You can read 19 more articles this month
Listening to her conscience Private Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning, released US military and diplomatic reports to the public.
Manning’s 35-year sentence is longer by far than sentences handed out to other whistleblowers.
A “government secrecy specialist” told the New York Times that Manning’s sentence “reflects the gravity of the case and the government’s perception of the damage that was done.” She will be eligible for parole in eight years.
Comparing Manning’s sentence with sentences received by the Cuban Five prisoners, whistleblowers of another sort, is revealing.
Sentences and convictions are unjust on both sides. But in terms of years of incarceration, the Five seem to have caused more vexation to the US government even than Manning did.
What did prisoner Gerardo Hernandez do to receive two life terms plus 15 years? Why life sentences, reduced on appeal, for Ramon Labanino and Antonio Guerrero?
Prosecutors charged them with conspiracy to commit espionage, not with espionage.
They also charged Hernandez with conspiracy to commit murder in the shoot-down deaths of four Miami-based anti-Cuban group Brothers to the Rescue pilots on February 24 1996. Legal observers say he was blameless.
Arrested in 1998, the Cuban Five were in Florida to monitor and report on preparations for terror attacks against Cuba, and to warn of any US military attack.
They targeted private Cuban-US paramilitary groups, although Guerrero did watch movements of military aircraft at a Key West Naval Air Station, where he was employed.
US military and intelligence officials testified at their trial that the Five posed no threat to US national security interests.
Convicted on relatively minor charges, prisoner Rene Gonzalez was released in 2011. Fernando Gonzalez, similarly, will be freed early in 2014.
Manning’s case and that of the Cuban Five are poles apart in terms of damage done to US government policy interests.
Yet US rage, as measured by sentence length, landed hardest on those who did the least. Why was that?
The fact that right-wing Cuban emigres have a hold on US policymaking on Cuba and even over media coverage was one factor.
Maybe, deep down, anti-communism still holds sway, despite hoopla on anti-terrorism.
And Cuban social achievements, its espousal of Latin American unity and fight for national independence may have been unsettling enough for retribution, with the Cuban Five serving as proxies.
But importantly, the prosecution, trial, and sentencing of the Five took place in a void.
There was no sizeable popular movement at their side, nor any trace of sympathetic public opinion.
The fate of Hernandez and his comrades might as well have been decided on a distant planet.
At their trial in Miami the gloves were off. Vengeful, cruel instincts took over.
Studied neglect of Cuban realities set the stage.
In general, stories of people’s lives, hopes and struggles in countries under foreign domination get short shrift in the intruding nation.
US media coverage and public curiosity about daily life on the island shrank once Cuba charted an independent course and worldwide criticism of the US blockade mushroomed.
US dissidents’ habitual concentration on single issues contributed to neglect of Cuba.
A movement did mobilise, however, on behalf of Private Manning, one based largely on rejection of US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and admiration for Manning’s courage.
Jailers released Manning from eight months of solitary confinement following demonstrations.
The Cuban Five prisoners endured 17 months of pre-trial isolation.
While Manning’s judge could have issued a 90-year sentence, she settled on 35 years, harsh but less than the 60 years sought by prosecutors.
The prospect of organised outrage may have reined her in.
Had the cause of the Five been linked to a political movement, lawyers could have widened their audience.
Court proceedings can give voice to historical context and defendants’ purposes.
The trials of anti-apartheid activists in South Africa, for example, advanced political education.
Lawyers and supporters of the Five would have had a stage for highlighting contradictions between the much-vaunted US rule of law and what really happens.
Not least, equal justice under the law serves to unify disparate political tendencies.
The common thread by which agitation for the Five is tied to other issues would be anti-imperialism.
Their case has roots in soil giving rise to struggles for immigrant rights, racial justice, labour rights and against military interventions.
To establish such links is not easy, but the Cuban Five prisoners and their families have faced a mountain of suffering and there is little choice but to begin.
Right now, the job at hand is to pressure the US president to pardon the Cuban Five prisoners.
As noted recently by a New York Times editorialist, “President Obama’s use of the pardon power remains historically low.” So he needs to be pushed.
How else but through large numbers standing up and speaking out?
This article appeared in People’s World.
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by joining the 501 club.
Just £5 a month gives you the opportunity to win one of 17 prizes, from £25 to the £501 jackpot.
By becoming a 501 Club member you are helping the Morning Star cover its printing, distribution and staff costs — help keep our paper thriving by joining!
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by become a member of the People’s Printing Press Society.
The Morning Star is a readers’ co-operative, which means you can become an owner of the paper too by buying shares in the society.
Shares are £1 each — though unlike capitalist firms, each shareholder has an equal say. Money from shares contributes directly to keep our paper thriving.
Some union branches have taken out shares of over £500 and individuals over £100.
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by donating to the Fighting Fund.
The Morning Star is unique, as a lone socialist voice in a sea of corporate media. We offer a platform for those who would otherwise never be listened to, coverage of stories that would otherwise be buried.
The rich don’t like us, and they don’t advertise with us, so we rely on you, our readers and friends. With a regular donation to our monthly Fighting Fund, we can continue to thumb our noses at the fat cats and tell truth to power.
Donate today and make a regular contribution.