Manning Up

   A soldier saw a wrong, took action against it, and was willing to take the consequences.
   A civilian saw a wrong, took action against it, and was willing to take the consequences.
   Both Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden were right in taking action, but admittedly broke rules in doing so. Therefore, some punishment is in order (or not). But to charge them with espionage and to accuse them of treason is over the top, and there is a groundswell of support for them because they exposed wrongdoing on the part of the military and a government security agency.
   The military accused Pfc. Manning of "aiding and abetting the enemy,"  albeit indirectly, by leaking to the public media government documents and video exposing things that should not be done. In doing so, he leaked documents marked "secret." And he broke the rules by releasing "secret" documents. The problem here is twofold: One, the government's over-zealousness in marking almost everything it does as "secret." And two, military personnel were doing things they ought not do.
   Granted, Manning broke military rules and regulations. But the military broke moral, legal and very likely constitutional principles, and deserved to be exposed.
   It is an old axiom that, when confronted with an unjust law, that law should be challenged and changed.
   
   As for indirectly aiding and abetting the enemy, which was a core or the prosecution's case, deservedly thrown out by the judge, that's a major issue. What constitutes "indirectly aiding and abetting"? The prosecution claimed that in making the documents publicly available, the enemy could read them. But journalists who published the documents were not charged.
   Most important, the concept of "indirectly aiding and abetting the enemy" could be expanded to include nearly anything, including a weather forecast. Military strategists have long consulted weather forecasts when planning invasions, so by that measure, anyone from local radio and TV stations to the federal government's weather bureau could be charged with "indirectly aiding and abetting the enemy."
   The judge wisely threw that one out.
   As for the rest, Manning admitted he provided allegedly "secret" material to outsiders because the material documented wrongdoing. And Manning is taking the consequences of breaking the rules.

   Likewise Edward Snowden. One difference is that Snowden is a civilian, with more freedom of movement, so he was able to leave the country while the government ranted about his actions. However, there is now increasing support for Snowden, in that many influential people are questioning why the National Security Agency has been collecting so much data about the private activities of American citizens.
   So Manning is going to a military prison, and Snowden is a man without a country.
   Both are paying a big price for doing the right thing.