The high price of exposing the truth

Yesterday Col. Denise Lind sentenced Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for exposing the truth. He exposed the lies, deceit and criminal acts perpetrated by our government. He exposed human rights abuses. He exposed war crimes.

Yes, the documents he provided to WikiLeaks embarrassed the US government. Yes, it put government officials in tricky positions after their lies and deceit were exposed to the world.

Bradley Manning never stood a chance at trial. The convictions were a foregone conclusion. The only question was whether Col. Lind would play along and convict Mr. Manning of aiding the enemy. While she made the right call on that charge, she gave the government its bone with the sentence she pronounced.

President Obama told the world - before the trial ever began - that Mr. Manning was guilty. Damn the evidence, full speed ahead, Mr. President. Let's just gloss over the fact that Mr. Manning didn't pass the documents to the "enemy." His actions hurt no one. He wanted to foster debate on the policies of our government. He wanted to let the world know the truth about what has been done in our name.

Among the materials he provided to WikiLeaks was footage of an American helicopter gunship mowing down civilians - including journalists and a father and his children.

Mr. Manning was subjected to torture by his own government while awaiting trial. Of that there is no question. It's the reason that Col. Lind gave Mr. Manning additional credit for the time he served before trial.

So, while Mr. Manning is serving his 35-year sentence for exposing the truth, there are five men who acted with the intent to harm Americans who are serving shorter sentences for their crimes.

David Hicks is an Australian national who fought alongside the Taliban. He was captured, sent to Guantanamo Bay and sentenced to seven years in prison.

John Walker Lindh, the so-called "American Taliban," was captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr. Lindh was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Noor Uthman Mohammed was convicted of providing material support to terrorists and was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a Qatari citizen who was living in the United States on a student visa. He admitted to providing material support to terrorists and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Kevin William Harpham is a white supremacist in the US who pled guilty to trying to bomb a Martin Luther King Day parade in Seattle in 2011. He was sentenced to 32 years in prison.

So, while Barack Obama campaigned for the White House in 2008 on a platform in which he promised to end the wars in the Middle East, to close down Guantanamo Bay and to promote greater transparency in government, President Obama stood up and declared Bradley Manning to be an enemy of the United States. Bradley Manning followed a higher duty than preventing the US government from being embarrassed. He followed a higher duty than covering up the war crimes committed by US military personnel in the Middle East.

For that he is looking at spending the next 30-plus years behind bars.

Sometimes the price we pay to expose the truth is quite high. Bradley Manning deserves praise and thanks for what he did - not 35 years behind bars.

Bradley Manning cleared of aiding the enemy

Bradley Manning knew what he was doing when he downloaded reams of government documents and forwarded them to WikiLeaks. He knew the information was classified. He knew that he shouldn't have been doing what he was doing.

Well, except for the fact that he exposed human rights violations committed by our government. He had a duty to reveal that information. After all, at the Nuremberg trials we found out that a defense that one was just following orders was insufficient to keep a noose from being tied around your neck.

But maybe that was just because those put on trial for committing war crimes were the losers in the war. No one ever puts the winners on trial. Maybe history will - one day.

Bradley Manning was a whistleblower and, just like every other whistleblower, he broke the rules to expose the wrong doing. That's part of the game. These folks who are willing to stand up and tell the truth about what's going on behind closed doors do so at a great price. Sometimes the consequences are financial and sometimes they're greater.

Pvt. Manning knew what that price was - yet he did what he thought was the right thing anyway. Without his actions we would never have seen video of the chopper killing children and journalists while the soldiers inside acted like they were playing a video game. The film was classified not because there was anything secret about what happened - it was classified because it was really embarrassing.

Yesterday Pvt. Manning was found guilty on 20 of the 22 charges filed against him - but he was acquitted of the most serious charge of aiding the enemy. Even though he was acquitted of the charge that could have brought about a life sentence, Pvt. Manning is still looking at the possibility of spending decades behind bars.

The aiding the enemy charge was dismissed by Col. Denise Lind because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning intended to provide the material to enemies of the United States. But the remaining charges do cast a large shadow on advocates for more government transparency.

