As the court martial of Bradley Manning nears a verdict, public opinion
remains sharply divided over the consequences of his actions. The
military's restraints on media coverage may have reduced overall
interest in the trial, but that hasn't stopped dedicated citizens and
journalists from subjecting every syllable of the proceedings to a
steady flow of passionate, often partisan, scrutiny.
As well they
should. The case centers on some of the most troubling issues of
contemporary politics: excessive government secrecy, war crimes, the
Arab Spring, encryption technology, and the use of solitary confinement
as torture. Manning's fate may set the precedent for how the United
States regards other leakers, like Edward Snowden, as either
whistleblowers or traitors.
To sort out these complex questions,
ReasonTV invited three experts to discuss the trial. Eli Lake, the
national security correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast, is at
once grateful to see cracks in wall of state secrecy, while also
acknowledging that Manning's actions have caused significant harm to
American interests. Citizen journalist Alexa O'Brien defends Manning
against the most serious charges of espionage and aiding the enemy,
arguing that a close reading of the court records shows otherwise.
Courthouse News reporter Adam Klasfeld questions the government's
decision to prosecute Manning as a spy, instead of a conscientious
objector.
The three journalists were a combustible mix of
personalities. Tempers flared, and clashes of informed opinion
occasionally descended into personal invective. Lake and O'Brien locked
horns over the issue of what, if any, harm was caused by Manning's
disclosures. There were fierce disagreements about the most basic facts
about the case. Yet throughout the quarreling, the conversation remained
substantive, and it provides insight as to why this trial is among the
most important in recent times.