Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to follow the Military Whistleblower Protection Act

[hack89]

He would have been protected if he had simply followed the law. He could have taken his information to any member of Congress.

E2.9. Protected Communication

E2.9.1. Any lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an IG.

E2.9.2. A communication in which a member of the Armed Forces communicates
information that the member reasonably believes evidences a violation of law or regulation,
including a law or regulation prohibiting sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination, gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, an abuse of authority, or a substantial
and specific danger to public health or safety,when such communication is made to any of the
following:

E2.9.2.1. A Member of Congress, an IG, or a member of a DoD audit, inspection,
investigation, or law enforcement organization.

E2.9.2.2. Any person or organization in the chain of command; or any other person
designated pursuant to regulations or other established administrative procedures to receive such
communications.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/705006p.pdf

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 10 U.S.C. 1034, as amended, prohibits interference with a military member’s right to make protected communications to members of Congress; Inspectors General; members of DoD audit, inspection, investigation or law enforcement organizations; and other persons or organizations (including the chain of command) designated by regulation or administrative procedures. A protected communication is any lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an IG, as well as any communication made to a person or organization designated under competent regulations to receive such communications, which a member of the Armed Services reasonably believes reports a violation of law or regulation (including sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination, mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to public health or safety.

http://www.ig.navy.mil/complaints/Complaints%20%20%28Reprisal%20Military%20Whistleblower%20Protection%29.htm

[NoPasaran]

1. Kick

[MineralMan]

2. Even in the late 1960s, when I was working in intelligence

during my term in the USAF, those options were open to any enlisted person or officer. That was clearly explained to each of us, starting during Basic Training.

Once I received my security clearance, and frequently thereafter, I sat in classes, listened to officers, and read and signed information regarding the penalties and laws regarding dissemination of classified documents. I have no doubt whatever that everyone with access to classified information is still receiving all of that training, and probably even more now.

My security clearance was Top Secret, with additional clearance for some things, which I still cannot discuss. I even had travel restrictions that lasted for 5 years after I left the USAF. I had to report any planned travel outside of the US, with complete itineraries throughout that 5 year period. Given the complications of that, I simply decided not to travel outside of the country during that period.

At no time was I ever uninformed about the penalties for disseminating classified information outside of specific channels. At no time was I left ignorant of the process of reporting unlawful or dangerous situations within the rules. There was always a way to report such things outside of my immediate chain of authority. I never had any reason to utilize any of those paths, but was trained and retrained on the pathways for such reporting throughout my enlistment in the USAF.

Manning got the same training, plus training on any changes that have since taken place in the regulations. He was fully informed of the penalties for disclosing classified information outside of those channels.

He engaged in an act of civil disobedience in his disclosure of a large amount of unscreened, unread classified information to a foreign national. He knew the possible penalties of doing that, I guarantee. He knew the channels outside of his chain of command he could have used to make his case. He chose to send the stuff outside of those channels and outside of the US.

With any act of civil disobedience, a person accepts that there may be consequences. If those consequences occur, there should be no surprise. In fact, without actual consequences, it can be argued that there was no civil disobedience at all. Civil disobedience is a public action designed to make a point, and the possibility of getting arrested and prosecuted is part of the decision anyone engaging in civil disobedience should recognize and accept.

Manning engaged in some pretty serious civil disobedience. He knew the potential for consequences, since it is impossible that he did not know them, in his position. His civil disobedience exposed a lot of information to public view, as I'm sure he expected. As he must have expected, he was arrested and is facing a trial right now. He knew, beforehand, that such was likely, but chose to release the classified information anyhow.

Is he a hero? I don't know. History will make that decision. Is he a fool? I doubt it. He knew the possible consequences and acted anyhow. Did he accomplish his goals? I don't know. We'll see. I doubt it, though.

[leveymg]

3. When Dan Ellsberg tried the same "proper procedures", nothing happened. So, he disclosed the docs.

Before Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the NYT, he tried to convince Henry Kissinger and then Senators Fulbright and Mansfield to release them. None showed any willingness to do so, resulting in two actions: the Nixon White House unleashed the Plumbers Unit to break and enter into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, and the New York Times publisher and lawyers finally decided to publish the documents given to them months earlier.

Manning was following in the same well-worn path, and he knew that going to the IG or Congress would likely result in nothing other than these documents being stuffed back into a databank and nobody other than the 400,000 other people with security clearances would ever see them.

Here's what Ellsberg has to say about his own experience and concluded that what Manning did was an act of patriotism, principle ingenuity, and last recourse: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/03/20/pentagon-papers-whistleblower-daniel-ellsberg-bradley-manning-one-person-who-acted-on-crimes-he-uncovered/

DANIEL ELLSBERG: There were differences in our circumstances, which made for differences in what we did, but the basic situation was simply identical. Bradley and I were both involved in ongoing wars, which we’d entered by a virtue of government executive deception and was continuing deception. In his case, he was looking at field level material, which revealed a great pattern of war crimes, domestic crimes, international crimes, torture, primarily, assassination and coercion of other states, which is not necessarily criminal but as he put it great power behavior toward other states, which was through almost every page of the Pentagon Papers in terms of our relations with the so-called government of South Vietnam, which we regarded contemptuously as a corrupt puppet of ours.

