PFC Bradley Manning, An American Patriot:

[Better Believe It]

December 22, 2010

Why Manning was Within His Rights to Give Secrets to Wikileaks
PFC Bradley Manning, Patriot
By SHERWOOD ROSS

Under ordinary circumstances, the release of information labeled "secret" violates U.S. law, as intelligence specialist Manning undoubtedly knew. But if the U.S. is an aggressor state, as Germany was when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, doesn't that change everything? America under President George W. Bush attacked two small nations that posed no threat to it. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan told BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was "illegal." He said it contravened the UN Charter as the attack lacked Security Council approval. MIT Professor Noam Chomsky in his book "Imperial Ambitions," (Metropolitan), called the U.S. invasion of Iraq as "open an act of aggression as there has been in modern history, a major war crime."

By ratifying the UN Charter the U.S. agreed to refrain "from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." And international law authority Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois, Champaign, called the invasion of Afghanistan "an illegal armed aggression that has created a humanitarian catastrophe" for its 22 millions. (Destroying World Order, Clarity Press.)

And as these invasions are criminal, why shouldn't pertinent information about them not be brought to light? Whenever has it been wrong to expose a criminal enterprise? Public-spirited citizens go to the police and FBI every day to report crimes. "Under international law," says Boyle, professor of that subject, "citizens have a basic human right to resist the commission of international crimes by their own government, especially aggression..."

And this is what PFC Manning did. He resisted aggression by informing Americans of how their government breaks laws. The Associated Press reports Manning told an associate, "I want people to see the truth...because without information you cannot make informed decisions as a public." America's Founders believed that, too, and made a free press a cornerstone of the new nation. Ann Medlock, Founder of the Giraffe Heroes Project, says, "In a perfect world, institutions would listen to their staffers when they point out errors, lapses of ethics, and outright chicanery within the organization. Then those holding power would correct those flaws. But...that hasn't been the reality. Again and again authorities just blast away at the truthsayers rather than addressing the problems."

Read the full article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/ross12222010.html

The writer didn't cover in his article another vital fact in defense of Pfc. Manning releasing government documents, and that is the improper classification of government documents. Most government classifications have absolutely nothing to do with protecting the United States from terrorists or other real "enemies" determined to do us harm.

The government routinely classifies millions of documents every year, not because they reveal vital secrets that threaten our security if they are published, but because those documents frequently expose illegal government activities, lies and gross incompetence. These big government "national security secrets" must not see the light of day, so they remain hidden from the people under the false claim of "national security" .... The economic and political security of government officials that is.

And many of these "highly sensitive" documents are being rubber stamped "secret" or "confidential" in clear violation of the Freedom of Information Act!

So Pfc. Manning has done absolutely nothing that in any way threatens you or me.

The idea that he has somehow hurt us and that he is engaged in espionage or some other terrible criminal activity damaging to this nation and its general population is total bull shit.

All progressives should understand that by now!

Pfc.Manning is an American patriot.

He's not a spy.

He's not a terrorist.

He's not trying to overthrow the government violently nor in any other way for that matter.

He's just a courageous American whistle blower, a soldier trying to get out the truth about government policies to the people.

And for that the government will try to punish him for the rest of his life, as a warning to other potential whistle blowers.

If anything, Manning deserves a Presidential Medal of Freedom for especially meritorious contribution to the national interests of the people of the United States, not solitary confinement!

BBI

[Robb]

1. "I know what's best for foreign policy and national security and I'm going to act on that."

-- Aldrich Ames.

[WinkyDink]

6. Working/spying for the enemy is not what Manning has done/is doing.

[SidDithers]

12. +1...nt

Sid

[SidDithers]

13. wrong spot

Sid

[TBF]

2. I agree - tried to rec this fwiw. nt

[muffin1]

3. K&R n/t

[MineralMan]

4. Since when does a PFC decide what classified documents

are wrongly classified? Patriot? No, I don't think so.

[WinkyDink]

7. When they are evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors?

[jberryhill]

11. So if your mailman thinks you are engaged in crime

...he/she can release all of your correspondence to the public, even ones not relating to the crime.

