A father
writing to his hero son (Marine Corps officer) with three tours in Iraq expresses his anger when he says,
“That a soldier who murdered 13 other soldiers on a Texas Army base, and who admitted
he did it, is having a show trial (court martial). I'm pretty sure UCMJ calls for his summary
execution....That another soldier (Manning) who revealed sensitive, classified
operational shit to the world won't be executed for treason, no matter how long
he is in the slammer. Better be Leavenworth. They make you break rocks with a
sledge hammer, every day. Till you die. I can live with that....That a govt
contractor who did the same is hiding in Russia. Russia!”
These
three strong, individual reactions from Hasan, Manning and Snowden remain in
the news. We could believe the reactions
resulted from U.S. government responses to the September
11, 2001
attack that took the form of deception at the United Nations, an invasion of Iraq in 2003, and an explosion of government-directed
intelligence-gathering capacity. For
many the news of these episodes of retribution or betrayal is disheartening and
disgraceful. For others, it represents
examples of the moral courage it takes to oppose overwhelming institutional force.
Conceivably,
governments can be plotted along an imaginary line from benevolence on one end
to malevolence on the other. Most
governments fall along that line with a majority, presumably, occupying a
middle ground. As governments creep away
from benevolence they can begin to display arrogance, which falls far short of
malevolence for sure but elicits nevertheless strong reaction from individuals
such as Thomas Paine, Daniel Ellsburg, Nelson Mandela and right now, Hasan,
Manning and Snowden. Some we regard as
patriots; some as traitors. Wise leaders
in governments pull back from arrogance.