Détruire un témoin gênant, détruire Bradley Manning...

[JacquesL]

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/imprimer_element/0,40-0@2-651865,50-1384486,0.html

La source de WikiLeaks risque 52 ans de prison
LEMONDE.FR | 07.07.10 | 11h35  •  Mis à jour le 07.07.10 | 12h24

Bradley Manning, un soldat de 22 ans suspecté d'avoir fourni au site WikiLeaks, spécialisé dans la publication de documents confidentiels, la vidéo d'une attaque d'hélicoptère contre des civils à Bagdad en 2007, a été inculpé mardi. Une dizaine de civils, dont deux journalistes de l'agence Reuters, avaient été tués lorsqu'un hélicoptère Apache de l'armée américaine avait ouvert le feu sur un groupe de personnes dans les faubourgs de la capitale irakienne.

Huit chefs d'inculpation ont été retenus par l'armée américaine contre le jeune homme, qui était détenu au secret depuis plus d'un mois et demi dans une base du Koweït. Selon un porte-parole de l'armée interrogé par Boingboing, il risque un total de cinquante-deux ans de prison, et devrait être entendu, à une date qui n'est pas encore fixée, par un jury militaire qui décidera ou non de le renvoyer en cour martiale.

WikiLeaks, qui n'a jamais confirmé ou infirmé que Bradley Manning soit sa source pour cette vidéo, a annoncé avoir engagé les services d'un avocat pour défendre le soldat. "Le soldat Manning est inculpé pour la publication de la vidéo du massacre en Irak. Les fous de la gachette qui étaient aux commandes de l'hélicoptère Apache n'ont toujours pas été inculpés", a commenté sobrement l'équipe du site.

Le jeune homme est également suspecté d'avoir transmis à WikiLeaks des milliers de télégrammes diplomatiques auxquels il aurait eu accès. Il est inculpé pour avoir transmis à un tiers au moins un télégramme, détaillant une rencontre entre l'ambassadeur américain en Islande avec le gouvernement de ce pays. Ni l'armée, ni WikiLeaks n'ont confirmé la transmission d'autres télégrammes, mais le site a publié un fac-similé de ce télégramme diplomatique.

Et ce que je soupçonne, moi, est que la démocratie américaine est morte.

[JacquesL]

Détruire ce témoin gênant, telle semble une priorité pour l'armée américaine :
Bradley Manning n'a aucun commis aucun crime de guerre, mais en a révélé plusieurs. C'est donc lui qui est puni au maximum, dans un grand raffinement de barbarie.



http://www.lepost.fr/article/2011/03/12/2432777_le-calvaire-de-bradley-manning-sous-obama-il-vaut-mieux-commettre-un-crime-de-guerre-que-d-en-reveler-un-counterpunch.html

Le calvaire de Bradley Manning : Sous Obama, il vaut mieux commettre un crime de guerre que d'en révéler un (Counterpunch)

12/03/2011 à 23h50

Charles DAVIS, Medea BENJAMIN

[diminuer taille]
[normal]
[agrandir taille]

Bradley Manning est accusé d'avoir humilié l'establishment politique en révélant la complicité d'importants officiels étasuniens dans l'exécution et la dissimulation de crimes de guerre. Pour le punir d'avoir écouté sa conscience, le gouvernement étasunien le maintient abusivement en cellule d'isolement, l'humilie et essaie de le garder derrière des barreaux sa vie entière.

La leçon est claire et les soldats l'ont comprise : Il vaut mieux commettre un crime de guerre que d'en dévoiler un.

Manning, un officier des services secrets de 23 ans en service au Kuwait - choqué par ce qu'il a vu- a supposément communiqué des dizaines de milliers de câbles du département d'état au Website spécialisé dans les révélations Wikileaks. Ces câbles montrent que des officiers étasuniens ont couvert à peu près tous les crimes, des viols d'enfants financés par le trésor public en Afghanistan aux bombardements illégaux du Yemen. Manning est aussi accusé d'avoir fait fuiter la vidéo qui montre des pilotes étasuniens tirant sur plus d'une douzaine d'Iraquiens à Bagdad, dont deux journalistes de Reuters, puis tuant le père de deux enfants qui s'était arrêté pour leur porter secours. Les deux jeunes de l'homme furent aussi sérieusement blessés.

