Bradley Manning and the Rule of Law

[Better Believe It]

Bradley Manning and the Rule of Law
By Kevin Zeese
Kevin Zeese is executive director of Voters for Peace is a member of the Steering Committee of the Bradley Manning Support Network and WikiLeaksIsDemocracy.org.
January 17, 2011

The case of Private Bradley Manning raises legal issues about his pre-trial detention, freedom of speech and the press, as well as proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Putting aside Manning's guilt or innocence, if Bradley Manning saw the Afghan and Iraq war diaries as well as the diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, what should he have done? And, what should be the proper response of government to their publication?

A high point in the application of the rule of law to war came in the Nuremberg trials, where leaders in Germany were held accountable for World War II atrocities. Justice Robert Jackson, who served as the chief prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials while on leave from the U.S. Supreme Court, said "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

One of the key outcomes of the Nuremberg trials was that people who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity will be held accountable even if they were following orders. This is known as Nuremberg Principle IV which 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." The Nuremberg principles were enshrined in a series of treaties.

How do the Nuremberg Principles and other laws of war apply to Bradley Manning?

For the answer read the full article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-zeese/bradley-manning-and-the-r_b_806749.html

[pnwmom]

1. Ellsberg had the chance to publish volumes of diplomatic cables

and he had the sense not to -- he only published the Pentagon papers, not the diplomatic documents he had access to. That's why Manning won't get my support. Leaking the war diaries is one thing -- interfering with efforts at peacemaking through diplomacy is another.

[Better Believe It]

2. Sure love the way that "peacemaking" is going in Afghanistan. I hope more documents are released.

I sure hope that WikiLeaks or other publishers will release more hidden documents that will help bring an end to the military adventure in Afghanistan and illegal government activities.

And what about Manning?

He is a role model for anyone who believes in and defends a free press and democratic society.

A genuine American hero.

[pnwmom]

3. I was specifically talking about diplomacy, not war-making.

He made diplomacy more difficult by releasing cables detailing our talks with the Chinese about North Korea, and with our allies about Iran. The cables also directly led to an ally in Zimbabwe, the Prime Minister there, being arrested and charged with treason -- because he was secretly working with us. This means Mugabe, a violent dictator who has been in office since 1998 and has vowed never to leave office, has only been strengthened.

I'm not going to applaud Manning for that. He's anything but a hero. He's just a flaky guy who wanted publicity -- and got it. He'll get life in prison and I won't feel sorry for him. If, however, he had ONLY released the war logs or the helicopter video, I'd be much more sympathetic.

[Mojeoux]

4. Do you have a link for the Zimbabwe story? nt

[hootinholler]

5. Do we know for a fact that Manning released the diplomatic cables?

I'm certainly not totally up on this, but AFAIK, he's only been accused of the apache footage.

Even if he did, it could well have been an all or nothing situation. We haven't seen nearly the whole of the cables. The press could well be sitting on something explosive.

-Hoot

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Yeah. This guy's a really dangerous fucking character:

>>>He wrestled with the question of what to do. According to the unverified chat logs with Lamo, Manning said that he hoped the publication of the documents and videos would spur "worldwide discussion, debates, and reform." He went on to say, "I want people to see the truth... regardless of who they are... because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public." The command structure would not listen, so Manning went beyond them to the people who are supposed to control the military in our democratic republic. He wanted Americans to know the truth.

In the chat logs, Lamo asked Manning why he did not sell the documents to a foreign power. Manning realized he could have made a lot of money doing so, but he did not take that path. He explained: "it belongs in the public domain - information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information... try and get some edge - if its out in the open... it should be a public good." These are not the words of a traitor, of someone out to hurt the United States, these are the words of someone trying to improve the United States, trying to get the country to live up to its highest ideals.>>>



I still want to know what the legal status of the people in the Collateral Murder video is. THAT's what this is about: who gave the orders, who pulled the trigger, who covered-up the crime by classifying the document and who obstructed justice by sitting on the evidence before Manning... who appears to be the only individual connected to this entire affair who isn't a complete moral and ethical retardate... came along.

[MilesColtrane]

7. If Manning only leaked what he thought was a war crime, he might have a case under Nurmberg IV, if..

the Apache helicopter attack was indeed a crime and not a horrible error in judgement.

But, he also leaked a quarter million classified diplomatic cables that even he wasn't sure met the standard of crimes.