Dear Editor,
Regarding Catherine Connor’s well-written opinion piece (Jan. 17, p. A4), PFC Bradley Manning’s Article 32 (pre-trial) investigator has now recommended trial by general court-martial. Perhaps a little perspective may be useful.
Article 32 hearings deal with facts and evidence surrounding the alleged offenses and whether they can support conviction on the charges and specifications. Manning’s pre-trial confinement was, therefore, not relevant to the hearing, and was properly excluded.
And lack of proper attention to security by third parties offers no excuse for what Manning himself allegedly chose to do.
Manning’s alleged acts have been compared to Daniel Ellsberg’s leakage of the Pentagon Papers. The comparison is wildly inaccurate. Ellsberg leaked one document, of which he could personally assess the entire contents. That document was five-year-old history; the chances of aiding an enemy were virtually zero.
But Manning allegedly stole more than 200,000 files, many or most containing current security information, whose full content and value (especially when integrated) he could not possibly have assessed. That’s not whistleblowing. Whether or not it was “aiding the enemy” is for a court-martial to determine, but such conduct, if true, is certainly illegal, reckless and reprehensible.
Further, whether as a result anyone “has been attacked or killed” – as yet, and as far as we know – is not an element of aiding the enemy. What use the enemy may make of intelligence, and when, is not relevant to the question of guilt or innocence (Under military law, matters in mitigation or extenuation are reserved for the sentencing hearing).
I would not call PFC Manning a “traitor”; that’s just name-calling. And whether or not he’s guilty, and to what degree, will be adjudged by court-martial. But I certainly cannot credit Manning with the often-honorable title of “whistleblower.”
Dave Appling, Morgan Hill
