyberwarfrare, or an NIE on Afghanistan and the possibility of a stable government there.
“This hypocrisy lets us know some very important things.” There is one set of rules for the generals and the senators and another for the rest of us.
What are the risks of secrecy?
The mainstream media reflected panic about the big threat to national security from whistleblowers. But look hard at the real costs and real risks of extreme secrecy, which is what we have going on.
“I think the costs have been incredibly high, especially over the last 10 years.” The Iraq war was brought in through secrecy, distortions and lies that government bought into. The cost of that war is now measured in hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars that future generations will be paying for.
“It’s just common sense, if you’re going to make a very important decision, like invading a sovereign nation, you want information. Whether it’s South Vietnam or Iraq, you need to know what you’re getting into. “
Information can’t do everything, but there are clear instances of people making better decisions with better information. For instance, Bob Graham, the former Florida Senator who chaired the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, looked at privileged  information about Iraq and changed his mind and voted against the decision to invade Iraq, after reading that information.
Where is Manning, what are the charges against him, and what will happen to him?
He has been in jail for three years, first at the Marine Corps brig at Quantico, then following an international outcry, he was place in medium security at Fort Leavenworth, then at Fort Meade, Maryland. His court martial trial is to begin June 3 at Fort Meade.
There are 22 charges, ranging from minor, the improper use of government computers, to the capital offense of aiding the enemy, and esponiage, violating the espionage act of 1917. He pled guilty to the ten lesser offenses; the government will try to make the serious charges stick. The most ridiculous charge is aiding the enemy. Madar gives it a one in three chance of resulting in a conviction. The Obama administration has said that it is not going to seek the death penalty.
What do the serious charges mean?
Aiding the enemy is a very vague charge, but the way it’s decided could have a real effect on the media in general. The government was asked in pretrial, what if Manning had leaked it to the New York Times, not Wikileaks. Well he would still be accused of aiding the enemy, the prosecution said. If that view holds, there could be a chilling effect on the mainstream media. Because we depend to a very large extent on both elite sources and non-elite sources, from the drone program to Watergate.
Is there any possibility that Manning will walk? 
“I would like to be optimistic and say there’s a real chance that Bradley Manning will walk out of there, acquitted,” Madar said. That would be providing false hope. “I think there’s a real chance he will be convicted and get 50 years. And any chance of Manning getting clemency given the great service he has done will be a longterm struggle.”
Didn’t Bradley Manning sign the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and sign away whatever rights he had vis-a-vis leaking secrets?
“There is no question that he broke the law. That’s not something that his lawyers are contesting either.” But very few people think that all laws should be enforced and obeyed always. Harriet Tubman is one of the greatest Americans who ever lived. She broke the law. A gay couple going on a hot date 50 years ago broke the law.
“Any system depends not just on enforcement but on flexibility.” That’s why commutations and pardons exist.
No one’s denying that this was an act of civil disobedience and that military forces depend on discipline and uniform enforcement for morale and order. But then let’s be fair and look first at other violations of the code in Iraq and Afghanistan by soldiers who shot and maimed civilians, with zero repercussions, or opened fire in a 360-degree field in response to an IED. “These are not being prosecuted, so the UCMJ is being flouted.”
Violations that caused actual people to die should be enforced before we get to Bradley Manning– “where the damage is purely speculative.”
What is the role for Manning’s supporters?
“In the long run getting clemency for Bradley Manning is less a legal matter than a political matter. It will be a political push involving political organization to get clemency for him, and I’m frankly pretty pessimistic about that too.”
But consider that many of the atrocities documented in the leaks, such as the government action against the Haiti minimum wage, are legal under our laws. We should wish they were criminal, but they are legal. That is a good reason to join the ACLU and become an active member so as to create “a mobilized constituency.”
We thought Obama was going to be a leader on these issues. Why has he disappointed us?
“No president has been fully in charge of the national security apparatus in the US since Eisenhower. Foreign policy is to a large extent dictated by the Department of Defense and other national security organs.”
To seize hold of that policy, fully, a president would have to have three things: national security credentials, so he wouldn’t be called a wimp; great political cunning; and a popular mandate to do so. Obama is 0 for 3.
What has the New York Times done for Manning?
“The New York Times’s attitude toward Bradley Manning has been obnoxiously contradictory.” On the one hand it has run dozens and dozens of stories based on his leaks, many on the front page. “He’s been a terrific source.” And all the information he provided the Times has been legitimate.
“But instead of protecting the source, they’ve gone out of their way to portray him as some kind of weirdo.” The Times has “pathologized” Manning, and sexualized his action.
This is true of former executive editor Bill Keller who did such a terrible job in the runup to the Iraq war, when he declared himself a liberal hawk and the paper ran third rate reporting by Judy Miller that turned out to be wrong. Keller has “gone out of his way in his columns, to say, Oh this Bradley Manning guy, he’s kind of weird.”
What role does Manning’s gender identity have in the case and why do you call him a man when he has used the name Breanna?
He has used the name Breanna Manning on a twitter account, and experimented with crossdressing. He was evidently on the point of gender transition before he was arrested. But these facts are not sufficient to decide to call him Breanna, without clear and expressed permission from the individual in question. And Manning has not communicated on this point.  
What does it mean? Some people who are not particularly sympathetic to Manning have tried to make this his motive, calling the leaks an antisocial act. But sexual identity is an important part of anyone’s personal story, even cisgendered straight guys, and we don’t explore that around their deeds.
What’s the difference between Manning and Daniel Ellsberg?
Forty years ago Ellsberg leaked thousands of top secret documents to the media and to Congress, “The Pentagon Papers,” a potted history by the Pentagon about how the Vietnam War was fought and waged. He was accused of espionage by the Nixon administration, but he came out a free man. Every single document Ellsberg leaked was top secret. This is not true of a single document Manning leaked. In fact, over half the diplomatic cables were not classified in any way, and neither was the most sensational item, the helicopter video.
But the main difference was political. Ellsberg’s leaks got the popular support of an important sector of the U.S. establishment, from the legal profession to academics to the media. That kind of support has not shown up for Manning.
The main difference was there “was a real sense of urgency among American elites about ending the Vietnam war. That sense of urgency had to do with the draft. Even though it was relatively easy for the elite to get their kids out of the draft, it was still a theoretical possibility that a top lawyer or journalist or congressman’s son would be sent to Vietnam. That is not the case anymore. Our elites just have no skin in the game… When elites don’t have skin in the game, they don’t care about whistle blowers. There is no sense of urgency.”

