I've now given @DanielEllsberg ample time to moderate my reply to http://bit.ly/x8b8US.
As he and his son have not done so, I draw the sad but unsurprising conclusion that, at his age and with his history, Ellsberg is stuck in a moment he can't get out of. As such, this is now an open letter.
Original reply included below:
--
Adrián Lamo January 7, 2012 at 2:37 pm
"Your comment is awaiting moderation."
--
At the risk of invoking a cliché, “Whistleblower” — you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The term “whistleblower” has not once passed through Mr. Coombs, Esq.’s lips. This is not an accident, or some spectacular form of legal absent-mindedness.
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 states – in no uncertain terms; in fact, this language instantly follow the text naming the Act, in Section (2)(a):
>> (1) Federal employees who make disclosures described in section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code, serve the public interest by assisting in the elimination of fraud, waste, abuse, and unnecessary Government expenditures;
(2) protecting employees who disclose Government illegality, waste, and corruption is a major step toward a more effective civil service;<<
The act goes on to offer plenary options for disclosure, individuals and entities authorized for receipt of such disclosure, and a multitude of protections against adverse actions for those whistleblowers properly bringing such disclosures within the scope of the statute.
While recent attempts at amending this Act would have removed the umbrella of protection from intelligence agency and FBI employees, such measures failed to succeed in United States legislature.
By all accounts, Bradley Manning made no effort to familiarize himself with the Act, or to report his misgivings to individuals authorized to act upon them. Rather, his primary resort was to reveal classified material to foreign nationals with dubious intentions towards the United States.
You can call the man a whistleblower all you want, Dan. The fact is, he had the opportunity to be one, and he blew it – the opportunity, not the whistle, that is.
I empathize with your desire to support an idealistic young man who did a brash thing. At 22, I was facing federal prosecution and a maximum term of incarceration of 15 years for what I believed to be crimes of conscience. I also understood the need to own responsibility for acts I had committed, and plead guilty, because I was in fact guilty.
Manning's defense is a slap in the face of all those GLBTQQ servicemembers enjoying the recent repeal of DADT. The insinuations by his counsel, and by what we must assume is his tacit approval, that being gay in the Army is too much to bear without leaking classified material is reprehensible and repugnant to all the good men and women who fall under the GLBTQQ umbrella and serve faithfully in uniform.
You may wish to project your past onto some future protégé, but Manning's disclosures were not targetted, served no clear aim, and set back United States intelligence and diplomacy. It's time you accepted that this is not your reincarnation – just a young man who allowed himself to be led by others who now hide their guilt behind his perceived martyrdom.
Yours for a better tomorrow,
R. Adrián Lamo