Yes, the world's a dangerous place. Yadda, yadda, yadda. And part of the reason it is a dangerous place are the policies of the US government that are carried out without benefit of illumination. Our government has a sorry record of backing military dictatorships and authoritarian rulers due to fears that those who produce wealth will one day rise up and demand their fair share of the pie. Our government provides the weapons of war to despots in order to keep the steady drip of oil from running out. Our government has done things during this so-called War on Terrorism that we would condemn if the other side did the same.

Our government occupies over 100 countries around the world by the use of military bases. Our government gets involved in the internal politics of nations all over the globe in an attempt to ensure that politicians who favor a neo-liberal economic agenda and who are friendly to global corporations sit in the seats of power.

Just imagine the outrage if these roles were reversed. Would the US stand for another nation putting a military base in the Lower 48? What would be the reaction if it turned out that a foreign government funneled money into an American election?

Bradley Manning peeled back the curtain and for that he will be punished severely. The entire circus that has surrounded this case from the beginning has only served to distract the public from the real issues. During the trial we were consumed by the question of whether or not he intended for Osama bin Laden to see the information. We've questioned whether or not he exceeded his authority to download the material in question.

But few people questioned the basic assumptions of this case. No one in the mainstream media questioned whether or not government officials violated international law or committed human rights violations. No one questioned whether it was proper to charge someone criminally who exposed wrongdoing to the press. No one questioned whether the actions of our government that Pvt. Manning exposed were proper.

President Obama has come down harder on whistleblowers than any other president. He has made it his mission to keep the American people from knowing what their government does in their name. He has gone after those who exposed wrongdoing with a vengeance.

Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have done us all a service by exposing the illegal actions of our government. History shall be the judge of how they should be rewarded.

Blowing the whistle

Former CIA agent John Kiriakou will spend the next 30 months in a federal prison for revealing the name of a former officer who tortured detainees.

He was found out when the attorney for a suspected terrorist filed a legal brief that mentioned facts that had not been revealed by the government. One thing led to another and someone made the connection between the suspect's attorney, a reporter and Mr. Kiriakou.

This entire episode of suppression theater brings up a very serious question, however. Why didn't the government reveal that it had tortured the detainee on multiple occasions? It is not only absurd, but a blatant abuse of power for the government to torture a suspect in order to obtain evidence and not disclose that either to the court or to the defense.

Mr. Kiriakou is a whistleblower. He exposed gross human rights abuses and violations of international law. He provided the name of an officer who committed those offenses. And yet he's the one prosecuted under a statute that hadn't been used to prosecute anyone in 27 years. He's the one who will be going to prison.

The judge, Leonie Brinkema, who presides over the Eastern District of Virginia, was only too happy to serve her masters up the road in Washington. She rejected the argument that Mr. Kiriakou was a whistleblower and entitled to the protections afforded to whistleblowers under the law.

That ruling shouldn't have come as a surprise. One thing the Obama Administration has not compromised on over the past four years is its aggressive prosecution of people who expose the lies and criminal conduct rampant in the War on Everything Terrorism.

Men like John Kiriakou and Bradley Manning shouldn't be prosecuted. They should be lauded for exposing the lies and hypocrisies of our government. They should be praised for bringing to light the gross violations of international law and human rights that have taken places at US prisons around the world.

Once upon a time it was the role of the media to act as a check on the government. Reporters snooped and dug and found out the truth and reported it. But somewhere along the line reporters and news organizations became more interested in having a seat at the table with the glamorous people and they began to shirk their duties and responsibilities.

And while Mr. Kiriakou sits in prison and Mr. Manning awaits trial, everyone turns a blind eye to the fact that the CIA assisted the producers of Zero Dark Thirty in bringing that shiny piece of propaganda to the big screen. The CIA had no problem leaking confidential information to the producers since the movie was going to glorify the role of the CIA in an illegal mission in a country with whom we are at peace.

Mr. Kiriakou and Mr. Manning are prosecuted because their actions embarrassed the government. But it's okay for the CIA to leak information that makes the government look good.

Judge holds prosecution to its burden in Manning court-martial

Col. Denise Lind, the judge presiding over Bradley Manning's court-martial has shown that she's not blindly following the Army's playbook. After granting Mr. Manning a few extra days credit for being tortured, Col. Lind issued a ruling that makes it just that much harder for the prosecution to prove the most serious charges in the case.

