This article argues that the prosecution of the whistleblower and alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning is an exercise in intimidation, not justice. By contrast, the leaks Manning allegedly engineered have generated enormous benefits: precisely the benefits Manning, if the allegations against him are true, sought to achieve. In sum, the documents Manning is alleged to have released revealed overwhelming deceit, corruption and illegality by the world’s most powerful political actors. And this is why he has been so harshly treated and punished.

This article argues that the trial of Bradley Manning poses a serious threat to all future whistleblowers. Particularly, the article attacks the charge of ‘aiding the enemy’ that has been levelled against Manning. It concludes by stating that even if one does not support Manning’s actions, they should nevertheless oppose his prosecution as it leaves whistleblowers without any protection.

This post by the Pentagon papers whistleblower criticizes the manner in which the trial of Bradley Manning was conducted- the trail transcripts were not made public and Manning was never given a chance to publicly explain his actions. The post also defends Manning actions of releasing all data without discrimination- the data he released was unclassified and ‘secret’ which are relatively low levels of security. Ellsberg also criticizes Manning being charged with the offense of ‘aiding the enemy’ as an excessive reaction by the State.

The article discusses the verdict in the Bradley Manning trial, which has led to two starkly contrasting portrayals of Manning. The two starkly contrasting portrayals of a single man – whistleblower versus traitor – set up an epic ideological and legal battle that goes to the heart of the issue of official leaks in the digital age. When hundreds of thousands of documents can be downloaded and transmitted to a website in a matter of minutes, what does the act of leaking now signify? And how should the system deal with it?

This article criticizes the attitude of the US Media in the coverage of the trial of Bradley Manning, who was found guilty of 20 charges related to his leaks of classified information to Wikileaks.

This article argues that in the Internet age the old protection of whistleblowers via traditional media is insufficient to shield them from excessive prosecution. Hence, the First Amendment protection must be extended to whistleblowers.

This article discusses the statement made by the Obama administration about how whistleblowers must use the formal channels of communication if they wish to be protected. The author argues that this statement is unfair as when formal channels are used, the whistleblowers are harassed, fired and prosecuted. Particularly, the article discusses the case of Gina Gray, a whistleblower in the Defence Department who had used such formal means of communication and suffered harsh consequences.

This article argues that the conviction of Bradley Manning under the 1917 Espionage Act, and the US Justice Department’s decision to file espionage charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden under the same act, are yet further examples of the Obama administration’s policy of using an iron fist against human rights and civil liberties activists.