By Nikita Pandey
The verdict on the conviction of 25 year old US Intelligence Analyst Bradley Manning has been delivered. It has come with its share of drama and days of suspense. Of the most serious charge against him of aiding the enemy, Manning has been acquitted. To quote his defence lawyer, David Coomb, “We won the battle, now we need to go win the war. Its true, since he has been declared guilty on most of the other charges against him. As expected, there have been varied reactions to the news from both groups, for and against the leaks.
And while Pte Manning finds himself on the wrong side of the law, there are others who have either been rather lucky to have not been on US soil, hence been able to avoid arrests and subsequent trials or have had their trials been dubbed as mistrials (case in question, Daniel Ellsberg). The sentencing hearing is to begin next and that will give a final picture on this magnum opus of an event. Whether or not his actions have been criminal is a completely different story. To know exactly what I mean, one only needs to keep a tab on micro-blogging sites where supporters of either groups have been virtually vocal about their opinions. What I AM worried about is the kind of precedence the trial has created for another similar, yet slightly more sophisticated whistleblower Edward Snowden.
In a statement to his Russian counterpart, US attorney general, Eric Holder has given word that should Snowden return to the US, he will not face capital punishment. In his words, Torture is unlawful in the United States. Two highly inflammable incidents have happened pre and post this statement. In a special UN rapporteur investigation spread over 14 months, it has been found that the conditions that Manning was forced to inhabit over a period of 11 months, could amount to torture. Juan Mendez wrote in a letter in Dec 2010 to the US government, pointing out the treatment of an under trial Manning at the Marine Corps base at Quantico, Virginia. According to the report, Manning was subjected to solitary confinement in a 6x8ft cell for 23 hrs a day and sometimes stripped naked at night. “The special rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence,” Mendez writes. It is enough to say that the matter was somehow put on the lowest rung of importance and which subsequently fizzled out.
Now to the more bizarre turn of events. It has been formally announced by the Putin administration that Edward Snowden has been granted asylum by Russia. This comes after 39 days of Snowdens habitation of the transit area of the Sheremetyevo airport. The US governments reaction is obvious. Let us leave that aspect aside and instead look at the timing of the announcement. It comes soon after the Manning trial. It reconfirms Snowdens fears of torture and possible death penalty if he were to leave asylum and return.
Historically speaking, if it were another country bringing down its whip as harsh as the US is, the resultant international outcry would have been phenomenal; especially from the American government. Agreed, the situation is too brittle and sensitive and taking sides is neither difficult nor easy. What with the asylum and the choice of country, things are bound to get a little hot on the international political podium. On the outside, it is rather comical, this game of show and hide. Of course, the repercussions of the actions of all those involved are going to make a huge impact on future political relations. Until the next episode that unfolds in the twisted tale of remarkable revelations, it is safe to say that both Manning and Snowdens acts have had their desirous effects. How it affects the course of their lives further, remains to be seen.