Update: Post originally stated that some of the dox Manning leaked were top secret. Commenters David Samel and Chase Madar pointed out the error.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

15 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    May 2, 2013, 1:56 pm

    Should Manning go free? Should Pollard go free? Both spies. One worked FOR the USA and profited no enemies that I can see (tho it embarassed the USA). The other stole secrets which he gave to Israel (which I’d call an enemy, for all the harm it’s done its neighbors and thus the USA — but who am I to decide such things?) that Israel traded to USSR (an enemy, sez USA).

    A lot of secrets are kept to give administration folks a free hand to misuse money, misuse authority, conduct essentially private foreign policy, etc. Blackwater a private presidential militia? Well, who gave it how much money? We don’t know, secret. Who told it what to do (or did anyone?) We don’t know. No control of money or tasks. Blackwater militiamen were exempt of all legal recourse by anyone. Like Israel, they enjoyed total impunity and immunity. And as we have been taught, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Private militia if not ROGUE militia. Such things should not be secret.

    So on the whole, I dislike and distrust secrecy so much that I think that we in the USA, often called the strongest country, would do well to abolish secrecy altogether and follow Pericles in his funeral oration

    If we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from our antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens;

    • marc b.
      May 2, 2013, 4:25 pm

      pabelmont, that’s it. the classification system is a corruption, designed to monopolize profitable information, and punish people like manning who have the audacity to embarrass daddy in public. keeping dangerous secrets out of the hands of bad men is only a small part of it. (which bits of ‘secret’ information leaked by manning were previously unknown to the enemy exactly?) that’s what his defense team should be doing, neutering the ‘dangerousness’ and argument of uniqueness of intelligence of every bite of released information.

