The Defense Department has announced that 22 year old US Army Private First Class Bradley Manning has had “charges preferred” alleging multiple counts of improperly handling classified information.  According to prior reports, Manning admitted in internet chat rooms that he distributed the helicopter gunship video dubbed “collateral murder” as well as thousands of other secret files.

In an apparent attempt to humanize Manning, the Associated Press noted his “outcast” status among his peers:

With his custom-made “humanist” dog tags and distrust of authority, Bradley Manning was no conventional soldier. 

Ostracized by peers in Baghdad, busted for assaulting a fellow soldier and disdainful of the military’s inattention to computer security, the 22-year-old intelligence analyst styled himself a “hactivist.”

His Facebook page shows him smiling, with stylish, upswept hair and a stated affinity for gay-rights groups including Repeal the Ban, which seeks to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals serving in the U.S. military.

In one of many personal asides, Manning told Lamo he had been the only nonreligious person in a town that had “more pews than people,” and that he had custom-made dogtags reading “humanist.”

While interesting, Manning’s belief system isn’t terribly relevant.  In many ways Manning seems to be little more than a boy who just wants love and attention.  He almost seemed to bring a level of teenage angst upon himself, perhaps even with a touch of martyrdom.  Regardless, the US military hands “boys” younger than he automatic weapons and the ability to use them; it also gives them access to, and the responsibility to protect, classified information.

Based on the internet chats attributed to Manning released to date, Manning didn’t even act out of nobility or moral righteousness; he did it out of vindictiveness and spite.  Like the site to which he allegedly provided the video, he isn’t a “whistleblower;” he published secrets just because he could.  If the charges prove true, he will have violated the trust of his country — worse, that of his peers — simply because he wanted to feel some significance.  Finally, it appears he wil have fallen on his sword, in a manner of speaking, over a video that contributed nothing to public discourse.  While some have called it “unflattering,” both the military and public sources continue to defend the military’s actions.  (In fact, the WikiLeaks admission there were “likely” weapons in the group undermined their cause.)

The unauthorized release of classified information is against the law.  It also raises a tangible risk of endangering American lives.  There are those who will argue that it may still be the moral “right” (as those associated with the Pentagon Papers would attest), and they may have a valid point.  In this case, however, it appears to have been little more than an attempt by someone to attach meaning to their life, at the expense of the US military.