RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Rich writes: "That 'not guilty' is a good thing, but it doesn't mitigate the reality that 'aiding the enemy' was a bogus and dangerous charge in the first place. The fact that the government would even pursue it is chilling to a free press."

Bradley Manning at Fort Meade. (photo: file)
Bradley Manning at Fort Meade. (photo: file)

The Chilling Manning Trial

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

01 August 13


RSN Special Coverage: Trial of Bradley Manning

rsn fr splash promo


Every week, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich talks with contributor Eric Benson about the biggest stories in politics and culture. This week: Bradley Manning gets convicted, Obama offers a "grand bargain," and Chris Christie and Rand Paul exchange blows.

esterday, Private Bradley Manning was convicted on multiple counts of violating the Espionage Act (which could result in 136 years of prison) but was found not guilty of the most serious charge against him, "aiding the enemy." What do you make of the verdict?

What matters here is not that Manning was found guilty of leaking - which he admitted to and will not get anything like 136 years for - but that he was found not guilty of "aiding the enemy." That "not guilty" is a good thing, but it doesn't mitigate the reality that "aiding the enemy" was a bogus and dangerous charge in the first place. The fact that the government would even pursue it is chilling to a free press. Under the prosecution's Orwellian logic, essentially any classified information given by a whistle-blower to a journalistic outlet (whether WikiLeaks or the Times, which published Manning-WikiLeaks revelations) amounts to treason if "the enemy" can read it. Well, the enemy, whomever it may be at any given moment, can read anything it wants on the Internet, the government can (and does) stamp its every embarrassing action "classified," and so almost any revelatory investigative reporting on national security (the Pentagon Papers, the Abu Ghraib revelations, you name it) could in principle lead to the death penalty (even if that punishment wasn't sought in the Manning case). That's a powerful deterrent, clearly designed to stop whistle-blowers, reporters, and news organizations from taking the risk of uncovering government misbehavior. It's a particularly devastating blow at a time when investigative journalism is shrinking anyway because of the financial woes of the news business. The Obama administration's increasingly virulent efforts to shut down hard-hitting journalism - exemplified as well, recently, by the attempt to force Times reporter James Risen to testify in another leak case - is not just outrageous on First Amendment grounds but also makes you wonder what else the White House is hiding. Let's not forget that high among Manning's revelations were the cockpits videos chronicling the killing of civilians in an American air strike. What else is there that the Obama administration is so desperate to keep quiet that it will take on leakers with a virulence unmatched by any modern White House?

Another summer, another looming battle over the federal budget, with rank-and-file Republicans threatening to shut down the government rather than fund Obamacare and the President offering the GOP a "grand bargain"-style deal. We've seen this movie before. Is there any reason to think it could end better for Obama this time?

The Obama offer - to cut some corporate taxes in exchange for some job-creating spending - was not an alluring bargain anyway for either his party or the Republicans, and was surely dead on arrival. After all these years battling the Party of No, the president must know that and no doubt expected his proposal to be rejected immediately (as it was, not just by the tea-party right but by Establishmentarians like Mitch McConnell and the Wall Street Journal editorial page). So, what was the point of this week's Kabuki theater? Mainly to keep establishing battle lines for the looming confrontation over a potential government shutdown. Offering a "grand bargain," even if less than grand, sets Obama in sharp relief to those Republicans on Capitol Hill who are threatening to hold the budget (and the economy) hostage until by some miracle Obamacare is repealed. Obama's poll numbers may be mediocre these days, but even without a shutdown, Congress hit its lowest approval rating in history last week in the WSJ-NBC News poll. And so the president has everything to gain by positioning himself as the constructive alternative to the right's bomb throwers come fall.

Rand Paul is the most interesting Republican politician out there today, mainly because he clearly doesn't give a damn about offending anyone in his party's leadership as he rapidly makes himself into the No. 1 tribune of the GOP base. When he ran for senator of KenChris Christie and Rand Paul have been publicly sparring for the last week over national security and federal spending. Is this just two big egos sticking out their chests at each other, or are we witnessing the beginning of the next phase in the much-discussed GOP civil war?tucky, he took on (and clobbered) the hand-picked candidate of Mitch McConnell. He (like two other 2016 prospects in the Senate, Mario Rubio and Ted Cruz) has thrown his support to those threatening the government shutdown. And most intriguingly, like his father before him, he is mounting a major challenge to the neocon foreign-affairs dictum of the Bush years - starting with his name-making filibuster against the Obama drone regimen. From a political point of view, I think Christie's attack on Paul on foreign policy - delivered at the Aspen Institute, no less (was the Council on Foreign Relations unavailable?) - was a political mistake if his goal is to get the GOP nomination for president. By invoking 9/11 as a stick to beat Paul with, it was clear that the New Jersey governor has spent a lot of time listening to Rudy Giuliani, Henry Kissinger, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Dick Cheney, and John Bolton - but the Republican base is as sick of this crowd (and of America's wars) as the Democrats are. And the response to Paul in his own party has been proving that. The Christie-versus-Paul battle for the soul of the GOP is beginning to look like the contest between Mitt Romney and all-the-others (including Ron Paul) in 2012. I think Christie may well find himself on the wrong side of his party's internal politics and history.

