Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning

[georgephillip]

Chris Hedges is concerned with presiding judge Army Colonel Denise Lind's recent rulings that prevent the Army private first class from arguing "...he had a a moral and legal obligation under international law to make public the war crimes he uncovered..."

"Manning is unable to appeal to the Nuremberg principles, a set of guidelines created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations after World War II to determine what constitutes a war crime.

"The principles make political leaders, commanders and combatants responsible for war crimes, even if domestic or internal laws allow such actions.

"The Nuremberg principles are designed to protect those, like Manning, who expose these crimes.

"Orders do not, under the Nuremberg principles, offer an excuse for committing war crimes.

"And the Nuremberg laws would clearly condemn the pilots in the 'Collateral Murder' video and their commanders and exonerate Manning. But this is an argument we will not be allowed to hear in the Manning trial."

With War Crimes Argument Banned, Manning's Military Trial Is Judicial Lynching

 

[Billo_Really]

Chris Hedges is concerned with presiding judge Army Colonel Denise Lind's recent rulings that prevent the Army private first class from arguing "...he had a a moral and legal obligation under international law to make public the war crimes he uncovered..."

"Manning is unable to appeal to the Nuremberg principles, a set of guidelines created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations after World War II to determine what constitutes a war crime.

"The principles make political leaders, commanders and combatants responsible for war crimes, even if domestic or internal laws allow such actions.

"The Nuremberg principles are designed to protect those, like Manning, who expose these crimes.

"Orders do not, under the Nuremberg principles, offer an excuse for committing war crimes.

"And the Nuremberg laws would clearly condemn the pilots in the 'Collateral Murder' video and their commanders and exonerate Manning. But this is an argument we will not be allowed to hear in the Manning trial."

With War Crimes Argument Banned, Manning's Military Trial Is Judicial Lynching

What really sucks is that we co-wrote those "Principles" and now it makes us look like we're going back on our word.

This nation used to be the "beacon of democracy", but now we are the "beacon of hypocrisy!"

 

[Billo_Really]

Not only does the Nuremberg Principles require the reporting of war crimes, so does the Army Field Manual.

Section 499 of the Army Field Manual states, “Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.” The law of war is contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions describes making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack as a grave breach. The firing on and killing of civilians shown in the “Collateral Murder” video violated this provision of Geneva.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires that the wounded be collected and cared for. Article 17 of the First Protocol states that the civilian population “shall be permitted, even on their own initiative, to collect and care for the wounded.” That article also says, “No one shall be harmed . . . for such humanitarian acts.” The firing on rescuers portrayed in the “Collateral Murder” video violates these provisions of Geneva.

Finally, Section 27-10 of the Army Field Manual states that “maltreatment of dead bodies” is a war crime. When the Army jeep drove over the dead body, it violated this provision.

I love how all these so-called patriots only want to talk about the information leaks and yet say nary a word about the war crimes the were committed in their name.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not only does the Nuremberg Principles require the reporting of war crimes, so does the Army Field Manual.

Section 499 of the Army Field Manual states, “Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.” The law of war is contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions describes making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack as a grave breach. The firing on and killing of civilians shown in the “Collateral Murder” video violated this provision of Geneva.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires that the wounded be collected and cared for. Article 17 of the First Protocol states that the civilian population “shall be permitted, even on their own initiative, to collect and care for the wounded.” That article also says, “No one shall be harmed . . . for such humanitarian acts.” The firing on rescuers portrayed in the “Collateral Murder” video violates these provisions of Geneva.

Finally, Section 27-10 of the Army Field Manual states that “maltreatment of dead bodies” is a war crime. When the Army jeep drove over the dead body, it violated this provision.

I love how all these so-called patriots only want to talk about the information leaks and yet say nary a word about the war crimes the were committed in their name.

Very true. The reality here is that the government has claimed that he released far more than that and they should allow him to use the proper defense. If he released other information then they can charge him successfully with that.

It seems that we are simply dead set on keeping things from the American public though and the government is not going to allow him to have any wisp of a chance on trial if they can help it.

Personally, I find this shit abhorrent. I am tired of the secrete spy government that we now have. It needs to end.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not only does the Nuremberg Principles require the reporting of war crimes, so does the Army Field Manual.

