After the class reading on Wikileaks, and after my Media Activism class on Tuesday, I learned more about a very touchy subject. The internet is powerful, it is the easiest way to spread any kind of media throughout the world, and pretty much anyone has access to it. But in class we learned about Bradley Manning and the controversial story of how he's suspected to have sent restricted files on US army based business to Wikileaks. In my opinion there are two aspects of this story that strike me. The power of the internet and how easy it is to spread information, and how sometimes freedom of speech truly is limited, especially in the media world.
Learning about Bradley Manning is where the controversy begins. As a homosexual in the army, he immediately doesn't fit in to the stereotypical "good American soldier." It's conclusive from the video we saw in class on Bradley Manning's story that he was unhappy in the army and was not treated well.
That's an important distinction on where the controversy lies. There's evidence to suggest that Bradley Manning would have intentions of getting back at the army, or doing something to put it down. Bradley sent loads of confidential documents to an internet hacker in a chatroom. Many of these documents ended up on Wikileaks, and revealed horrifying truths about the US army killing innocent citizens in Iraq.
Bradley Manning was sentenced to 9 months in prison and in fact very recently it was announced that his case will head back to court. But the real question still stands since the beginning and that is, does Bradley Manning have the right to spread such controversial information to the world? From an army perspective no he does not. As a member of the army it is clear that something like this is not allowed and Manning has every right to be punished significantly.
But there are other details that make this worth questioning. One, was Bradley Manning rightfully treated in his time at the army? Other army members that knew Manning claimed he was picked on more than everybody else, and evidently in this article, he was even harassed. My personal opinion is he was likely mistreated compared to other soldiers due to his sexual orientation and open flamboyance. It shouldn't have a separate impact on his punishment from the army, but it's possible that it does. Regardless if that's true or not it simply has to be included in the topic of conversation.
Bradley Manning broke several army rules by spreading this information. To me it's mind blowing how easy it was for him to accomplish this, but the real question is should it be right for him to be punished this way? In my opinion, if you're a member of the army the freedom of speech concept is diminished. As a soldier, you do what you're told and that's a well known fact. Speaking up as an individual is not encouraged, I don't think that can be questioned. So Bradley Manning posting something as confidential as this is interpretted as an absurdly bad thing to do as a member of the US Army. And as far as the laws that he broke, it's justifiable that he is punished.
But the details of those files are extremely heated, with clear documented evidence that US Army soldiers were killing innocent Iraqis. Lets face it, in any war innocent people are going to die, and that's an upsetting truth. But this information was especially disheartening, and it's something that nobody would ever see in mainstream media.
Was it wrong for Bradley Manning to do what he did? In my opinion from a member of the US Armies standpoint it is, but as a moral member of society it might not be. I think there's no way around his punishment due to the many laws he broke, but he certainly raised awareness to something that United States citizens otherwise would have never seen.
The internet is powerful, and this is an extroadinary controversy. It will be intersting to see how this unfolds...
No comments:
Post a Comment