Chelsea Manning and the Government's Draconian Approach to Whistleblowers

Many Americans have been perplexed about how to view the prosecution of Chelsea Manning, who was sentenced this week under the name Bradley Manning.

On the one hand, they're not comfortable with the notion that any Army private should be able to decide for herself, without consequences, which government records should be made public. On the other, they've witnessed, time and again, government officials abusing their classification authority to protect themselves from embarrassment and accountability, not to protect the nation from harm, and they wonder why much of the information that Manning disclosed had been hidden from the public in the first place.

How should the American legal system accommodate both the government's legitimate (though narrow) interest in protecting some secrets and the public's vital need to know enough about government conduct to ensure democratic accountability and adherence to the nation's values?

Read the rest of this piece at POLITICO: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/bradley-manning-was-no-criminal-95820.html.

Learn more about whistleblowers and other civil liberties issues: Sign up for breaking news alertsfollow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Add a comment (4)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

While I support Chelsea(Bradley)Mannings efforts, I do not support special treatment i.e. hormone therapy at my expense. I am 58 years old and cannot afford basic health coverage. I've worked all my life!!!
Are you there to pay my expenses for a mammagram? Get real, and fight the real battles.

Keep up a real fight, not this stupid stuff.

Anonymous

Does anyone think of the mulitudes of incarcerated women and men without the basic dignity of health, dental, or spiritual care? How about when the statistics tell us they usually do'nt make it on the "outside?"

Now it's about "Chelsea" Manning and the need for Hormone therapy while incarcerated. I supported her/his acts, but suddenly do not support the ACLU on a stupid and insubstantial action.

There are more reasons for actions. Look at Mumia Abu-Jamal.

ACLU member sin...

Please explain what part of the Bill of Rights was violated in Manning's trial and conviction. I don't see a role here for the ACLU. The person was entrusted with vital secrets as well as non-vital ones, and exposed them all.

Vicki B.

Well *I* see a role. If they're going to be so on board for Edward Snowden to not get ANY prison time, how's it going to look when someone like Bradley Manning is serving 35 years in prison for essentially doing a similar thing.
And at least Bradley Manning can control his damn temper. He didn't make any comments about wanting to kill our president, like Edward Snowden seems to have done in the interview *I* read about him.
Either the reporter hated Snowden so much he decided to lie about him or Snowden said what the reporter put into direct quotes.
I took journalism for a semester in school. There's not very many ways you can directly quote someone withOUT being sued for libel if they DIDN'T say what you quote them as saying. And since there are so many ways of getting around a libelous statement, I have a hard time believing that Edward Snowden didn't say exactly what he's quoted as saying.
His entire general demeanor supports the statement anyway.
If he apologized for saying it I might have been able to consider helping him by signing the petition. As long as he acts as if he's not the least bit sorry for saying it then I can't in good conscience help him come back here.
I do NOT take threats of gun violence lightly. I'm a victim of gun violence myself, it's why I'll be a continual "burden on society" and listening to someone wish death by gun violence on someone else brings back the memory of my own near-death experience that being shot in the back caused me.

Stay Informed