Is Bradley Manning a traitor?

   Yesterday, a verdict finally came down in the trial of Pfc, Bradley Manning, who stood accused of releasing thousands of pages of classified documents to WikiLeaks, a Web site dedicated to exposing government secrets. Not surprisingly, Manning was acquitted of the most serious charge, aiding the enemy -- after all, it's impossible to get inside his head and know for certain what his intent was in leaking the documents -- but he still faces up to 136 years in prison on a host of other charges, including espionage and theft. The verdict, though not the potential sentence, seems fair to me. After all, it is indisputable that Manning did steal classified documents. He admitted as much himself. It's also indisputable that some of what he released did end up on a laptop used by former al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden.
   It's too early to tell what impact Manning's actions will ultimately have on our national security, yet many Americans have already branded Manning a traitor. Is Manning a traitor? Or is he, as some claim, a folk hero, a martyr who is paying the price for exposing government corruption? That's an interesting question for which there are no easy answers.
   On the one hand, we are a nation of laws, and it's clear, by his own admission, that Manning knowingly and willfully broke those laws. He knew the risk involved in taking and releasing those documents and he chose to do it anyway. In the vast majority of cases, the Espionage Act under which he was tried serves to protect sensitive government secrets from falling into the hands of those who wish to harm us.
   But Manning's case is anything but typical. He claimed that his motives were altruistic, that he was acting as a patriot in exposing wrongdoing by our government. If this is, in fact, the case -- and who's to say it's not, since we can't get inside his head and ever really know his motives -- is he still a traitor?
   Our history is replete with instances of well-meaning, patriotic Americans risking everything to expose government corruption. There's Edward Snowden, the so-called "NSA leaker," who earlier this year revealed that the government had programs in place to spy on average Americans and, in fact, had been doing so. In the 1970s, you had Daniel Ellsberg, who released classified documents, collectively known as "The Pentagon Papers" showing that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations knew early on that the Vietnam War was likely a lost cause, and that it would involve far greater casualties than they ever admitted publicly. Those papers also showed conclusively that President Lyndon Baines Johnson lied not only to Congress, but also to the American people. And now you have Bradley Manning. So is Manning a traitor? That depends on how you interpret his actions.
   If you take a strict "law and order" approach in viewing Manning's actions, then he is, without question a traitor who wrongly stole classified documents and released them without permission, But just as in most things in life, this is hardly a "black and white" issue. Manning claims he had altruistic motives for his actions, a claim bolstered by two now-famous video clips which show two different mistaken attacks on civilians by U.S. forces. Experts claim that Manning's actions helped lead to the "Arab Spring" uprisings in 2011, which, among other things, led to the overthrow of dictators Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, So if something good came out of Manning's actions, and since we can't disprove his claims of altruism as his motive, is Manning a traitor? The short answer, I think, is, "It depends."
   I think it is impossible to apply a uniform standard of justice to each and every espionage case. In most cases, where the mole is seeking only to enrich himself at the expense of our national security, then the harsh penalties prescribed under the Espionage Act are justified. In cases like Manning's, though, where undeniable good came from his actions, it's harder to judge. Should the government be able to hide the fact that it mistakenly attacked two different groups of civilians? Or does the public have a right to know? Snowden's disclosures exposed a government so riddled with paranoia that it was spying on its own citizens in the name of national security. It smacks a little too much of Communist Russia and other dictatorships throughout history for my taste, and should never happen in a free society. And Ellsberg? By releasing the Pentagon Papers, he helped bring an end to our ill-advised involvement in the Vietnam War and saved countless American lives. It's a conflict we should never have gotten involved with in the first place.
   In short, I don't think every case of "espionage" can be judged by the same uniform standard. While some, who are just in it for themselves and what they can get out of it, deserve the full wrath of the law thrown at them, I believe "whistleblowers" such as Ellsberg, Snowden, and yes, Manning, have a place, heck are even essential, in a free, democratic society. The material released by these men might make us uncomfortable. It might embarrass others. But having men and women who are brave enough to expose government lies and corruption is an important part of holding our leaders accountable. Is Bradley Manning a traitor? For my money, the answer is no. In fact, I admire his willingness to stand up and pull back the curtain, even just a little, on the clandestine goings on in our government. He stood on a principle, and now, it has likely cost him the rest of his life in prison. Far from being a traitor, he is someone to be admired, someone who had the courage of his convictions and was willing to pay the price for them. We should all have such strength of conviction. If we did, and were willing to go to the mat doing what was right, our country, if not the entire world, would be a better place.

Zimmerman travesty shows we have a long way still to go

   I was shocked and angered Saturday night by the "not guilty" verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman, who stood accused of killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin 18 months ago. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Zimmerman got away with murder. His claims of self-defense are laughable, at best. At the very least, he should have been convicted of manslaughter. As it stands now, an innocent 17-year-old is dead, and there's no justice for his family, who now has to watch his killer walk free. It's a tragedy. No, it's a travesty.
   For those few who hadn't been keeping up with the sensational case, George Zimmerman is a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain from Sanford, Fla. One night, in February 2012, he spotted Martin walking home from a snack run. He was dressed in a hoodie and walking through an exclusive gated community, where he happened to be staying,  so Zimmerman decided he was up to no good and started following him. This is where it gets hazy. After confronting Martin, Zimmerman says the teen attacked him, so he shot him to save his own life. However, there was some dispute during the trial over who could be heard screaming for help on the recording of the 911 call. Martin's family says it was Trayvon, while Zimmerman's family claims it was Zimmerman. Either way, in the end, Martin ended up dead. And now his admitted killer walks free.
   Some people would like to pretend that this case had nothing to do with race. According to this narrative, which was advanced by Zimmerman's defense team, he was simply "standing his ground," as allowed under Florida's ill-advised "Stand Your Ground" law. According to this narrative, Zimmerman was simply defending himself from a menacing black teen. That's hogwash. Here's the harsh truth. Trayvon Martin was killed for one reason and one reason only: He was a young black male walking through the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.
   Here's some more truth. Martin was an honor student with no prior criminal history. At the time of his murder, he was "armed" with nothing more menacing than a bag of Skittles and a can or Arizona watermelon iced tea. At no time during the five-week trial was there any evidence presented that Martin was a thug. Nor was there any evidence presented suggesting a motive for the supposed attack. So how does this qualify as self-defense? Answer: It doesn't. The truth is, Martin is dead because Zimmerman was afraid of him. He wrongly profiled Martin, assuming that because of the way he was dressed and where he was, he was "up to no good." He acted on that fear, and now an innocent young man is dead.
    Zimmerman's supporters like to say that because the jury found him innocent, he did nothing wrong. They like to say that because the jury said so, Martin's death wasn't murder, but self-defense. Those people are wrong, just as the jury was wrong in its verdict. Juries are fallible. They make mistakes, and in this case it appears they simply ignored the evidence in coming to the wrong conclusion.
    Under  our justice system, Zimmerman is a free man. Because of double jeopardy, he can't be retried on criminal charges, even if new evidence came to light that proved conclusively it was murder. So what happens now? Should we simply move on? Should we simply turn our attention to the next sensational trial to come down the pike? For our sake, I hope we don't. I hope we take the time to digest what has happened and try to learn something from the tragedy of Martin's untimely death.
   I hope this tragedy, once and for all, shatters the illusion that we are living in a "post-racial era." Have we made progress since the time of "Jim Crow?" Of course we have. We have made giant strides. Today, our schools are no longer "separate but equal." Public facilities are no longer segregated. Today, minorities are serving in every level of government. In 2008, our nation elected its first black president. That's something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. Today, blacks and other minorities have more opportunity to succeed than their parents and grandparents could have dreamed of. And yet, if we say that we have overcome racism, that it no longer exists and is no longer a problem, we are only fooling ourselves.
   The one thing that the Trayvon Martin case should make crystal clear is that, despite all the advances minorities have made in the last half century, racist attitudes still persist. I'm not talking about the overtly racist attitudes of years past, either -- the idea that minorities are inferior, even subhuman, for instance. I'm talking about the more subtle racist attitudes: The idea that all young black males are beer-guzzling, lazy, promiscuous ne'er-do-wells. The idea that young black males are inherently dangerous and we should lock our doors or keep our hands on our wallets when they walk by. Or, as in this case, the idea that a young black male in a hoodie is automatically a thug.
   How do we begin to change those attitudes? It has to begin at home with parents. Parents have to teach their children not to judge others based solely on race or appearance. Teach them instead to judge others based on their actions, and even then only after getting to know that person.
   Another way to change our racist attitudes -- and make no mistake, we all have biases -- is through exposure. In other words, we need to get out of our comfort zone and seek out friends from different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations and backgrounds. I know it's easier and more comfortable, even natural, to gravitate to those who look like us or who come from similar backgrounds. But if we only associate with those who look like us, who think like us, we will never understand why people in other groups think as they do. We will never understand why they do what they do. Our understanding will only be informed by what we're told by others. It's that kind of ignorance that breeds fear, and it's that type of fear that ultimately cost Trayvon Martin his life.