Читать книгу The Passion of Chelsea Manning - Chase Madar - Страница 4
Оглавление(02:05:12 AM) bradass87: its almost bookworthy in itself, how this played
Bradley Manning deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
If the 24-year-old Army private from Crescent, Oklahoma, did supply Wikileaks with its choicest material—the Iraq War logs, the Afghan War logs, and the State Department cables—then he surely deserves some important national honor instead of the military prison cell where he presently awaits court martial.
Charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and with aiding the enemy, Bradley Manning faces life in prison. He has put his sanity and his freedom on the line so that Americans might know what their government has done—and is doing—all over the world. Knowing what our government is doing abroad is not a special privilege for statesmen, spies and insider journalists, it is the right and responsibility of all citizens. Manning has blown the whistle on criminal violations of American military and international law. He has exposed our government’s pathological over-classification of important public documents.
There are at least five reasons why Manning, if he did what the government accuses him of doing, deserves that medal.
1. For Giving Our Foreign Policy Elite the Public Supervision It So Badly Needs
In the past ten years, American statecraft has moved from one catastrophe to another, laying waste to other nations while never failing to damage its own national interests. One lauded study finds that the past decade’s wars have resulted in the deaths of at least 174,000 civilians, 31,741 Allied military personnel (including 8,351 US soldiers and military contractors) and have cost the US treasury upwards of $3.7 trillion.1
Although downsizing our entire foreign policy establishment is not an option, the website Wikileaks has at least brought public scrutiny to bear on our self-destructive statesmen and -women. No one should be more grateful for these revelations than Americans, whose government has deceived us with such horrible consequences.
Consider our invasion of Iraq, a war based on willful distortions, government secrecy, and the complaisant failure of our major media to ask the important questions. But what if someone like Bradley Manning had provided the press with the necessary government documents, which would have made so much self-evident in the months before the war began?
Thanks to Manning’s alleged disclosures, we have a sense of what transpired in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a far clearer image of how Washington operates in the world. Thanks to those revelations we now know just how our government leaned on the Vatican to quell opposition to the Iraq War. We now know how Washington pressured the German government to block the prosecution of CIA agents who kidnapped an innocent man, Khaled El-Masri, while he was on vacation.2 We know how our State Department lobbied hard to prevent a minimum wage increase in Haiti, the hemisphere’s poorest nation.3
It is all to our benefit that more whistleblowers make themselves heard. A foreign policy based on secrets and spin has manifestly failed us. In a democracy, statecraft cannot function if it is shrouded in secrecy. For bringing us the truth, for breaking the seal on that self-protective policy of secrecy, Bradley Manning deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
2. For Exposing the Pathological Over-Classification of America’s Public Documents
“Secrecy is for losers,” as the late Senator and United Nations Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say.4 If this is indeed the case, it would be hard to find a bigger loser than the US government. When Moynihan, a conservative Democrat who served as Nixon’s UN envoy, wrote those words in 1991, the US was classifying upwards of six million documents a year. Today that figure has risen by an order of magnitude, with Washington classifying some ninety-two million documents in 2011.5
Government secrecy, especially in the domain of foreign affairs, has become pathological. In June 2011, the National Security Agency declassified documents from 1809, while the Department of Defense6 declassified the Pentagon Papers, publicly available in book form these last four decades. Our government is only now finishing its declassification of documents relating to World War I.
This would be ridiculous if it weren’t tragic. Ask the historians. Barton J. Bernstein, professor emeritus of history at Stanford University and a founder of its international relations program, describes the government’s classification of foreign-policy documents as “bizarre, arbitrary, and nonsensical.” George Herring, professor emeritus at the University of Kentucky and author of the encyclopedic From Colony to Superpower: A History of US Foreign Policy, has chronicled how his delight at being appointed to a CIA advisory panel on declassification turned to disgust once he realized that he was being used as window dressing by an agency with no intention of opening its records, no matter how important or how old, to public scrutiny.7
The people of a democratic state ignore such signs at their risk. If a society like ours doesn’t know its own history, it becomes the great power equivalent of a wandering amnesiac, not knowing what it did yesterday or where it will end up tomorrow. Right now, classification is the disease of Washington, secrecy its mania, and dementia its end point. This is not just the diagnosis made by groups like the ACLU and Wikileaks; J. William Leonard, career federal civil servant and director of the Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2007, has recently called for sanctions against officials who gratuitously classify government documents.8
President Obama came into office promising a “sunshine” policy for his administration while singing the praises of whistleblowers. Instead, he has launched the fiercest campaign against whistleblowers the republic has ever seen, and dragged our foreign policy deeper into the shadows. Challenging the classification of each tightly guarded document is impossible. No organization has the resources to fight this fight, nor would they be likely to win right now. Absent a radical change in our government’s diplomatic and military bureaucracies, massive over-classification will only continue.
