I want to make this clear from the get-go: I’m here to play
devil’s advocate. Considering the subject at hand, some of you may
read that label literally.
A lazy love of God and country is not a love at all. Yes,
I believe that Bradley Manning should be punished for the crimes he
has committed. I am confident his digital footprint will prove that
he leaked hundred of thousands of military and diplomatic cables to
the international whistle blowing syndicate WikiLeaks. But… and
this is an important “but”… while what he did was illegal, it was
not entirely immoral. Let’s take that into consideration before we
crucify Manning and those who might defend him.
With that said, I disagree with Ron Paul that this
subversion makes Manning a “political
hero.” The critical condition of civil disobedience
demands that one suffers the consequence of actions that rattle the
chains of injustice. Civil disobedience strikes a hollow blow
absent the appropriate penalty. On the other hand, Martin Luther
King’s style of non-violent resistance didn’t risk the lives of
American soldiers who were simply performing their duty.
Moreover, I find Manning’s defense… unfortunate. Strike
that. It’s appalling. His sexual orientation and so-called
“gender-identity
crisis” raise false flags, and associate homosexuality
with treason. This is inappropriate and unfair in the extreme to
the thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines who honorably serve this country.
I would have a great deal more respect — and sympathy —
for Manning (and perhaps for Ron Paul’s defense of the man) if he
were willing to graciously suffer the consequences of his actions
while maintaining that what he did, he did for a reason —
unencumbered by the flimsy excuse of forlorn femininity.
Let’s face it. Whistleblowers are a necessary evil. They
expose the inevitable malignity of good government gone bad. But
please… exercise a little dignity and don’t do the crime, if you
can’t pay the time.
I believe that we can respect our Armed Forces while
simultaneously recognizing that civilian death and outright
collusion with corrupt officials and warlords is bound to happen
after a decade at war. And we don’t have to like it — in
fact, it is absolutely appropriate to object vehemently to
complicity and conspiracy upon realization that our government has
closeted the facts of our wars abroad. Manning’s alleged exposition
of “Collateral
Murder” and the “Afghan
War Diaries” fit the mold of objectionable action. We
don’t like to contemplate — let alone watch — an American
helicopter strafing Iraqi civilians or learn that our military’s
efforts in Afghanistan are rife with disorganization, dubious
partners, and lethal slip-ups.
But that doesn’t get Manning off the hook.
No, by any estimation he deserves to be punished. Consider
the musings of American author, abolitionist, and leading
transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau — himself a progenitor of
libertarian virtue. When H.D.T. sat down to pen “Civil
Disobedience” he cast his own experience as a case study for how to
function within an unjust society. Thoreau was passionately opposed
to the institution of slavery. As such, he refused to pay taxes and
was tossed in jail. His stay was short… but it clearly articulated
his assertion that a responsible citizen’s first obligation is to
do what he or she believes is right and just — not simply follow
well-worn path dependence, dictated by “majority rules.”
However, Pfc. Manning exceeded Thoreau’s terms of moral
opposition. One is never obligated to eradicate the evils of
injustice; it is merely one’s obligation to avoid participation in
such ills. Pfc. Manning believed that he was part of an unjust war,
waged by an unjust government. Given his distaste for the
unwarranted aggression of the Mexican-American War, Thoreau would
have likely agreed with the young man. Yet according to Thoreau —
he had an obligation to refuse to follow orders, not breech the
bright red seal of classified documentation.
There’s no two ways around it. The unauthorized disclosure
of classified material is illegal. But is it immoral? His reaction
was a human one — you should be repulsed by the slaughter of
innocents. And here’s where I agree with Ron Paul. Manning’s action
revealed the problematic reality of war. We all have that blood on
our hands. Manning made that impossible to ignore.
Thoreau was on to something when he wrote “Law never made
men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even
the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice… A common
and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see
a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates,
powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and
dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common
sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching
indeed.”
For Manning, the march was too steep. He must suffer the
consequences of his actions. In a sense, so must we all.