Pfc. Manning has been accused of aiding the enemy by leaking documents to Wikileaks. According to prosecutors, Osama bin Laden made requests for the information on Wikileaks. That, per the Army's logic, is more than enough to line Pfc. Manning up before a firing squad.

But in a ruling last Wednesday, Col. Lind granted the defense request that prosecutors must prove that Pfc. Manning was aware he was providing information to the enemy when he leaked the documents in question.

The ruling means that prosecutors argued that they shouldn't have to prove Pfc. Manning knowingly or intentionally aided the enemy by turning over the documents to Wikileaks. The prosecution wanted the jury to be allowed to infer intent. They wanted to lower their burden of proof to make it easier to obtain a conviction on the most serious charge facing Pfc. Manning.

But you can't infer intent from what might have happened. You can't even infer intent if there are documents that prove Osama bin Laden asked for material from Wikileaks.

Col. Lind also ruled that any damage assessments produced by intelligence agencies can't be used to determine whether or not Pfc. Manning is guilty - they can only be used at sentencing.

Pfc. Manning is a whistleblower. He exposed the lies our government told us. He exposed the criminal acts carried out at the behest of officials in Washington. The documents on Wikileaks embarrassed the United States.

There is no evidence that Pfc. Manning intended to aid the enemy. If he wanted to do so, why release the documents to Wikileaks? Why not just send the material to Osama bin Laden or one of his associates? Pfc. Manning was after something bigger than Osama bin Laden.

The documents on Wikileaks cast a light into the shadows and forced the roaches to run for cover. The world is a better place with more government transparency. We have a right to know what's being done in our name. We have a right to know what our public officials are doing. And the only way to know is to force the government to be more transparent.

If our government were more transparent perhaps officials would be a bit more leery in what they do, knowing that we're all watching. They might think twice before ordering a plan of action knowing that they are going to have to explain it to the public.

Not good enough

So now we agree that Bradley Manning was subjected to torture and inhumane conditions while being held at Quantico. Judge Denise Lind found that the allegations raised by Mr. Manning were true and that he was entitled to additional credit for the time he's already served.

Mr. Manning asked for 10 days credit for each day he spent under inhumane conditions. Judge Lind decided he was only entitled to two-for-one credit for the days in question.

While being held at Quantico, Mr. Manning was housed in a six-by-eight foot cell for 23 hours a day. He wasn't allowed to lie down or lean against the wall unless he was asleep. He was stripped of his clothes for days at a time.

The treatment of Mr. Manning was inexcusable. It's even worse when you stop to consider that Mr. Manning is an American citizen who is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise.

What does it say about us as a people that we allow this to happen?

Bradley Manning was subjected to torture because he was a whistleblower. He exposed violations of international law committed by the U.S. military in its treatment of so-called enemy combatants. His crime was embarrassing the powers that be.

What our leaders seem to have forgotten over the years is that they work for us. We are the ones in charge - at least we should be the ones in charge. What our government does, it should be doing for us - not for some little cabal's special interests. We have a right to know what's being done in our name around the world. And if those in charge are too embarrassed to admit to what they've done - then it probably shouldn't have been done.

That also applies to the treatment Bradley Manning was subjected to. There is no excuse for a government to mistreat its own citizens to the degree our government mistreated Mr. Manning. The solution is not to give him an extra hundred days or so in credit should be be convicted. The solution is to dismiss the charges and to free Bradley Manning.

The truth comes with a hefty price tag

Two-and-a-half years ago, the U.S. Army accused Pfc. Bradley Manning of leaking classified documents that embarrassed the U.S. government to the whistleblower website Wikileaks. For nine months he was held in a brig at Quantico, Virginia and subjected to physical and mental torture. When word leaked out about the way the government was treating him, he was moved to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he has been held since.

Now, in another twist to this case, Mr. Manning has offered to plead guilty to some of the lesser charges but still maintains he never aided any enemy of the United States.

The documents that Wikileaks published contained cables from the U.S. government that showed the duplicitous, cynical nature of U.S. diplomacy. The documents highlighted how the U.S. got itself involved in the internal affairs of other nations. The documents outlined how our government was torturing so-called enemy combatants in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Mr. Manning is a whistleblower. He exposed to the American people just what our government does in our name. Yes, some of the documents were very embarrassing. So freaking what? If our government can't defend its actions, then maybe someone in Washington needs to be thinking twice before deciding to meddle in another country's affairs.