    • Citizen
      May 2, 2013, 7:59 pm

      @ pabelmont
      Given that our whole democratic system is based on informed consent of the population (which is taught to our young children by our public schools), I agree with Pericles. The two hang-ups are we have a representative democracy, and the notion of secrecy classifications for “national security” purposes. Both of these adjustments to pure democracy have been stretched like rubber-bands so much at present that to talk of “informed consent” of “We, the People” is a bad joke. This is even more so in that, given our current campaign finance system, it’s very arguable that we now live in an oligarchy, if not a plutocracy, mayhaps a combo of both.

  2. American
    May 2, 2013, 2:10 pm

    “In Hillary Clinton’s words, this was “diplomatic armageddon.”

    What she means is a ‘political armageddon” that exposed all the pus filled evils in the US government.
    Manning should get a medal instead of being prosecuted.
    Only thing left in my political bucket is hoping to be around when OrwellUSA bites the dust.

    • Clif Brown
      May 3, 2013, 2:12 pm

      Prepare for Hillary to be served up as the next Dem candidate for president. Not that new faces are any guarantee of change, Obama’s performance in office has put an end to that idea. But hope springs eternal – how about Elizabeth Warren?

  3. David Samel
    May 2, 2013, 3:33 pm

    Phil, one correction. I think that Chase said that none of the documents leaked by Manning were Top Secret, while all of Ellsberg’s were. I’m fairly sure it’s true that Manning’s were either unclassified or classified Secret.

    Also, Chase, whose presentation was brilliant, did not mention another difference with Ellsberg, which is that the government’s gross misconduct against him caused the federal judge presiding over his case to dismiss it. Manning will not be so lucky in the military courts, and the horrible conditions he had to endure over the first year or so of his incarceration will give him little or no benefit.

    • Chespirito
      May 2, 2013, 4:12 pm

      Yes, David Samel (it was great to meet you!) is write about those distinctions between the case of Manning and Ellsberg. I wish I had had more time to talk about Manning in light of Ellsberg, I could have easily talked the entire night along these lines.
      The Nixon administration was so ham-fistedly criminal in the way they went after Ellsberg they made a conviction impossible. They even tried bribing the judge in Ellsberg’s criminal trial with the directorship of the FBI. The judge, in his vanity, did not recognize the offer as a bribe until several days later. He declared a mistrial with prejudice, meaning that Ellsberg could never be retried.

      • Philip Weiss
        May 2, 2013, 4:39 pm

        Thanks David, thanks Chase. Going to correct. Phil

      • Citizen
        May 2, 2013, 8:07 pm

        Another distinction is that Manning was a poor boy, a nobody with nothing going for him–very typical of our new all-volunteer army grunts, when he gave out the data, while Ellsberg was a somebody from a good socio-economic background, and with plenty of professional media contacts when he gave out his data.

  4. gingershot
    May 2, 2013, 5:52 pm

    Jeremy Scahill on democracynow.org claims Manning’s leaks to Wikileaks were ‘ESSENTIAL’ for his newly released book (and soon to be released movie June 2013) ‘Dirty Wars’

    Scahill Video on Democracy Now:

    Scahill Video on Up with Chris Hayes:

    • gingershot
      May 2, 2013, 6:10 pm

      From the Democracy.Now interview (interesting – Scahill got his start in Journalism at Democracy.Now working for Amy Goodman!!)

      AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy, you mentioned Bradley Manning. And in your extensive footnotes, you do cite WikiLeaks documents. The significance in your covering dirty wars, covert wars, JSOC, of the information that’s come out from WikiLeaks?
      JEREMY SCAHILL: Impossible to even like quantify how significant WikiLeaks has been to our understanding of overt and covert U.S. actions. I mean, when I was preparing initially to go to Somalia, we went through and researched on the WikiLeaks cables and found various warlords identified in the cables as being on the U.S. payroll or that the U.S. was working with, and then we went and tracked them down and found them. And, you know, you see that in our film. Two of those warlords were people that we discovered through the WikiLeaks cables.
      And also, on the Somalia cables that were released, you know, there is a recognition that the U.S. was using these warlords to hunt down people and that it had caused great problems within the State Department, that they—you had internal debates going on where the CIA and the special operations forces were doing things that U.S. diplomats didn’t want them to be doing and that were counter to what the intelligence available to the U.S. government at the time indicated the threats were and the level of the threat.
      But just in terms of our understanding of how the covert apparatus works, I mean, WikiLeaks was indispensable. And I think it’s—we’re going to look back decades from now and realize that because of the release of those documents, there was a huge shift in how we understand some of the more hidden aspects of U.S. policy.