[Luminous Animal]

20. You confuse the individuals' Constitutional right to privacy with exposing government secrecy

which has no Constitutional protections.

[jberryhill]

26. True, but what I was driving at is...

...that many of the cables have utterly nothing to do with the US engaging in any crime or criminal activity whatsoever.

Why did the release include so many cables like that?

But, to be clear, government officials get mail too, so every mail carrier would be okay if they disclosed the mail that was delivered among government officials, yes?

[MineralMan]

16. And do you suppose that PFC Manning read all those documents

to make sure they were what you describe? I don't think so. Sorry, but that won't wash.

[jmowreader]

72. Since when does a PFC decide that?

[kctim]

5. Fact vs. opinion

"the release of information labeled "secret" violates U.S" is fact.

All the rest is opinion.

Nope. Not a patriot, not a hero.

[WinkyDink]

8. Lt. Calley thanks you in retrospect.

[Ignis]

73. !

:spray:

[Bragi]

9. Why do you oppose exposing lies?

The Wikileaks cables show us the government has been lying about lots of important things that matter.

Why do you think that exposing lies is a bad thing?

[kctim]

18. He intentionally violated the US and US law

Don't like that law? Work within proper channels to get it changed.
Don't like how things are classified? Work within proper channels to get it changed.
Don't like the things your government has entrusted you to see? Work within proper channels to get them noticed.

He could have followed protocol but chose not to. What he did was wreckless and, IMO, done with ill intentions.
He deserves to be, and should be, prosecuted to the fullest extent.

[Bragi]

25. That's pretty sad

So people who are aware of illegal or unethical activities inside government should "work within proper channels." Right. Since I saw no sarcasm smilie after your post, I assume you are serious.

So would you have put Daniel Ellsberg in jail for leaking the Pentagon papers (all of which were Top Secret, incidentally).

I ask only because I am astonished at how so many Americans now support government secrecy, compared to back when the Pentagon papers were released.

The fear/security meme has clearly triumphed. I doubt that, today, one could get majority support anywhere in America for First Amendment free speech rights if they were not already in the constitution.

Pretty sad. If thing continue in the direction they seem to be heading, it seems possible that the 2/3 needed to repeal First Amendment rights may soon be realistically attainable, which is something the corporate fascists have dreamed of for years.

[kctim]

33. What is truly sad

is how some people believe their personal opinions should trump the rule of law. What good are laws if we use emotions to determine when and to whom it applies?

You do realize that manning would probably be in less trouble and have alot more support if he had only stolen information concerning he had first hand knowledge of and given it to an official of the US, instead of stealing every secret he could and giving it to a foreign entity?

And spare us the fear/security and loss of 1st Amendment rhetoric. Rules about yelling Fire in a crowded theater or against giving sensitive information concerning national security away, do NOT mean the 1st has been or is going to be, repealed.
Besides, the fear/security meme triumphed long ago when people allowed their fear to dictate that government could take away the 2nd Amendment rights of all, in the name of false security.

[Bragi]

39. Oh yes, the old "yelling fire in a theatre" canard

You are allowed to yell "fire" when you think there may be a fire and people are at risk. Similarly, people can and should leak secret government information when they know it
is just a cover for lies that are harming people and the nation.

e.g. -- We now know from the cables released by Wikileaks that the U.S government is fully aware that the war in Afghanistan is being lost, and that the regime being propped up by the war is irrevocably corrupt. Now that these truths are in the open, perhaps the administration will be forced to abandon this harmful war earlier than otherwise. The laudatory result of this totally justified exercise of First amendment rights will be lives saved and harm reduction.

- B

[kctim]

52. It is not a canard

There are consequences if you do it, just like there are if you steal and give national secrets away. The fact that there are consequences for such actions does not mean repeal of the 1st Amendment is right around the corner.

What we now know, or what we will know, does NOT negate the FACT that manning willfully broke the law when he stole and gave away information classified as 'Secret.' He knowingly committed a crime and should be prosecuted. IMO as a vet, to the fullest extent.

[Bragi]

53. I think you're wrong

So there you go.

[kctim]

60. Well that settles it then

You're opinions are right and the FACTS are wrong.

:eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Because lying is legal, and releasing state secrets is not.

It would be utterly impossible to conduct a foreign policy without telling lies, and in many cases the government is entirely right to do so; even when it isn't, it's within its rights to do so.

The most striking example I've seen of why Manning was wrong is that Morgan Tsvangirai, the prime minister of Zimbabwe, is now facing prosecution for treason after it's been revealed that he was urging the US to keep sanctions in place.

[NHHome]

10. I am a USAF Vet. , and My son is a currently serving

US Marine. PFC Manning knew the UCMJ, and took classified material out of the building without authorization. That alone is punishable under the UCMJ, but then he went further by giving classified material to a foreign entity(Wikileaks) with intent for it to be published. That is defined under the UCMJ as Treason.

These are the facts, and to the best of my knowledge they are not in dispute. What Is in dispute is whether or not this was something he should or should not have done, and this seems to fall in line with our political views.

As a Vet, I prefer to adhere to the UCMJ in matters like this, He committed Treason, by his own admission I might add. he should be Court- Martialled for that.

Who knows maybe in the future history will treat him kindly, maybe not, but for now, what he did was violative of the law.

Julian Assange however could not commit treason because he is not American, nor can he reasonably be held for Espionage unless it is proven that he either, helped, or solicited the theft of those documents. he acted as a journalist.

[Better Believe It]

17. Do you also think that Daniel Elsberg should have been shot for treason?

And how has the publication of government documents harmed you, me or the nation?

Over 50 million government documents were classified in 2009.

Do you really think all of those documents had something to do with protecting us from terrorists or others who threaten our security and life?

If you really want to find some people who really threaten us and are rewarded by the government for their misdeeds I suggest you check out Wall Street.

[Sheepshank]

43. As far s I'm aware, that is not a legal standard for anything.

So you point is pretty moot.

I imagine that there is a lot of classified mateiral leaked (especially during war) that could have cause injury harm, loss of life or property, but hadn't been acted on for one reason or another. Then you say it's ok?

The potential harm matters.

[Bragi]

50. Manning's leaks may save lives

Since the stuff that Manning allegedly leaked shows that governments have been lying about the rationale and prospects for the Bush/Obama wars, the Wikileaks revelations may end up forcing the government to end the war sooner than they would like to. This will save lives and reduce potential harm to Americans and other human beings.

[Sheepshank]

63. may, if, possibly, could...

conjecture? That's it?

Not buying it.

[Sheepshank]

44. +100 (if there was only a way to do this)

You do realize that the Manning=hero crowd don't like to hear this type of stuff, right?

Thanks for you little voice of reason in a field of poppies.

[SidDithers]

14. I got to unrec this post the first time you posted it, back on Dec 26...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=71753

Now I get to unrec it again.


Sid

[JTFrog]

35. Sid +1, OP -1. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

42. LOL

:rofl:

re-unrec!

[seabeyond]

15. if he saw a crime and gather specific info. but what he did was punk theft. nt

[hayu_lol]

19. He violated both the UCMJ ...

and the oath he signed when he received his clearance to work with this material. He was not an analyst, just a clerk. Analysts dealing with secret materials are generally officers with maybe an occasional high-ranking NCO.

He can contemplate the error of his ways at Leavenworth for many years if this turns out as it should.

He is NOT a civilian. Neither is he a patriot.

[Better Believe It]

22. So what? PFC Manning is a wonderful role model for young people who really care about this country

What about the oath government officials and military leaders take to defend the Constitution?

They violate that oath everyday.

Including right now in Afghanistan and Iraq!

How many are being prosecuted and sent to prison?

Answer.

None.

Just some private who wants the American people, that's us, to know the truth about government policies that are conducted in our name.

[Bragi]

27. ++ Well said /nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Quite rightly, none of them are being sent to prison, because they're not breaking the law!

Breaking an oath is not criminal.

The constitution is not law. Taking government actions that violate it is not a criminal act. The enforcement of the constitution consists of laws that violate it being overturned, not the people who pass those laws being punished legally.

