'Traitor' versus 'collateral murderers'

In a case that put the United States on trial as much as the man it deems a traitor, a military judge has ruled 25-year-old Army private Bradley Manning was not aiding the enemy in leaking a vast number of important government secrets. 

A legal episode has come to a close, but what the US administration and the young man have accused each other of doing will continue to divide opinions. Did he betray his own country? Or did the United States betray its humanitarian principles? Is this case about glaring un-patriotism, as proclaimed by the prosecutor, or red-faced attempts to divert attention from “collateral murders” as alleged by his attorney?

He has escaped the most serious charge in the court-martial, but was convicted on multiple other counts like theft, computer fraud and espionage, and the sentencing hearing will spark fresh controversies soon. Last week’s verdict is justice to some and injustice to others. 

Either way, America has been having a taste of its own medicine. The case against Bradley Manning was built around a term that American idealists seem to abhor elsewhere – “national security”. 

Manning was accused of endangering American interests and even putting the lives of Americans in danger through a conspiracy with the controversial WikiLeaks.

To some, they don’t mind what America does as long as there’s some form of consistency. Ameri-cans can do whatever they like if no hypocrisy is perceived. 

“National security” or “national interests” are terms whose meanings differ from country to country. The question is: What standard should be applied when no-one is safe, even in America, from charges of national security violations. While Manning received considerable support for his actions, yet managed to become an alleged criminal, is America qualified to lay down the rules on what is right and what is wrong when it comes to national security elsewhere?

American authorities have accused him of delivering hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents and videos to WikiLeaks. 

The materials covered numerous aspects of US military activities, strategies and diplomatic policies. 

He was branded a traitor, although there were claims he was largely motivated by “collateral mur?ders” that took place because of what was supposed to be righteous American foreign policies. His supporters insisted that in trying to tell people what really went on that they had not known about which included the losses of some innocent lives, the whistle-blower has been demonised to cover up a bigger crime.

To his critics, Manning has caused more damage to American interests than if he had kept what he knew to himself.  He should have known better that America is like the world’s police, and police work often involves some dirty little secrets here and there that are better left untold. 

To his supporters, protecting the secrecy of this nature can only lead to a slippery slope. If 10 innocent deaths should be kept secret, what about 100, or 1,000?

Who’s more patriotic? Is it those determined to “do the right thing” who are pragmatic about collateral damage? Is it the man who seems to believe that if we cannot stick to principles that we preach, then something is wrong which can go even more wrong in the future? This is not the first time these questions have been asked and will certainly not be the last.