If we hope to know what our government is so busily doing all over the world, massive leaks from insider whistleblowers are, like it or not, the only recourse. Our whistleblower protection laws urgently need to catch up to this state of affairs, and though we are hardly there yet, Bradley Manning helped take us part of the way. He did what Barack Obama swore he would do on coming into office. For striking a blow against our government’s fanatical and counterproductive habit of secrecy, Bradley Manning deserves not punishment but the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
3. For Doing More Than Any American Alive to Advance the Cause of Freedom Abroad
Wasn’t it official policy to spread democracy around the world—especially to the Middle East—and to extend our freedom to others, as all recent American presidents have soaringly proclaimed?
Things haven’t exactly turned out that way. On the one hand, plans to remake the Middle East have swirled into violent chaos at great cost in human life. On the other, America has lavished financial and military support on autocrats in Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen—and on ethnic cleansing in occupied Palestine. Both sets of policies, both backed by broad bipartisan consensus, have made a joke of Washington’s “Freedom Agenda.”
Against this backdrop stands the glowing contribution of Bradley Manning to freedom and justice around the world. Thanks to his alleged leaks, the people of Libya know about Muammar Qaddaffi’s cozy evening with Senator John McCain, and the latter’s eagerness to supply the dictator with American-made armaments.9 The people of Bahrain know about their vicious ruler’s praise for the Pentagon’s military training center in Manama, not to mention his fond memories of his tutelage at the Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, where Manning was for months imprisoned.10 And the people of Tunisia had confirmed by a classified State Department cable what most already suspected: the thuggish and thoroughgoing corruption of the ruling Ben-Ali family.11
Did Wikileaks “cause” the Arab Spring, as some have implied? Of course not. From Tunisia to Egypt to Yemen to Bahrain to Syria and beyond, these societies were smoldering with long-held grievances against stifling authoritarian rule, often backed by Washington. The contributions of Wikileaks are small, but they are not insignificant. “You cannot get away from Wikileaks in any account of the Tunisian uprising,” says Larbi Sadiki, a Tunisian-born political scientist. “You need to see the clear record of injustice and corruption inflicted by a cabal of powerful men.”12
Even if US policy has often been on the wrong side of things, we should be proud that at least one American—Bradley Manning—was on the right side and made his own modest but significant contribution to the freedom of foreign nations. For this he deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
4. For Performing His Duties in Exemplary Fashion
What are a soldier’s duties when faced with torture? In 2005, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters: “It is absolutely the responsibility of every US service member [in Iraq], if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to try to stop it.”13 This, according to the highest-ranking soldier in the land, was the obligation of every US service member in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is a duty that Pfc. Manning has fulfilled.
Bradley Manning enlisted in the US Army to make a difference. He enlisted in 2007, in part out of family tradition (his father was a Naval intelligence officer), in part out of hopes of a military-funded university education after his deployment, and in large part out of patriotic service. “He was basically really into America,” says a hometown friend. “He was proud of our successes as a country. He valued our freedom, but probably our economic freedom the most. I think he saw the US as a force for good in the world.”14
When Bradley Manning deployed to Iraq in October 2009, he thought that he’d be helping the Iraqi people build a free society after the long nightmare of Saddam Hussein. He thought Operation Iraqi Freedom was supposed to have something to do with Iraqi Freedom, especially freedom from state torture.
He soon found himself helping the Iraqi authorities detain civilians for distributing “anti-Iraqi literature”—which turned out to be an investigative report into financial corruption in their own government entitled “Where Does The Money Go?” The penalty for this “crime” in Iraq was not a slap on the wrist. Imprisonment and torture, as well as systematic abuse of prisoners, are widespread in the new Iraq. From the military’s own Sigacts (Significant Actions) reports, we have a multitude of credible accounts of Iraqi police and soldiers shooting prisoners, beating them to death, pulling out fingernails or teeth, cutting off fingers, burning with acid, torturing with electric shocks or the use of suffocation, and various kinds of sexual abuse including sodomy with gun barrels and forcing prisoners to perform sexual acts on guards and each other.
Manning had more than adequate reason to be concerned about handing over Iraqi citizens for likely torture simply for producing pamphlets about corruption. Like any good soldier, Manning immediately took these concerns up the chain of command. And how did his superiors respond? According to Manning, his commanding officer told him to “shut up” and get back to rounding up more prisoners for the Iraqi Federal Police to treat however they cared to.15 And this is no surprise: in the course of its eight-year occupation, the American military handed over thousands of prisoners to the Iraqi authorities, knowing full well what would happen to many of them.
