Bradley Manning. Traitor.

Perhaps I am interpreting incorrectly, but it appears that there very few arguments my opponent is actually trying to make. His primary focus seems to be the following point, made by him in Round 2: “Regardless of whether or not you feel what he did was right or not, regardless of his reasons for why he did it, you cannot change the fact that he broke the law and thus deserves to be punished according to said law.” Any points I have raised regarding the actions of the U.S. government and U.S. military with regards to this case have been shrugged off by my opponent as “an entirely different debate.” He seems simply to be arguing that “the law is the law,” with no consideration of the law itself and the people who create those laws. However, since my opponent seems upset that I have not addressed any of the “proof” he provides that Manning did in fact aid the enemy and break the law, I will do so now: Hypothetical “what-if” scenarios are not real solid evidence that can be used to try someone for a crime, even if my opponent tries to present them as such. My opponent asserts: “He also released hundreds of thousands of government cables and documents ranging from Embassy emails to troop movements and enemy assessments and intel to the names of Afghani and Iraqi informants and the locations of safe houses.” Okay, and what happened as a result? Well, according to my opponent, “Because of Manning the enemy had a sneak peak at our next line of tactics and so the enemy could begin adapting faster than normal.” That might be a valid point, if it was true or even provable. My opponent provides no evidence that U.S. war efforts were hindered post-leak, only that, essentially, “they obviously could have been because the material was highly sensitive.” Well, “could have been” isn’t good enough for prosecution. Did he mishandle secret government/military documents? Sure, and he’s pleading guilty to those charges. He is not, however, pleading guilty to aiding the enemy. Why? Because there is no solid evidence that he helped the enemy in any way. As for the issue of the intelligence we had on the ISI, it is a moot point, as most of that information was already public to anybody who was aware enough to listen. It wasn’t some sort of Top Secret bombshell that ruined U.S. relations with Pakistan or led to an increase in Taliban activity. David Rhodes, a New York Times journalist who was kidnapped by Taliban militants while on assignment in Pakistan, states that he and other journalists knew Pakistan was funding terror networks, and that the leaked cables only confirm what was already being suspected [1]. And you mean to tell me that Pakistan had NO IDEA the U.S. knew they were funding the Taliban? That it was all Manning’s fault that they found out, and now we won’t ever be able to stop them because of it? Please. It was widely known information that both Pakistan and Iran were supporting terrorist organizations. Moreover, as far as the tactical documents go, these were all “ground-level reports written in the field about specific combat incidents or isolated bits of intelligence, not bird’s-eye overviews where the big secrets and lies are kept” [2]. In other words, these documents were basically summaries of what had already happened. So you mean to tell me that enemy soldiers with whom we were already engaged in combat had absolutely no clue how we. carried out these missions? I find that very hard to believe. Moreover, as Denver Nicks points out in a piece for the New York Times: “Manning’s leak didn’t reveal the country’s most sensitive secrets. None of the information he sent to WikiLeaks was classified Top Secret and some of it wasn’t classified at all. 11,000 of the diplomatic cables he leaked were classified Secret, a designation ostensibly reserved for information ‘the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.’ That’s ‘serious damage to the national security’ times eleven thousand. And yet, the country survives. One is given to wonder just how sensitive those secrets really were”[3]. SO, I ask AGAIN, can Bradley Manning be considered a traitor against the U.S. government/military? MAYBE, with the right EVIDENCE. After all, as my opponent would state, “the law is the law.” However, my opponent, and Manning’s prosecution heretofore, have failed to prevent that evidence, making enforcement of said law nearly impossible. However, if you want to move away from the very banal “the law is the law” argument, and on to bigger ideas about the legitimacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the corruption of the U.S. government (I disagree with my opponent that this is not a crucial part of this debate), you will see Manning as a hero of the American PEOPLE—even if, legally speaking, he committed treason against the U.S. government/military. Let’s look at what he revealed to the world about the actions of the U.S. during the wars: The Afghan War -Multiple accounts of civilian and friendly-fire casualties, including an instance where a U.S. patrol machine-gunned a civilian bus, wounding or killing 15 of its passengers, and one where an American jet dropped a bomb on a building occupied by Canadian soldiers, killing four and wounding seven others. -The use of psychological warfare on the part of the U.S., who have been paying Afghan radio and print media to run favorable stories. -The hiring of child prostitutes by U.S. DOD private contractor employees. The Iraq War -The fact that an estimated 15,000 civilian deaths went previously unreported by the American government, and that U.S. troops often misreported civilian deaths as enemy casualties. -The failure of U.S. authorities to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape, and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers. -The continued abuse and torture of prisoners or detainees by the Iraqi security forces, even after the Abu Ghraib incident came to light in 2004. -The infamous “Collateral Damage” video, showing a U.S. Apache helicopter gunning down Iraqi insurgents who were trying to surrender. -The fact that U.S. troops killed roughly 700 civilians for coming too close to checkpoints, including pregnant women and the mentally ill. At least 6 of those incidents involved Iraqi men transporting pregnant family members to hospitals. In other words, Bradley Manning released hard evidence of the fact that the U.S. government is committing multiple war crimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and are misleading the general public not only as to the success of their war efforts (considering terrorist activity in the Middle East is not declining thanks to our efforts, but rather is on the rise), but as to their motives behind being there in the first place. So then, to answer the question of whether or not Bradley Manning is a traitor against the U.S., one must weigh the “good” information leaked (that proves the U.S. is a money-grubbing, war-mongering, corrupt and inhumane bully) versus the “bad” information leaked (that “maybe might have potentially” injured a couple of U.S. soldiers abroad). Is there evidence that the material Manning leaked directly hurt the U.S. war efforts in any way? No, none that would be admissible in court anyways. Is there evidence that the material leaked shows U.S. war crimes and human rights violations abroad? Absolutely. And as a member of the American public whose hard-earned tax dollars are going to fund a war that is as secretive as it is corrupt, Bradley Manning is my hero. Saying he should be punished for “aiding the enemy” is like saying that German citizens who actively worked against the Nazi regime should be punished for “aiding the enemy;” after all, “the law is the law, and they broke it.” [1] http://www.theworld.org...[2] http://hotair.com...[3] http://ideas.time.com...