"Eh bien c'est leur faute ! Ils n'ont qu'à pas amener des enfants à la guerre" a déclaré un pilote étasunien que le remords n'étouffait pas dans cette vidéo de juillet 2007 intitulée "meurtre collatéral".

Aucun de ces soldats coupables de crime de guerre n'a été puni, ni aucun des officiels de haut rang qui leur ont donné leur aval. En fait, un soldat a plus de chance de recevoir une médaille que d'aller en prison s'il commet un crime de guerre. Et que se passe-t-il pour ceux qui ont donné leur aval ? Eh bien on leur offrira un contrat pour écrire un livre et des émoluments à 6 chiffres pour faire des conférences. Vous n'avez qu'à demander à George W. Bush. Ou à Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld ou Condoleeza Rice. Ou au "respectable" (on se demande bien en quoi) Colin Powell.

En fait, tout indique que Manning serait dans une bien meilleure position aujourd'hui -probablement en train de faire des conférences plutôt que de croupir en cellule d'isolement- s'il avait tué lui-même ces hommes à Bagdad.

J'exagère ? Regardez ce qui est arrivé aux soldats étasuniens qui pendant quelques heures - pas quelques minutes - sont allés de maison en maison dans la ville irakienne de Haditha et ont exécuté 24 hommes, femmes et enfants en représailles du bombardement du bord de la route.

"Je les ai vus tirer sur mon grand-père, d'abord dans la poitrine, puis dans la tête" a déclaré un des deux témoins qui ont survécu au massacre, Eman Waleed, un enfant de neuf ans. "Puis ils ont tué ma grand-mère." Presque cinq ans plus tard, il n'y a aucun des hommes qui a pris part au massacre derrière les barreaux. Et en dépit d'une enquête qui a révélé que des déclarations faites par la chaîne de commandement "suggéraient que la vie des civils iraquiens n'est pas aussi importante que la vie de soldats étasuniens" et que le meurtre de civils innocents à la peau brune "était juste le prix de revient du business" aucun de leurs supérieurs n'est derrière les barreaux non plus.

Maintenant regardez comment Bradley Manning est traité. Le premier mars, l'armée a accusé Manning de 22 délits supplémentaires -en plus des premières charges qui étaient d'avoir révélé de l'information classifiée, d'avoir désobéi aux ordres et de s'être mal conduit de façon générale. Une des nouvelles accusations "aide à l'ennemi" est passible de mort. Cela signifie que Manning est susceptible d'être exécuté ou de passer toute sa vie en prison pour avoir dévoilé l'horrible vérité du l'Empire étasunienPendant ce temps, l'administration Obama a décidé de rendre la période qui précède le procès aussi inhumaine que possible pour Manning, en le maintenant en cellule d'isolement 23 heures par jour, depuis son arrestation il y a 10 mois, un traitement qui le groupe "psychologues pour la responsabilité sociale" qualifie de "traitement pour le moins cruel, inhabituel et inhumain en violation avec la loi étasunienne."

En plus de l'horreur de l'isolement sur le long terme, Manning n'a pas le droit de faire de l'exercice dans sa cellule ni d'avoir des draps et un oreiller. Et toutes les cinq minutes il doit répondre par l'affirmative au garde qui lui demande s'il est "OK"

Il ment probablement.

Et maintenant ça empire encore. Sur son blog, l'avocat militaire de Manning, le Lt David Coombs, révèle qui son client est désormais complètement déshabillé le soir, et laissé nu et sous surveillance étroite pendant sept heures. Quand on sonne le réveil à 5 heures du matin il est alors "obligé de se tenir debout tout nu devant sa cellule."

Si vous me faites remarquer que l'empereur n'a pas d'habits, je vous dirais que l'Empire va s'assurer que vous n'en ayez pas non plus.