It is unclear—and contested—whether the US military had a legal obligation to carry out General Pace’s public exhortation to prevent torture by local authorities. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld certainly disagreed with his top general’s exhortation, and secretly issued Fragmentary Order 242, which made noninterference with Iraqi torture official US policy.16 The laws of armed conflict generally impose a light burden on occupying armies, though they do impose ample restrictions on the people being occupied, especially insurgents and “unprivileged non-uniformed combatants”—formerly referred to as “savages” in the common discourse of international law. Though it may seem outrageous, most interpreters of the Geneva Conventions would agree, however reluctantly, that it was strictly lawful for occupying US military to hand over local citizens, even nonviolent citizen activists, to the Iraqi authorities where they faced a decent likelihood torture.
Refusing to interfere with torture was probably lawful. But was it honorable?
Bradley Manning may not have always been a model soldier, but if we are to believe the accusations, his bravery was remarkable and he was a true believer in his mission. He believed Operation Iraqi Freedom had something to do with planting and nurturing Iraqi freedom, especially that most fundamental liberty, freedom from torture and arbitrary detention.
Pfc. Manning acted in accordance with his belief in the mission to spread freedom in Iraq. By blowing the whistle on programmatic institutional complicity with torture, Bradley Manning made a moral choice that honored his uniform and his country. For the example he has set, he fully deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
5. For Upholding an American Tradition of Transparency in Statecraft
Bradley Manning is only the latest in a long line of whistleblowers in and out of uniform who have risked everything to put our country back on the right path.
Take Daniel Ellsberg, leaker of the Pentagon Papers, a Pentagon-commissioned secret history of the Vietnam War and the official lies and distortions that the government used to sell it. Many of the documents it included were classed at a much higher security clearance than anything Bradley Manning is accused of releasing—and yet Ellsberg was not convicted of a single crime, and became a national hero.
Given the era when all this went down, it’s forgivable to assume that Ellsberg must have been a hippie who somehow sneaked into the Pentagon archives, beads and patchouli trailing behind. What many no longer realize is that Ellsberg had been a model US Marine. First in his class at officer training school at Quantico, he deferred graduate school at Harvard to remain on active duty during the Suez crisis of 1956. Ellsberg saw his high-risk exposure of the disastrous and deceitful nature of the Vietnam War as fully consonant with his long career of patriotic service in and out of uniform.
And Ellsberg is hardly alone. Lt. Colonel (ret.) Darrel Vandeveld, former lead prosecutor of a child soldier at Guantánamo, quit in a crisis of conscience. And Thomas Drake, formerly of the National Security Agency: his exposure of waste and severe abuse of wiretapping powers earned him the relentless prosecution of the Obama Justice Department. And former infantryman Ethan McCord, who rescued children from the van shot up by the Apache gunship in the Collateral Murder video, has since condemned the lax and illegal rules of engagement he received from his superiors in Iraq and praised Bradley Manning as a hero.
Transparency in statecraft was not invented by Julian Assange. It is a longstanding American tradition that dates back to the first years of the republic. A 1960 Congressional Committee on Government Operations report caught the same spirit: “Secrecy—the first refuge of incompetents—must be at a bare minimum in a democratic society… Those elected or appointed to positions of executive authority must recognize that government, in a democracy, cannot be wiser than the people.” John F. Kennedy made the same point in 1961: “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society.” Hugo Black, great Alabaman justice of the twentieth-century Supreme Court, had this to say: “The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.” And the first of World War I-era president Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points couldn’t have been more explicit: “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.”
We need to know what our government’s commitments are. Our foreign policy elites have clearly demonstrated they cannot be left to their own devices. Based on the last decade of carnage and folly, without public debate—and aggressive media investigations—we have every reason to expect our foreign affairs to keep playing out as Madison predicted.
Many of the principle players in this tragic farce have taken home a Presidential Medal of Freedom. George Tenet, the CIA director who maintained that the case for invading Iraq was a “slam dunk,” got his medal in 2004, as did L. Paul Bremer, the American proconsul under whose administration occupied Iraq slid into chaos. (Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had already won the medal for stints in previous administrations as Secretary of Defense.) And let us not forget Tony Blair, given the award in 2010 by Barack Obama. The list of recipients reads like a Who’s Who of the past decade’s foreign policy mayhem.
If there’s one thing to learn from the last ten years, it’s that government secrecy and lies come at a very high price in blood and money.And though information is powerless on its own, it is still a necessary precondition for any democratic state to function. Thanks to the whistleblowing revelations attributed to Bradley Manning, we have a far clearer picture of what our own country is doing. If Manning is responsible for the Wikileaks revelations, then for his gift to the republic, purchased at great price, he deserves not prison, but a Presidential Medal of Freedom, an apology from the government that has persecuted him and the heartfelt gratitude of the citizens of his country.