This is a damn good thing - the constitution is phrased far, far too vaguely to function as law; in most cases what does and doesn't violate it is a matter of opinion and interpretation.

The only sensible punishment for passing unconstitutional laws is loss of elected office, and then only if large numbers of people agree that you were wrong to do so.





Incidentally, it's absolutely vital that the American people *don't* know everything about the government policies conducted in their name, only the generalities. Otherwise foreign policy would be completely impossible. The Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai, is currently risking prosecution for treason for urging the US to keep sanctions in place.

[Better Believe It]

40. "the constitution is phrased far, far too vaguely to function as law" Since when?

The Constitution is the "Supreme law of the land". BBI

When, in accordance with the Constitution, did Congress declare war against Iraq or Afghanistan?

And I suppose the Bill of Rights should have little standing under the rule of law because it's so "vague".

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, and Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government. (Note that the word "shall" is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

Text“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. The consitution is a framework for other laws, not law enforceable in its own right.

The constitution is not and never has been law that can be enforced against individuals.

For one thing, it contains no mention of the penalties for violating it, for another it - including the bill of rights - is far too vague, and for a third that was never what it was intended to be.

The constitution is meta-law. Laws restrict the actions of people, and have penalties attached for breaking them. THe constitution places restrictions on what the laws can and cannot be. It doesn't say "if a person does this, do that to them", it says "the laws must be this and that and cannot be the other".

The constitution does not work by penalising individuals who pass laws that contradict it, it works by invalidating those laws (you perfectly well could have a law making passing unconstitutional laws a criminal offence for individuals, but America doesn't, and it would be a very bad idea).


If you don't see why the bill of rights is far too vague to function as law, compare and contrast the thousands upon thousands of pages of laws specifying all the various categories of abduction, assault, murder, trespassing etc, the sentencing guidelines for each, the lists of what are and aren't mitigating circumstances, the powers of the police to do things others can't, and so on, with the one-sentence Fourth Ammendment. You *could* say to judges "go forth and imprison anyone who you deem to have violated another person's security in their person or house for as long as you see fit", but if you did so what you would have would be tyranny by those entrusted with that power, not the rule of law.

[Better Believe It]

66. The Constitution is and has always been the supreme law of the land.

For example, laws may not be made violating the Bill of Rights amendments of the Constitution.

And laws can be and are passed that dictate the enforcement of those provisions and to help ensure the rule of law.

If a President, Vice-President, federal judges and other government official violates their oath to uphold the Constitution they can be impeached.

And the courts can fine, imprison and apply other sanctions against government officials who defy court orders to comply with the Constitution.

That has happened during the course of civil liberty law suits challenging government violations of the Bill of Rights.

[seabeyond]

23. i agree with you. my point. if he knew of a specific crime and became a whistleblower

that would be one thing.

what he did was merely being a punk, committing a crime, a criminal.

[kgnu_fan]

21. Some questions have been raised about authenticity of Lamo's chat log

Wired has not revealed 75% of log, its authenticity has been questioned, Lamo's record has increasingly become contradicting. I wonder what Glenn Greenwald is finding out now....

[treestar]

29. If I were his defense lawyer, I wouldn't use that argument.

Very lame.

[Catherina]

30. Rec'd. Free Manning now and put the war criminals in solitary. n/t

[VeryConfused]

31. This article doesn't make any sense

In fact it's suggestion that the US is like Nazi Germany is very Godwin like

[Better Believe It]

32. "I am a US Air Force Intelligence Veteran of the War in Afghanistan and I support Wikileaks."

Check this post out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x118068

[PBS Poll-435]

34. You should put your title in quotes or ellipses.

[Better Believe It]

37. An oversight. Just did it. Thanks.

[JTFrog]

36. No, I doubt you are. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. No! He's a really skeery guy who threatens Amurka with...knowledge.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. He sure as hell threatens Zimbabwe.

Morgan Tsvangirai is now risking prosecution for treason, thanks to Manning.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. From Manning or the contents of the cables?

[SidDithers]

54. Does it make a difference?...

If Manning stole and released a cable knowing that it contained information that put someone else in danger, is he still a hero?

If Manning stole and released a cable not knowing what was in it, is he still a hero?