Les officiels de la base de la Marine de Quantico où Manning est enfermé prétendent que cette mesure n'est pas "une punition" mais que c'est au contraire "une mesure conservatoire" destinée à l'empêcher de se faire du tort à lui-même. Croyez-vous vraiment que Manning va s'étrangler avec ses sous-vêtements - et qui plus est en étant sous surveillance 24 heures sur 24 ?

"Est-ce que c'est Quantico ou Abu Ghraib ?" a demandé le républicain Dennis Kucinich dans un communiqué de presse. C'est une bonne question, Monsieur le représentant du Congrès. Comme il en a été pour les hommes emprisonnés dans la chambre de torture du précédent président étasunien, Manning est humilié et torturé bien qu'il n'ait même pas été jugé par un tribunal militaire, et encore moins jugé coupable de quelque crime que ce soit.

Et voilà où en est l'homme de loi spécialiste en droit constitutionnel qui s'est présenté comme le candidat de l'espoir et du changement.

Vous souvenez-vous de l'époque où Obama faisait campagne contre ces mêmes techniques de torture pratiquées par Bush et ses supporters ? Vous rappelez-vous qu'Obama a dit : "Ceux qui révèlent des choses cachées témoignent de la bonne santé d'une démocratie et on doit les protéger des représailles" ? On voit maintenant que son soutien pour eux n'était que de la rhétorique. Depuis il a été élu.

Et c'est un fait, en dépit de ses belles promesses et de ses belles paroles, la manière dont Obama traite Manning n'est pas différente de ce que faisait Richard Nixon. Pas plus qu'Obama -qui a poursuivi plus de personnes pour avoir communiqué des informations secrètes que n'importe quel autre président dans l'histoire- Nixon n'aimait les "mouchards" et ne voulait que le public étasunien sache ce que faisait son gouvernement. Et comme Obama il a prétendu que Daniel Ellsberg, qui avait révélé les Documents du Pentagone avait "aidé et soutenu l'ennemi" en dévoilant la vérité sur la guerre du Vietnam.

Mais il y a une différence : Richard Nixon n'a jamais jeté le grand héros qui a révélé la vérité à son époque seul dans un cachot et ne l'a pas torturé. Si seulement on pouvait en dire autant de Barak Obama.

Medea Benjamin est cofondatrice de Global Exchange et CODEPINK : Women for Peace

Charles Davis est un journaliste indépendant. Le 20 mars, CODEPINK et d'autres marcheront vers la base de la Marine de Quantico pour soutenir Bradley Manning. Vous pouvez signer la pétition de CODEPINK qui demande au président Obama la grâce de Bradley Manning.

Pour consulter l'original : http://www.counterpunch.org/benjamin03072011.html

Voir aussi :
Le site de soutien à Bradley Manning : http://www.bradleymanning.org/fr
soutien financier : https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=38591
Lui écrire :

Bradley Manning
c/o Courage to Resist
484 Lake Park Ave #41
Oakland CA 94610
USA

URL de cet article 13021
http://www.legrandsoir.info/Le-calvaire-de-Bradley-Manning-Sous-Obama-il-vaut-mieux-commettre-un-crime-de-guerre-que-d-en-reveler-un-Counterpunch.html


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27647.htm

Bradley Manning Now "Catatonic"; Obama ENOUGH!

By Ralph Lopez

March 09, 2011 "War Is A Crime" --  As Obama's crime of the destruction of Bradley Manning continues to unfold before our very eyes, Manning friend David House now tells us that over 8 months in isolation with movement and sleep restrictions placed on him have been having their intended effect.  House has told MSNBC that by the end of January Manning appeared "catatonic"  and that he had "severe problems communicating," with it having taken House nearly 45 minutes on a recent visit to engage in any meaningful way (video below.)  House said Manning's demeanor was as "if he had just woken up and didn't know what was going on around him."   Manning was "utterly exhausted physically and mentally...it was difficult to have any kind of social engagement."

Also, a full month after Congressman Dennis Kucinich formally requested a visit, the Army has stalled on the request.

All for the crime of reporting war crimes and criminal behavior even among the highest-ranking military officials in Iraq. 

