I have decided that for my junior theme I will be focusing on government secrecy. Part of this obviously includes classified documents and the United States' "war" with WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, was "was arrested...and accused of downloading several hundred thousand diplomatic cables and classified reports...providing them to WikiLeaks" according to the New York Times.
Recently this month, there have been additional charges filed against Manning including "aiding the enemy," and he has been in solitary confinement. There has been a lot of support for Manning with many critiques about how he is being treated in jail.
Top State Department spokesman Philip Crowley stated that Manning's treatment was "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid." In response to these comments, Obama reassured the public in a news conference that the jail conditions of Manning were "appropriate and meeting our basic standards."
But is it fair for Manning to be incarcerated? Should he be considered an enemy to the state?
I don't know if I'm very convinced that he should be jailed. Although I understand he released classified information to the public regarding the American government, should these have been even classified in the first place?
According to CQ Researcher Online, about 90% of classified information does not need to be classified. Furthermore, even Defense Secretary Gates, said that "the leaks were likely to cause the nation minimal long-term damage." So why does Manning need to take the fall for it?
I think it's because the WikiLeaks documents definitely did embarrass the United States government. It has showed that the government has lied to the people. According to CQ Researcher Online, "months after the leaks were published, nearly 100 government intelligence analysts reported to Congress that the disclosures had done little actual damage to US national interests."
The government is making an example out of Manning and WikiLeaks. They do not want their secrets being shared with the world. There are images to uphold and people to please. After all ignorance is bliss, right? But knowledge, knowledge may just set you free.
Jackie,
ReplyDeleteInteresting Topic! Just wondering, what defines "classified information?" Was Manning required to hold some sort of secrecy towards the United States? Or did he break no law? I am very curious about your topic! Fill me in. ;)
I agree with you that maybe it isnt just to send Manning to prison. Sure he embarassed our nation, and was a traidor. But what makes that illegal? It seems unfair to incarcerate the man. It seems the U.S. is just doing that to try to show they hold all the power...is that just a mask? Are we now vulnerable?
If 90% of classified info doesn't need to be classified, then what about the other 10%? Isn't ONE potentially harmful released document one too many? What if one document provided a US enemy, let's say the Taliban, with the locations and names of US allies living in Afghanistan, (which some of the documents released did)? I'm just trying to be the devil's advocate here, but any traitorous act is illegal. Whether the incrimination of this man is moral is up for grabs.
ReplyDeleteHenry, I agree that even if there is a small chance of harmful information being released, it needs to be prevented. However, I also feel the intentions of this man need to be taken into account. I doubt he did what he did in order to aid the Taliban, as you suggest. He most likely committed these actions for reasons other than treason. I'm not saying that this man should be let completely off the hook, but I'm not sure the crime is as extreme as you suggest.
ReplyDeleteReed, you definitely make a good point here. However, I also feel that intentions should not be taken into account. To explain my reasoning, I present you with an anecdote:
ReplyDeleteLet's say somebody released every picture that was ever taken of you, just to show the public that you wore a nerdy shirt to school once. Included in these photos was a picture that showed the entire school that you used to like Barbie dolls (something you never wanted anybody to know in fear that you would get bullied). Well, now everybody knows and you get bullied every day because the person showed these photos. The culprit only INTENDED to make these photos available to show you wearing a nerdy t-shirt, but what he didn't know was the pain he caused you for the other picture.
I know that this isn't the best analogy, but I hope you see why intentions shouldn't be as important as you suggest.