  5. Daniel Rich
    May 2, 2013, 7:10 pm

    No soldiers here?

    Q: No one’s denying that this was an act of civil disobedience and that military forces depend on discipline and uniform enforcement for morale and order.

    R: Manning did what a soldier’s supposed to do.

    The Constitution states (Article VI):

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Here is article 3, the common article, to the Geneva Conventions, a duly ratified treaty made under the authority of the United States:

    Article 3

    In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

    1.Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

    To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

    (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

    (b) Taking of hostages;

    (c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

    (d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

    1.The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

    An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

    The Parties to the conflict should further endeavor to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

    The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

    Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is straightforward and clear. Under Article VI of the Constitution, it forms part of the supreme law of the land.

    You personally will be held responsible for all of your actions, in all countries, at all times and places, for the rest of your life. “I was only following orders” is not a defense.


    The fact that Manning went to the NYT en WaPo first, but got sided and then went on to go to Wikileaks says a lot about the attitude of these Newshounds.

    • Citizen
      May 3, 2013, 9:47 am

      As a former private in the US Army, and knowing just what can be done to you on a daily basis for virtually anything that can be interpreted as an infraction of the duty to obey orders, rules, etc, at least in the former conscription era time, I say Manning was very courageous.

  6. lysias
    May 2, 2013, 7:19 pm

    The Obama administration has said that it is not going to seek the death penalty.

    Unfortunately, that is no guarantee that the military jury at Manning’s trial will not impose the death penalty. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military jury can impose the death penalty for any capital crime, whether the prosecution seeks it or not. And “aiding the enemy” is a capital crime under the UCMJ.

    Military juries are composed of officers chosen by the officer convening the court martial. In this case, you can bet we’re talking about career officers that the convening authority is confident will vote the way he wants. The defendant at a court martial has the right to demand that one of the members of the jury be a senior enlisted man, i.e., a career sergeant. But career sergeants, especially ones chosen by the convening authority, tend to judge even more harshly than the officers do. A runaway jury that ignores the administration’s refusal to seek the death penalty is, I think, a distinct possibility.

    Military juries can only impose the death penalty if the jury votes for it unanimously, but I’m not sure that’s much comfort in this case.

    • piotr
      May 3, 2013, 8:05 am

      Military justice system is a weird hybrid. It has cruel enforcers of the empire, as we seen in the way Manning was mistreated and humiliated. But many officers are in some sense weird: they are indoctrinated in the superiority of American system as it is based on democracy, laws and Constitution, which is normal to me, and they believe it! Earnest people in this time and age!

      For this reason it was very difficult to make kangaroo trials for Guantanamo inmates. White House and Pentagon was trying to create ridiculous rules but the military defenders were effective and military judges listened to them. It is a contrast with the civilian system where it is hard to make a terrorist case too contrived to fail a huge sentence from the jury. To normal citizens and judges Constitution is a kind of a cherished decoration, very cute but also very quaint.

      I have suspicion that this is the reason why the pretrial detention of Manning lasts so long. Military defenders can be more effective than the civilian, and military jury can also be more idealistic than a civilian one. You cannot easily predict what will happen.

      PS. What I wrote here is based on some impressions and glimpses of news, but they fit together. I once asked an ROTC student what they are doing in ROTC classes, and he told me they they have classes about the Constitution. I asked him to tell me more, and while it was only a few sentences, I got an impression “he is a believer”.

      I am not sure what classes Bradley Manning took, but he knew that he is risking his life and that there are good chances that he will never see the light of day again. Perhaps he underestimated the risk, but he surely did not expect any gain.

Leave a Reply