In 2005, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member [in Iraq], if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to try to stop it."

Chase Mader writes in HuffPo that soon after deployment to Iraq, Manning:

    "soon found himself helping the Iraqi authorities detain civilians for distributing "anti-Iraqi literature" -- which turned out to be an investigative report into financial corruption in their own government entitled "Where does the money go?"  The penalty for this "crime" in Iraq was not a slap on the wrist. Imprisonment and torture, as well as systematic abuse of prisoners, are widespread in the new Iraq. From the military's own Sigacts (Significant Actions) reports, we have a multitude of credible accounts of Iraqi police and soldiers shooting prisoners, beating them to death, pulling out fingernails or teeth, cutting off fingers, burning with acid, torturing with electric shocks or the use of suffocation, and various kinds of sexual abuse including sodomization with gun barrels and forcing prisoners to perform sexual acts on guards and each other...

    Like any good soldier, Manning immediately took these concerns up the chain of command.  And how did his superiors respond?  His commanding officer told him to "shut up" and get back to rounding up more prisoners for the Iraqi Federal Police to treat however they cared to..."

Manning also found a video and an official report on American air strikes on the village of Granai in Afghanistan's Farah Province (also known as "the Granai massacre"). According to the Afghan government, 140 civilians, including women and a large number of children, died in those strikes. 

War crimes?  What war crimes?  This is the point of view of the Pentagon as it destroys Bradley Manning. 

On the Haditha killings (found to be "collateral damage" by the Army despite an American officer's unearthing and handing up the chain of command a video showing close up bullet wounds) a recent Counterpunch article by Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis recounts:

    " Consider what happened to the U.S. soldiers who, over a period of hours – not minutes – went house to house in the Iraqi town of Haditha and executed 24 men, women and children in retaliation for a roadside bombing.  I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head," said one of the two surviving eyewitnesses to the massacre, nine-year-old Eman Waleed. "Then they killed my granny." Almost five years later, not one of the men involved in the incident is behind bars. And despite an Army investigation revealing that statements made by the chain of command "suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives," with the murder of brown-skinned innocents considered "just the cost of doing business," none of their superiors are behind bars either."

Massacres of civilians in retaliation for IEDs seems to have been standard fare in Iraq. Ethan McCord says his unit was ordered to engage in "360 rotational" fireand "kill every mother&* in the street" in the event of an IED. The officer who gave the order was Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, "the lost Kauz" who is featured in David Finkel's book "The Good Soldiers." Col. K is also the executive officer who led the first investigation into the death of Pat Tillman.

Josh Stieber, a McCord unit-mate who also witnessed the order, said the logic was to get residents to be "pro-active" in preventing the planting of roadside bombs. Brass knew that the people in the houses nearest probably saw it planted and didn't say anything.

Stieber on Antiwarradio.com:

    "Yeah, it was an order that came from Kauzlarich himself, and it had the philosophy that, you know, as Finkel does describe in the book, that we were under pretty constant threat, and what he leaves out is the response to that threat. But the philosophy was that if each time one of these roadside bombs went off where you don't know who set it ... the way we were told to respond was to open fire on anyone in the area, with the philosophy that that would intimidate them, to be proactive in stopping people from making these bombs ..."

Now nine Afghan children have been killed after what the Army says was mistaken identity after a nearby rocket attack on American forces.  These boys could have been the boys some on this site got to know well in the New Year's Global Call for Peace (they weren't, but they were just as precious.)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates once said people like Bradley Manning have "blood on their hands" for releasing documents which might identify Afghan informants.  But look down Robert, and don't flinch.  They are dripping.

Commander-in-Chief Obama, order Bradley Manning released!

The White House
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
Webform for email: www.whitehouse.gov/contact

You can also comment on the WH FaceBook page. 