Earlier this week, Pope Francis gave a surprising press conference in which he said that he would not marginalize gay priests for their sexual orientation, while stopping well short of altering Church doctrine. Is this an important step? Or is it too little, too late from a religious body that is increasingly out of step with society?

It's hard to imagine that anything Pope Francis would say in a press conference, even one as charming as this, would have any big effect on anything. That he expressed tolerance for gay people doesn't have any effect on punitive church doctrine in any case, and let's not forget that in the same press conference he also dismissed the idea of women priests. That said, the American reaction to Francis's remarks was another indicator that to be gay-friendly, even somewhat nominally, is only a plus in terms of public relations now for prominent figures in all walks of life. I'd also add that I never thought I'd see the day when a pope would be more generous to gay people than some powerful figures in American government, including the forever gay-baiting Justice Scalia. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+18 # Annietime13 2013-08-01 23:25
Frank Rich
It is truly Rich to see your name here; to see that you are reachable!
I have tried since July 1 to contact you on urging you (and others)
To do something to further an investigation of MICHAEL HASTINGS.
So far, he has quite been abandoned.
If a Phoenix goes up in flames, is He not to Rise Again???
Can we, who supposedly love the truth, not feel obligated to protect this Martyr, to also protect the little future we may have left???
-6 # larrypayne 2013-08-02 07:15
Annie, you're asking a lot of Frank. He probably wants to be able to continue driving his Mercedes.
+15 # Annietime13 2013-08-01 23:40
Wasn't finished,,,,,,,
My tie in to what you have written here, is that MICHAEL HASTINGS was an investigative reporter. He did not even have the chance of JAMES RISEN, to deny their accusations.

THIS is beyond Kubuki theatre, which, as far as I know, never set it's own theatre on fire.

The Kubuki was also never the dithering mess of congress......

Please address the injustice of MICHAEL HASTINGS,,,,,,, ,
+9 # 2013-08-02 00:21
Yetime someone in Power took that to higher levels. Aiding the enemy must prove an enemy was aided and that USA has any such declared enemy.

Unless USA declares war on a specific enemy. That can not be whites in general, Blacks in General. Islam in general (Indonesia and Malaysia are allies). The war on Terror ok is declared war so they are enemies. Now prove anyone enemy even read the stuff?.
I find another 1000 legal wrongs lurking in that claim AS charged & prosecuted?

So now for Manning wrongful arrest compensation etc?
+13 # John Escher 2013-08-02 05:16
It's just amazing that Barack Obama has permitted these attacks on transparency and free exchange to flourish.
+1 # karenvista 2013-08-02 14:55
Quoting John Escher:
It's just amazing that Barack Obama has permitted these attacks on transparency and free exchange to flourish.

He has escalated the prosecution of truth-telling. I'm sick of him even though I voted for him twice.

I'd rather have Richard Nixon. He was far more liberal.
0 # bingers 2013-08-02 22:26
Quoting John Escher:
It's just amazing that Barack Obama has permitted these attacks on transparency and free exchange to flourish.

And would you prefer that a president who interferes in a trial is doing his job? I'd say he would be overstepping his constitutional authority.

Granted he is the CinC, but interfering in ANY trial would be a bridge too far in presidential corruption and a throwback to the worst of the Bush administration.
+13 # larrypayne 2013-08-02 07:12
If I'm remembering correctly, the cockpit video of the Reuters journalists and others being murdered by a U.S. helicopter had been circulating on the internet before Manning released it.

I know I had seen the video before Wikileaks released it.

I wouldn't describe that as being "high" among Manning's revelations.
+8 # jwb110 2013-08-02 10:34
Anybody else here think Scalia might be a closet case???
+6 # logical1 2013-08-02 15:11
Frank is so right.
Obama should make his agenda and ask voters to vote out those against changing the affordable healthcare, to fit more what the people expected and away from the compromized mess that was voted through.
Lines would be clearly drawn and we might be able to remove the obstuctionist representatives , in congress and get a lot accomplished after the next election.
+9 # MADASHELL 2013-08-02 15:18
If you'd stop arguing with each other, you might see the bigger picture here. There's nothing but political posturing going on because the run up to positioning oneself for elections is now well over two years and counting. The most important comment to consider is the dearth of real investigative reporting and true journalism. The internet is a blessing and a curse. It discourages critical thinking. It encourages anyone with a grudge to posit opinion regardless of logic or reason. It would be refreshing if people once again learned how to think critically.
+1 # gd_radical 2013-08-04 09:21
Amen, Madashell. It's about damn time that someone simply asks all of us (including RSN readers) to in the immortal words of the late and great George Carlin, "Question everything always!"

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.