Sid

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Both.

Tsvangirai, with every reasonable expectation of confidentiallity, asked the US to maintain sanctions on Zimbabwe to keep up pressure on Mugabe; Mugabe was unsurprisingly incensed when he found out.

Saying "it wasn't Manning, it was the contents of the cables" is like saying "I didn't kill that man, your honour, it was the bullets that did it". Manning committed a serious crime by disclosing confidential information, and many innocent people are likely to suffer as a result of it. You may feel that it was the right thing to do even so, but even if you feel that the arguments in its favour outweigh those two arguments against you should at least acknoweldge that they are both the case.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. The question devolves into whether Tsvangirai broke Zimbabwe's laws, doesn't it?

Did he knowingly conspire with a foreign government to break the laws in Zimbabwe? If that's the case, should the United States have been part of that conspiracy?

Blaming Manning for the misdeeds, or very risky deeds, of our diplomats is merely avoiding the issue.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. You might want to read up on the recent state of the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

In very brief summary, Mugabe and the ZanuPF recently won a heavily-rigged election with massive violence and intimidation. After much international pressure, he was forced to go into coalition with Tsvangirai and the MDC, who would probably have won a free and fair election, but no-one on either side thinks that's more than a stop-gap. There was no functioning rule of law; it was a police state where the police were mostly about intimitating the opposition rather than enforcing any kind of rule of law.

Tsvangirai clearly was "conspiring" (although that's a loaded word) against the government of Zimbabwe; the US was quite right to be helping him. The "risky deed" was not in helping him but in not keeping the data carefully controlled enough to prevent Manning spreading it.

But "They should have kept better care of their property" is no defence against a charge of theft. Arguably the people who didn't stop him should share the blame for Manning's crime, but he's the person actually responsible for it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Was Tsvangirai and the diplomats aware that he was breaking the law?

You say that "the U.S. was quite right" in helping him. Then why are they trying to cover up their good deed? And, why shouldn't we the electorate be aware of the good deeds (does the good deeds done by our diplomats extend to Chile and Honduras to name just a few of the similar conspiracies concocted by our benevolent government)?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. I think you're being somewhat disingenuous.

Can you really not see why the US wouldn't want a dictator to know the details of their cooperation with his opponents?

[Luminous Animal]

69. Tsvangirai didn't break the law but he was being a shithead to his supporters.

Publicly stating that he advocated a cessation of the sanctions (which, by the way, are causing major suffering amongst the people - though U.S. PR states otherwise), and privately wheeling and dealing with the U.S. to continue them.

Zimbabweans, by the way, both expatriates and those who still suffer there, pretty much scoff at Mugabe's threats and view them as political posturing. Much like Democrats view the current crop of Republicans with their laundry list of "investigations" of corruption of the Obama admin.

The right-wing U.S. press and the right-wing blogs made a big hooplah over it for a day or two, though.

[Robb]

71. Sure. Mugabe's just like Boehner. Ask Patson Chipiro.

:eyes:

[Better Believe It]

57. And who is threatening Afghanistan? Manning didn't send U.S. troops to Afghanistan .

And he's not keeping them in harms way!

And Manning isn't sending Predator planes into Pakistan that are killing hundreds of civilians.

I wish you would demonstrate some genuine concern for the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan who are being victimized as a result of U.S. government policies.

And yet you focus on one person, Tsvangirai, who might risk prosecution and not the thousands who in fact are losing their lives and limbs.

I wouldn't be surprise if you think that Manning should be prosecuted for treason while at the same time you shed crocodile tears for Tsvangirai!

But, you tell me if you embrace a double standard.

I'm listening.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Irrelevant for many reasons.

Your argument boils down to "The US government was doing something I disagree with, therefor Manning was right".

"Should the US have troops in Afghanistan" is nothing to do with "Should Manning have illegally released a large number of confidential diplomatic communications". The only possible relevance is that by doing so he's almost certainly made the situation in Afghanistan worse by making people more reluctant to the US.

Hundreds of millions of people are losing lives and limbs, including in Afghanistan, for reasons that have nothing to do with Manning. His treason won't help any of them, and it will make things worse for many.