We don't need any more secrecy. What we need is transparency. We shouldn't have to root around in the dark trying to find out what's being done in our names. We have a right to know what our elected, and appointed, officials are doing. Never forget that they work for us.

I have a theory that if all the backroom dealings that go around the world had to be conducted in broad daylight in the street, that there would be far less conflict. If governments were forced to answer for their deeds, someone might think twice before acting. If elected officials were held responsible for what happened under their watch, maybe someone would actually keep watch.

Bradley Manning is being punished for exposing the truth. How is that a bad thing?

Nothing to see here

There is no question that the U.S. government has operated secret prisons around the world that have been used to torture detainees suspected of being terrorists or aiding terrorism.

Back in May I reviewed Larry Siems' book The Torture Report which dealt with the ways in which the Bush Administration implemented a systematic plan to torture so-called enemy combatants in the War on Everything Terrorism. The book is a chilling account of the ways in which our leaders conspired to violate every international treaty dealing with the treatment of enemy combatants.

Attorney General Eric Holder "conducted" an investigation of the CIA's torture apparatus after the government caught heat for the death of a detainee in custody. The investigation was nothing but a sham from the beginning as its purpose was to determine whether the program of torture broke the guidelines laid down by President Bush's aides. In other words, Mr. Holder wasn't looking into the question of whether CIA personnel violated international law in torturing detainees who have yet to be charged with any crime, he was looking into whether or not anyone crossed the line scribbled on a sheet of paper by President Bush's lackeys.

And, predictably, Mr. Holder came to the conclusion that there just wasn't enough "admissible evidence" to proceed with any prosecution.

You see the government has decided that much of the evidence proving the U.S. torture program violated international law is too sensitive to be released. In fact, in the show trials in Guantanamo, the courts have ruled that detainees cannot even testify as to the torture they were subjected to because releasing that information would harm national security. Or, to be more blunt (and honest) the information would be embarrassing to the government and might open some up to charges of crimes against humanity.

And we just can't have that, can we? We all know that the only folks who ever get brought up on charges of crimes against humanity are the losers. The winners never have to face justice. Not to mention that the winners get to write the history.

It is evidence of this program of systematic torture that made Bradley Manning the object of the government's hatred. Mr. Manning did what every soldier is required to do under international law - report incidents of torture and war crimes. That is Mr. Manning's sin - he did just what he was supposed to do but, because the information he released embarrassed the government, he is charged with treason and locked up and deprived of his rights.

There is no justification for torture. When you humiliate and degrade another person just because you have the power to do so, you are humiliating and degrading yourself, your institutions, your government and your country.

But no one will ever have to answer for their crimes. No one will ever have to stand before a court to justify the criminal acts they authorized or carried out. No one will ever have to defend himself against charges he committed crimes against humanity.

And it's because no one in our government has the guts or the moral compass to stand up and say it was wrong. President Bush committed crimes against humanity. President Obama has committed crimes against humanity. And whoever wins the election in November will continue to do the same.

All the time the American public will sit there staring at shiny objects not giving a second thought to what their so-called representatives are doing in their name.

Shooting the messenger

Bradley Manning is not a criminal.

He should be praised for shining a light on the underhanded dealings of our government. Instead, he's facing a court martial.

The material he provided to Wikileaks didn't endanger the lives of any Americans. But it sure as hell did embarrass the government. Through his actions he exposed the ways in which the United States government lied both to the American people and its allies.

The cables and correspondence documented the ways in which our government committed war crimes and violated international law. Our government armed repressive governments world wide and turned a blind eye when the weapons were turned on their own people. Our government bombed civilian targets. Our government tortured detainees who have never been charged with a crime.

We condemn those around the world who act in the very manner our government acted.

Sure, it's a dangerous world out there - it's always been a dangerous world - but that doesn't excuse our leaders from breaking the law. Ronald Reagan, George Bush (the elder), Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama are all complicit in atrocities committed against the poor and powerless. Yet none of them will ever be called before the people to answer for their crimes.