Also demand your congressman speak up and castigate this administration for the treatment of Bradley Manning, leave a voicemail if it is after-hours (24/7):
Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

January 3: Psychologists for Social Responsibility write an open letter highlighting the severely deleterious effects on the psychological well-being

January 24: Amnesty International called on US authorities "to alleviate the harsh pre-trial detention conditions of Bradley Manning"

[JacquesL]

Detention at Fort Leavenworth

The Pentagon transferred Manning on April 20, 2011, to the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility, a new medium-security facility in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.[3] The prevention-of-injury order was lifted, his clothes were not removed at night, and he was placed in a cell with a large window with natural light and a normal mattress. He was able to mix with other pre-trial detainees, write whenever he wanted, and keep personal objects, such as books and letters, in his cell.[43]

Il n'est donc pas inutile de faire son devoir de presse et son devoir de citoyenneté.

[43]   Pilkington, Ed. "Bradley Manning's jail conditions improve dramatically after protest campaign", The Guardian, May 4, 2011.

[JacquesL]

La situation de Bradley Manning ne s'arrange toujours pas :
http://www.thenation.com/article/173447/bradley-manning-tried-warn-us-about-crisis-iraq-will-we-listen-him-now#

Bradley Manning Tried to Warn Us About the Crisis In Iraq. Will We Listen to Him Now?
Kevin Gosztola
March 20, 2013   

In 2010, while stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Baghdad, Pfc. Bradley Manning decided to approach a superior officer in his chain of command to voice his concern about something he had stumbled upon in his capacity as an intelligence analyst. His unit had been helping Iraqi federal police identify suspects for detention and discovered that fifteen men had been arrested for producing "anti-Iraqi literature." After having a high-resolution photo of the "literature" translated into English, Manning discovered that the writing was hardly criminal; it was a "scholarly critique" of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. But his superior officer did not want to hear about it. Manning knew if he continued to assist the police in identifying political opponents, innocent people would be jailed, likely tortured, and "not seen again for a very long time, if ever," as he told a military courtroom in Fort Meade, MD on February 28. Hoping to expose what was happening ahead of the Iraq parliamentary election, on March 7, 2010, Manning shared the information with WikiLeaks.

On March 19, as Americans observed the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War, Manning remained behind bars, facing the prospect of twenty years in prison—and possibly much more—for taking actions that were motivated by concerns about the effects of the US invasion. The anecdote he shared about the Iraqi federal police was part of a longer explanation in court, detailing, for the first time, his motivation for leaking the historic volume of documents, videos, military logs and diplomatic cables to Wikileaks. Surreptitiously recorded in the courtroom, Manning's statement offers, perhaps more than anything that has been written about his case to date, proof that Manning is the classic whistleblower: his concern above all else was for the greater good and he wanted to spark a much-needed public debate. So he took action, at great personal risk, and is paying the price.

Since his arrest, the media has focused on Manning's mental problems, his poor relationships with family members, his sexual orientation, and the fact that he considered becoming a woman. Such a caricature, of an unstable youth rather than of a soldier with a conscience, has enabled the government and other detractors to maintain that Manning had no clear and legitimate motives when disclosing the information. Thomas Drake, a whistleblower who revealed fraud, waste and abuse within the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, was similarly cast as a seller of secrets—and at first a possFible child pornographer. "All those things that actually say who we are as individuals get turned and twisted," Drake explains. "Instead of focusing on the message," he explains, "..."[the focus] becomes the person."

One recent article, a co-authored op-ed in the New York Times, took two opposing views of Manning himself and cast them aside to consider the broader significance of what he did. First amendment crusader Floyd Abrams and Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler laid out the "chilling precedent" established by his prosecution, despite disagreeing with one another about the merits of Manning's actions. One does not have to consider him "a paragon of heroic whistle-blowing, to understand the threat" his case poses to the rest of us, they wrote.

But whistleblowers like Drake argue that Manning is indeed that paragon of heroic whistleblowers, and that his words in court prove it. "If there was any remaining doubt regarding his motives or intentions, they were fully dispelled in his statement," Drake told me in a recent interview.

This statement included an explanation for why he released the video that would be titled "Collateral Murder" by WikiLeaks, and which revealed an aerial attack on media workers and Iraqi civilians, including children. Manning said: "The most alarming aspect of the video to me was the seemingly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have," Manning said. "They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as quote 'dead bastards' unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers."