And it was information that would prolong the war if it remained secret. It was information that clearly the government intended to remain covered up. It was not secret by mistake or inadvertence. It was information that revealed crimes, lies, dereliction of duty in many ways. It would at the very least be embarrassing to the party in power if it didn’t lead to impeachment or prosecution.

So, it was information that called for investigation by Congress and the public and change. But change was not possible without information and information which resided in desks or in his case computer networks was being carefully protected by them and there was no way for Congress to do its function or the public to be the sovereign public in influencing policy unless someone took the personal risks of violating administrative regulations and putting out truths the administration didn’t want told.

Now, in this administration, it’s unusually clear that there is a campaign going on against whistleblowing, which is to say a campaign against truth-telling. It’s a war on truth-telling or a war on truth. Specifically, the truth that the government doesn’t want told because it’s embarrassing or incriminating and undermines the policies, which are being carried out, which policies are greatly invalid at best, ruthless and hopeless. So, we faced exactly the same situation together, as did thousands and thousands of others.

When Bradley says in his statement I was actively participating in something I was totally against, he was in the position I’m sure of thousands if not tens of thousands of others. There were even more millions perhaps who didn’t think of what they were doing and didn’t ask the question of whether it was right or wrong or legal or illegal. They just did what they were told. But there were tens of thousands at least who would recognize as did Bradley and as did I that they were looking at documentation of wrongful behavior that they should not be part of and specifically that they should really expose and resist and no resistance by anyone was possible unless someone exposed it. And, from experience, if I didn’t do it or if he didn’t do it, it was clear it wasn’t going to be done.

[MineralMan]

4. Both Ellsberg and Manning did what they believed was important.

Both knew that they'd face possible criminal punishment for doing so. Civil disobedience. Their actions caused information they thought should be exposed to public view to be exposed to public view.

Civil disobedience requires that those taking that road know and accept the possibility of punishment. Both clearly knew and understood that possibility.

And there it is.

[hack89]

5. Do you really think Manning had clue who Ellsberg was?

You have to try to follow the law. It at least allows you to say "the government ignored me so I had no choice but to turn over reams of information to Julian Assange."

Saying "they ignored Daniel Ellsberg 42 years ago so I never bothered to even try to follow the law" is not a particularly strong legal position.

He made no effort to follow the law. He is paying the price for that decision.

[MineralMan]

6. I don't think Manning is all that smart a guy.

He may have heard of Ellsberg, but wasn't around when that went down. He also may have been coaxed into the data dump by others. I don't see Manning as any kind of mastermind.

[Matariki]

7. Exactly

It amazes me that people think 'the proper channels' would have done a damn thing about the war crimes exposed in the leaks, when they were all ass deep in responsibility for those crimes.

[hack89]

11. So every single member of Congress would have ignored him?

Bernie Saunders? Dennis Kucinich? Surely some of them have principles and would have helped Manning.

[librechik]

17. Manning's info dump was "secrets" that close to 300,000 people had direct access to,

besides himself. That doesn't exactly seem like a deadly secret that will harm us in times of war.
Just fucking embarrassing to the US which expects to be seen as the clean godly hero in the mideast.

It would be good for Americans to see our monstrous side. maybe they would stop being so tolerant of our adventures abroad if they knew it was all false and corporate-driven.

[G_j]

8. Like those who reported sexual assault

through "proper channels"?
That worked out well..

[hack89]

9. He could have gone to any member of Congress

don't you think there are some principled members of Congress that would have helped him?

He could have stepped completely out of the military chain of command.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

10. Come now, everybody knows if you had gone to a member of congress

they would have ignored it, and somebody like Bernard(Bernie) Sanders would have laughed in his face as he shredded whatever evidence he was given while Manning was still watching.

Anybody who thinks everybody in congress would just ignore it does a great disservice to a number of said congresspeople(Bernie being one of them in my eyes)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. "The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason,

An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens. It should be noted, that when Jefferson speaks of "science," he is often referring to knowledge or learning in general.
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:207

"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779. FE 2:221, Papers 2:526

"The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810. ME 12:417

"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:322

"Though [the people] may acquiesce, they cannot approve what they do not understand." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:211

No Freedom Without Education
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.

"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1821. ME 19:408

"Freedom [is] the first-born daughter of science." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. ME 9:297

"Light and liberty go together." --Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe, 1795.

[hack89]

13. I agree with the thought.

it is totally irrelevant in that it does not supersede US laws. Manning had legal means to allow the "arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. If "the law" supersedes the people from knowing what their govenment does, what then?

The idea of trusting the government to prosecute itself (or release information that would entail prosecution of the government) is...well...laughable.

[phleshdef]

15. He could have trusted Kucinich or Sanders or many other antiwar progressives with the information.

He only has himself to blame for getting in trouble... and the fact that he leaked a million other things that had nothing at all to do with illegal activity only compounds the fact that he was out to leak and not so much to whistleblow.

[hack89]

16. But the law is specifically designed to make such information public.

he could have done what he did in a perfectly legal manner that would have had the same impact and kept him out of jail.