General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Officers of the United States Government should be on trial -- not PFC Bradley Manning. [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But war crimes and deciding who did and did not commit them over the course of history is a difficult thing.
Was our invasion of Iraq a war crime in and of itself? If not, then you are right. But did we go into Iraq because Iraq had attacked us? Why did we go in? Motivation is an important factor in determining whether an invasion is or is not a war crime. Personally I think that Bush and Cheney should be tried by an international court to determine whether they committed a war crime.
So if the invasion of Iraq should be determined to be a war crime then maybe Manning was a hero.
If not, then maybe he was a criminal.
The crucial issue is whether he exposed war crimes or whether he gave away secrets that were legitimate and should have been respected. I am undecided, but if he had access to real secrets, then his superiors showed very poor judgment and should be sitting in the docket with Manning. I think Manning is either innocent because he answered a greater moral justice or he is guilty but only as guilty as some of his superiors who gave so many people access to documents and information they did not need to have. What I am saying is that if the documents really were vital secrets for our national security, they should have been better protected. Manning did not have the rank or responsibility to be entrusted with such a large amount of top secret information.
Manning published this information. But he was not paid for providing it to anyone.
Have you wondered how many of the other people who were so recklessly provided the information may have done things that were of greater strategic harm to the US than Manning? I have wondered about that.