Section 499 of the Army Field Manual states, “Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.” The law of war is contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions describes making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack as a grave breach. The firing on and killing of civilians shown in the “Collateral Murder” video violated this provision of Geneva.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires that the wounded be collected and cared for. Article 17 of the First Protocol states that the civilian population “shall be permitted, even on their own initiative, to collect and care for the wounded.” That article also says, “No one shall be harmed . . . for such humanitarian acts.” The firing on rescuers portrayed in the “Collateral Murder” video violates these provisions of Geneva.

Finally, Section 27-10 of the Army Field Manual states that “maltreatment of dead bodies” is a war crime. When the Army jeep drove over the dead body, it violated this provision.

I love how all these so-called patriots only want to talk about the information leaks and yet say nary a word about the war crimes the were committed in their name.

Very true. The reality here is that the government has claimed that he released far more than that and they should allow him to use the proper defense. If he released other information then they can charge him successfully with that.

It seems that we are simply dead set on keeping things from the American public though and the government is not going to allow him to have any wisp of a chance on trial if they can help it.

Personally, I find this shit abhorrent. I am tired of the secrete spy government that we now have. It needs to end.

You seem to be addressing two dissimilar issues.

The difference between Manning and Snowden is that the former revealed likely war crimes, such as the “Collateral Murder” incident, where the latter revealed classified information concerning surveillance programs that are both legal and Constitutional.

The US government is ‘spying’ on Americans at the behest of those very same Americans, as authorized by their elected representatives in Congress, and as administered by the courts in compliance with the Constitution.

The American people did not, however, authorize the alleged war crimes committed in their name by their government.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not only does the Nuremberg Principles require the reporting of war crimes, so does the Army Field Manual.

I love how all these so-called patriots only want to talk about the information leaks and yet say nary a word about the war crimes the were committed in their name.

Very true. The reality here is that the government has claimed that he released far more than that and they should allow him to use the proper defense. If he released other information then they can charge him successfully with that.

It seems that we are simply dead set on keeping things from the American public though and the government is not going to allow him to have any wisp of a chance on trial if they can help it.

Personally, I find this shit abhorrent. I am tired of the secrete spy government that we now have. It needs to end.

You seem to be addressing two dissimilar issues.

The difference between Manning and Snowden is that the former revealed likely war crimes, such as the “Collateral Murder” incident, where the latter revealed classified information concerning surveillance programs that are both legal and Constitutional.

The US government is ‘spying’ on Americans at the behest of those very same Americans, as authorized by their elected representatives in Congress, and as administered by the courts in compliance with the Constitution.

The American people did not, however, authorize the alleged war crimes committed in their name by their government.

?

I did not bring Snowden into this at all. The point was the secrecy; that has nothing to do with Snowden.

You seem to be reading into what I have said when I have not said it.

 

[georgephillip]

Chris Hedges is concerned with presiding judge Army Colonel Denise Lind's recent rulings that prevent the Army private first class from arguing "...he had a a moral and legal obligation under international law to make public the war crimes he uncovered..."

"Manning is unable to appeal to the Nuremberg principles, a set of guidelines created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations after World War II to determine what constitutes a war crime.

"The principles make political leaders, commanders and combatants responsible for war crimes, even if domestic or internal laws allow such actions.

"The Nuremberg principles are designed to protect those, like Manning, who expose these crimes.

"Orders do not, under the Nuremberg principles, offer an excuse for committing war crimes.

"And the Nuremberg laws would clearly condemn the pilots in the 'Collateral Murder' video and their commanders and exonerate Manning. But this is an argument we will not be allowed to hear in the Manning trial."

With War Crimes Argument Banned, Manning's Military Trial Is Judicial Lynching

What really sucks is that we co-wrote those "Principles" and now it makes us look like we're going back on our word.

This nation used to be the "beacon of democracy", but now we are the "beacon of hypocrisy!"

We've certainly practiced the "supreme evil" found in wars of aggression since signing those lofty statements in 1945; possibly Empire doesn't exist in the absence of hypocrisy?

"(Chief US prosecutor Robert H.) Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves 'have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it.

"'We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.'[68][69]"

Nuremberg Trials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

Not only does the Nuremberg Principles require the reporting of war crimes, so does the Army Field Manual.

I love how all these so-called patriots only want to talk about the information leaks and yet say nary a word about the war crimes the were committed in their name.