Then there were the military incident reports, which to him "represented the on the ground reality of both the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides," Manning said. "I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year."

Of the cache of over 250,000 US State Embassy cables, Manning said: "The more I read, the more I was fascinated by the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think that the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity didn't seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world."

One cable in particular—10REYKJAVIK13, from Iceland, which WikiLeaks released in February 2010—caught his attention. Manning explained that upon reading it, he "quickly concluded that Iceland was essentially being bullied diplomatically by two larger European powers" over the issue of "Icesave," which concerned the financial collapse of one or more of Iceland's banks. Iceland had asked for assistance from the US, but, to Manning, it did not appear the US wanted to help because there would be no "geopolitical benefit."

Many have characterized Manning as irresponsible; in the Times, Abrams describes him as showing "a devil-may-care obliviousness to genuine national security interests." But none of the information Manning shared with WikiLeaks was disclosed on a whim. His statement in court that day made clear that he had considered the nature of the information and what it would mean if it were made public.

Some items, like the Iraq and Afghan war logs, he considered "historical data," a view "shared by other all-source analysts" like him. Manning said they were "not very sensitive," and, what's more, contained "information publicly reported by the public affairs office or PAO, embedded media pools, or host nation media." He believed access to the reports "could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general, and that this debate could lead to a reevaluation of the need "to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the affected environment everyday."

The diplomatic cables, Manning said "represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations," most of them were "unclassified" and one had been published on the State Department's own website. He recalled reading a quote from President Woodrow Wilson describing how "the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other."

In the case of the "Collateral Murder" video, Manning discovered that Reuters had submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the video but US Central Command (CENTCOM) refused to "give a time frame for considering a FOIA request, while also claiming that "the video might no longer exist." That CENTCOM would not voluntarily release the video troubled Manning.

Manning was not alone in watching the video; he had viewed and discussed it with soldiers in the facility where he worked. "All the people who watched with him" knew something was wrong, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg pointed out in a recent interview, but "he was the one person, who investigated it and acted on what he saw."

Reflecting on his own experience, Ellsberg said, "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" who nevertheless "just did what they were told."

Ellsberg sees parallels between his own exposure of the Pentagon Papers and Manning's historic actions. Manning was "looking at documentation of wrongful behavior" and became convinced there would be "no resistance" to it "unless someone exposed it."

Jesselyn Radack, a former Justice Department employee who blew the whistle on the inhumane treatment of "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, sees Manning's "deliberative thought process" regarding the release of this information as characteristic of "a lot of whistleblowers," as she told me in a recent interview. While many have suggested that Manning disclosed too much information, and that he might be more of a whistleblower had he only released the "Collateral Murder" video, Radack says that, in her experience, someone can be prosecuted for unauthorized disclosures regardless of the volume of information disclosed.

The popular perception of Manning has been that he is a "leaker," because he circumvented what are considered more proper channels to get his information out into the world, but Radack says most whistleblowers are not aware of the proper channels they are to go through until after they blow the whistle. She has represented multiple whistleblowers who went to the inspector general of the wrong agency or went to an agency that did not afford them protection because they were national security or intelligence agency employees.

Manning is not a leaker. He is a whistleblower who disobeyed military codes and US law governing the handling of classified information. He has pled guilty and accepted responsibility for his acts of civil disobedience. But the Obama administration has an interest in casting him as a leaker, having prosecuted a record number of other "leakers" and also fought to keep an increasing amount of information it claims is sensitive to "national security" secret. It has failed to address the problem of over-classification while at the same time clamping down on the free flow of information between government employees and members of the press.

If the Manning case is seen as part of a larger trend toward reestablishing—and even expanding—the ability to protect state secrecy, it becomes clear that his prosecution is not simply about a soldier acting on decisions he did not have the authority to make. It is about whether Americans are going to allow the government to persecute an individual because he or she had the courage and audacity to reveal corruption that government officials wished to keep hidden out of sight. Manning wished to warn Americans of the unseen consequences of a dangerous foreign policy. Ten years after the invasion of Iraq, it is clear that he was right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning