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.