DOUBLE STANDARD: The Treatment of Manning and Bales

Manning: United States Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the leaks [allegedly supplied to Wikileaks by Manning] had placed the lives of American soldiers and Afghan informants in danger. Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee called for Manning's execution. The most serious charge against Manning is "aiding the enemy."

Bales: General John Allen, the top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, stated: "The deeply appalling incident [allegedly committed by Bales] in no way represents the values of coalition troops or the abiding respect we feel for the Afghan people, nor does it impugn or diminish the spirit of cooperation and partnership we have worked so hard to foster with the Afghan National Security Forces."

It should be noted that Allen made similar remarks when three unarmed civilians were killed by five soldiers. What consequences have resulted from the alleged actions by each of these soldiers? In the case of the leaked documents, the veil of deception concerning the war in Iraq has been partially lifted as it was for the Vietnam war in the release of the Pentagon Papers. To date, there has been no indication of deaths resulting from the revelations. The major fallout has been diplomatic and a military embarrassment to the Obama administration and that of governments in a number of foreign countries.

It becomes clear that the differences in treatment between Manning and Bales, neither of whom have gone to trial, are likely based on a desire in the case of Manning to protect the Obama administration from fact-based criticisms of its foreign policies and actions versus the desire to ascribe embarrassing actions by the military in the case of Bales to the time-worn rationale of "just another bad apple."

At this point, it is worth noting that, to the best of available knowledge, based on statements by Secretary Clinton and former Secretary Gates, among others, no significant damage has resulted from the WikiLeaks revelations in contrast to a number of retaliatory deaths of American soldiers and others which have been directly linked to the alleged actions by Bales.

The clear differences in how Bales and Manning have been treated by the military are magnified by retired Marine Corps Colonel Allen Millett's statement: "The military actually does a good job of protecting defendant's rights. I suspect it was simply a matter of not prejudicing either public opinion or anyone who might be involved in the case." Millett, a military historian at the University of New Orleans, made his statement in response to the Pentagon's attempt to "scrub" references on the Web to Bales' military duty before his name was released to the public some seven days after his arrest.

During his campaign in 2008, candidate Barack Obama said, "Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." Since his election, President Obama's administration has indicted more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. The WikiLeaks release of information, allegedly provided by Pvt. Manning, has created the transparency in government promised by President Obama where it did not exist before. In the words of Bradley Manning, "I want people to see the truth" because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public."

Both soldiers, Manning and Bales, have been subjected to extreme bias by their government. Manning has been tortured; Bales has been identified as the lone actor, despite what seems to be an absence of positive identification and eye witnesses who have told investigators that as many as 16 soldiers were involved in the massacre.

The "double standard" applied to these two soldiers does seem to have a shared theme: The government must be protected at all costs from embarrassment and transparency! It does not matter that individuals' lives, careers, families and associates are destroyed in fulfilling this mission. In the case of Manning, the strongest message is: Do not "blow the whistle" on your government, even when you become aware of the most egregious criminal activity by the government, because this is an example of the treatment you can expect. That chill is enough to freeze the Arctic Circle, let alone a private in the Army.

In Bales' case the message is also clear: The criminal activities engaged in by members of the military are simply those of a few "bad apples" and are not characteristic of the armed forces. However, the military has used this excuse far too often, e.g., Abu Ghraib, the urinating snipers, numerous instances of intentional killing of unarmed civilians -- men, women and children -- to explain away the systemic destruction of a moral sense within our armed forces.

That there are leaks by high government officials is not to be denied. However, it seems that these leaks, which do not appear to disturb Washington officialdom, are inevitably leaks -- often unfounded, misleading or simply lies -- which serve to support or advance the administration's foreign policy and practices. This, too, is a "double standard."

As I stated at the beginning of this piece, this is not about the guilt or innocence of either Private Manning or Sergeant Bales. Ultimately, their respective courts martial will make that determination. However, we, as citizens, have the responsibility to call out injustice when it occurs, to ensure to the best of our ability that all citizens are treated fairly and justly, and to hold our government and its officials accountable for the injustice visited upon human beings -- American citizens and all citizens of the world.