Bradley Manning - Theft or War Crimes?

Joe Quinn
Sott.net
Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:50 UTC

Message loud and clear: This man is dangerous - he is armed with a conscience

The Bradley Manning case is such a transparent attempt at intimidation to prevent others from exposing war crimes perpetrated by the US government that it could make even a lethargic baboon scream bloody murder.

There is no moral validity to the US military's claim or the courts judgment that Manning is guilty of 'espionage' and 'theft'. There is ample room for the specific laws that Manning broke to be interpreted by the judge in terms of the public interest. The public interest can also be cited as requiring laws that work against the public interest, such as those broken by Manning, to be repealed.

Manning was in possession of information that showed that the US government and military had committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, and even genocide against the Iraqi and Afghan people.

Manning's information included footage of a US military helicopter gunning down a father taking his children to school, evidence of a death squad operating in Afghanistan, and files showing that amongst the innocents being held at Guantánamo bay prison, who are regularly tortured, are dementia patients, taxi drivers and prisoners of the Taliban.

There are laws in place that made it impossible for Manning to bring this evidence and these charges to public attention without officially committing a crime. This in itself is a crime against truth, justice and liberty.

In the last ten years, the US government has passed many laws that are more than a little reminiscent of the laws usually passed by totalitarian governments. These laws have been passed in the name of 'national security' and as a result of a climate of fear under the threat of 'terrorism' and the government's alleged need to protect the American people.

Yet on a daily basis, the US government acts around the world in ways that logically can only INCREASE the threat of attacks (terrorist or otherwise) against America and Americans. Drone strikes, 'extraordinary rendition', invasion and occupation of other nations. These are terrorist acts against innocent people around the world that can plausibly produce responses in kind (although those have been few and far between), yet the US government maintains that it must continue to eviscerate civil liberties in America to protect against the terrorist threat that the US government itself is intentionally creating.

Since the definition of criminal law is 'a body of rules and statutes that defines conduct prohibited by the government because it threatens and harms public safety and welfare', what validity is there in laws passed by the government that make it impossible to prosecute the government for engaging in conduct that threatens and harms public safety because those laws prevent anyone from exposing the fact that the government is engaging in conduct that threatens public safety?

Obviously, those laws should be repealed. Until that happens, we can settle the Manning case by simply asking ourselves: which is the more serious offense: War crimes, or theft of information pertaining to those war crimes?

Joe Quinn

As an essayist and print author, Joe has been writing incisive editorials for Sott.net for over 10 years. His articles have appeared on many news sites and he has been interviewed numerous times by Sputnik News and Press TV. His articles can also be found on his personal blog JoeQuinn.net.

Reader Comments

Ruth · 2013-08-01T22:11:08Z

Can't help but make me wonder what type of 'message' the US is sending out.

For example, it's ok for a person to murder someone else based on racial profiling and in cold blood (Trayvon Martin case), but not ok if they are a whistle blower on matters of 'national security' about the crimes committed by a state.

It's not encouraging for the people living there.

nedlud · 2013-08-03T07:17:50Z

little caesar

In that picture, what's that 'little caeser' doing there with all those big guys?

He looks outnumbered.

ned

theodocius · 2013-08-03T18:01:18Z

War Crimes

"Since the definition of criminal law is 'a body of rules and statutes that defines conduct prohibited by the government because it threatens and harms public safety and welfare', what validity is there in laws passed by the government that make it impossible to prosecute the government for engaging in conduct that threatens and harms public safety because those laws prevent anyone from exposing the fact that the government is engaging in conduct that threatens public safety?

Obviously, those laws should be repealed."

Obviously. Absolutely.

" Until that happens, we can settle the Manning case by simply asking ourselves: which is the more serious offense: War crimes, or theft of information pertaining to those war crimes?"

OBVIOUSLY, WAR CRIMES CONSTITUTE A MORE SERIOUS OFFENSE.

Theft of information pertaining to those war crimes exposes the crimes and those that commit them for that which they really are,THE TRUE TERRORISTS, whose M.O. is to PROJECT their crimes onto the enslaved common folk in this huge lab experiment...

waitew · 2013-08-06T00:32:56Z

In the 18th century to serve in the British army you had to be at least 5'7" tall. Why? Because the muzzle loading Brown Bess Musket had a barrel length of over 40" & men shorter than that would have a difficult time reloading it quickly. How short is Bradley Manning? He looks like a midget in that photo.

biscuitboy87 · 2013-08-06T11:17:59Z

Obama to protect whistleblowers

"The folks from the Sunlight Foundation have noticed that the Change.gov website, which was set up by the Obama transition team after the election in 2008 has suddenly been scrubbed of all of its original content. They noted that the front page had pointed to the White House website for a while, but you could still access a variety of old material and agendas. They were wondering why the administration would suddenly pull all that interesting archival information... and hit upon a clue.

A little bit from the "ethics agenda":

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

Yeah. That statement seems a bit embarrassing at the very same time Obama's administration is threatening trade sanctions against anyone who grants asylum to Ed Snowden. Also... at the same time that we get to see how whistleblower Bradley Manning's "full access to courts and due process" will turn out. So far, it's been anything but reasonable, considering that the UN has already condemned Manning's treatment as "cruel and inhuman." And people wonder why Snowden left the country...

[Link]