I do indeed think that Manning should be prosecuted for treason, and that Tsvangirai should not. Both of them clearly committed treason under a technical legal reading, but Manning did so against a legitimate government whereas Tsvangirai did so against an illegitimate one. In the same way, I'd applaud treason against the government of Burma but condemn it against the government of Australia. That's not a double standard, it's a very simple single one.

[Better Believe It]

61. Don't tell me what my "argument boils down to". I'll tell you, if you don't mind.

If you're going to try anyone for treason against the people of the United States shouldn't it be directed against those who are responsible for the needless deaths and injuries to tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers, those who have been sent to overseas in engage in wars based on a mountain of lies and deception?

How about starting with Cheney and George W. Bush?

They betrayed this nation, its Constitution and the people, not PFC Manning.

Private Manning is a real American hero standing up for truth, justice and the Constitution.

If it turns out the Manning is in fact responsible for the released of these documents he's should be hailed as an American hero.

A ticket tape parade down any main street in American would be in order.

And Bush/Cheney should face long prison terms for their treason. Their invasions have resulted in the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands civilians.

So I'm not going to buy into that character assassination campaign by right-wingers who call for Manning's head.

You certainly have read what Glenn Beck and other enemies of the people have said or writen about Manning.

I hope you reconsider your position and decide to reject the McCarthyite like attacks on PFC Manning and his progressive supporters.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

68. Treason is a legal, not a moral, category.

Whatever they were, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq most certainly were not treason (there's a possible case to be made that the outing of Valery Plame was, but, again, that's nothing whatsoever to do with Manning). The disclosure of confidential diplomatic communications, however, is treason, and should be prosecuted as such.

Manning may have been standing up for truth and justice - that's an opinion. But he most certainly wasn't standing up for the Constitution - that he broke the law is a fact.

Incidentally, you're simply wrong about my ever having read anything Glenn Beck has written. My condemnation of Manning based on the fact he broke the law and my belief by doing so he caused a great deal of harm to many of America's allies, supported by the evidence that in the case of Zimbabwe he has already done so. Your support for him appears to be based on some confused idea that the rightness of what Manning did is in some way connected to Bush, Cheney, the rightness of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and other issues, which I don't think it is.

By all means impugn my judgement - as I most certainly impugn yours - but leave off casting aspersions on my motives unless you have some evidence to do, which you don't.

[Luminous Animal]

70. Manning hasn't been charged with treason.

[Luminous Animal]

64. Chances are slim that it will happen. Mere political posturing.

But, if Tsvangirai is indeed, a democratic reformer, perhaps he should take this as a lesson.... don't lie to your constituents.

[PBS Poll-435]

41. Why did this thread not get the usual WikiHumping?

[GSLevel9]

45. or an American traitor... one or the other. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. There's nothing contradictory about being both.

It's entirely possible both to be motivated by the ideology of patriotism and to be a traitor to your country; if you believe that your country's government is bad it's even sometimes logically and ethically consistent to be both.

[GSLevel9]

47. good point. I'll buy that. nt

[Luminous Animal]

65. Kick for Bradley Manning, patriot.

[saras]

74. Nuremberg principles

Principle I states, "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment."

Hundreds of such crimes were exposed by the documents' release. So for every document released that provided evidence of such a crime, he should get off.

Principle II states, "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."

So even if the crimes were legal inside the US, for example due to Bush-era executive orders, they were still crimes.

Principle III states, "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
So even Obama being Obama doesn't get him off - they were still crimes.

Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
Even if the guilty parties were ordered to commit the crimes, they were still crimes.

Principle VI lists some of these crimes:
... Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
...Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

...murder, ill-treatment...of the civilian population of or in occupied territory;
...murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas
...killing of hostages
...plunder of public or private property,
...wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages
...or devastation not justified by military necessity.

...Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population
...persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime

The United States appears to be guilty of multiple instances of pretty much every count

Principle VII states, "Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."

Under Principle VII, if Manning had NOT helped release the documents, he would be committing war crimes under the Nuremberg Principles. He didn't have a choice in the matter.