Very true. The reality here is that the government has claimed that he released far more than that and they should allow him to use the proper defense. If he released other information then they can charge him successfully with that.

It seems that we are simply dead set on keeping things from the American public though and the government is not going to allow him to have any wisp of a chance on trial if they can help it.

Personally, I find this shit abhorrent. I am tired of the secrete spy government that we now have. It needs to end.

You seem to be addressing two dissimilar issues.

The difference between Manning and Snowden is that the former revealed likely war crimes, such as the “Collateral Murder” incident, where the latter revealed classified information concerning surveillance programs that are both legal and Constitutional.

The US government is ‘spying’ on Americans at the behest of those very same Americans, as authorized by their elected representatives in Congress, and as administered by the courts in compliance with the Constitution.

The American people did not, however, authorize the alleged war crimes committed in their name by their government.

Bottom line is both broke solemn oaths to their country and both deserve scorn. They also deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

No matter what the motivation

 

[georgephillip]

Not only does the Nuremberg Principles require the reporting of war crimes, so does the Army Field Manual.

Section 499 of the Army Field Manual states, “Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.” The law of war is contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions describes making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack as a grave breach. The firing on and killing of civilians shown in the “Collateral Murder” video violated this provision of Geneva.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires that the wounded be collected and cared for. Article 17 of the First Protocol states that the civilian population “shall be permitted, even on their own initiative, to collect and care for the wounded.” That article also says, “No one shall be harmed . . . for such humanitarian acts.” The firing on rescuers portrayed in the “Collateral Murder” video violates these provisions of Geneva.

Finally, Section 27-10 of the Army Field Manual states that “maltreatment of dead bodies” is a war crime. When the Army jeep drove over the dead body, it violated this provision.

I love how all these so-called patriots only want to talk about the information leaks and yet say nary a word about the war crimes the were committed in their name.

Very true. The reality here is that the government has claimed that he released far more than that and they should allow him to use the proper defense. If he released other information then they can charge him successfully with that.

It seems that we are simply dead set on keeping things from the American public though and the government is not going to allow him to have any wisp of a chance on trial if they can help it.

Personally, I find this shit abhorrent. I am tired of the secrete spy government that we now have. It needs to end.

It will never end; unless millions of US voters realize they are wasting their votes by 'choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in 2014, eternal war and the secrecy that requires will only get worse.

There are already existing third party candidates appearing on many ballots around this country.
Should enough voters decide to FLUSH hundreds of Democrats AND Republicans from congress in a single news cycle, Change won't be hard to find.

 

[FA_Q2]

Very true. The reality here is that the government has claimed that he released far more than that and they should allow him to use the proper defense. If he released other information then they can charge him successfully with that.

It seems that we are simply dead set on keeping things from the American public though and the government is not going to allow him to have any wisp of a chance on trial if they can help it.

Personally, I find this shit abhorrent. I am tired of the secrete spy government that we now have. It needs to end.

You seem to be addressing two dissimilar issues.

The difference between Manning and Snowden is that the former revealed likely war crimes, such as the “Collateral Murder” incident, where the latter revealed classified information concerning surveillance programs that are both legal and Constitutional.

The US government is ‘spying’ on Americans at the behest of those very same Americans, as authorized by their elected representatives in Congress, and as administered by the courts in compliance with the Constitution.

The American people did not, however, authorize the alleged war crimes committed in their name by their government.

Bottom line is both broke solemn oaths to their country and both deserve scorn. They also deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

No matter what the motivation

How do the American people exercise oversight against its politicians and policies if the government itself operates in complete secrecy?

That is where we are going. I will not condemn everyone that believes the terrible things we do as a nation should be brought to the light and exposed for the American people to see.

 

[georgephillip]

Very true. The reality here is that the government has claimed that he released far more than that and they should allow him to use the proper defense. If he released other information then they can charge him successfully with that.

It seems that we are simply dead set on keeping things from the American public though and the government is not going to allow him to have any wisp of a chance on trial if they can help it.

Personally, I find this shit abhorrent. I am tired of the secrete spy government that we now have. It needs to end.

You seem to be addressing two dissimilar issues.

The difference between Manning and Snowden is that the former revealed likely war crimes, such as the “Collateral Murder” incident, where the latter revealed classified information concerning surveillance programs that are both legal and Constitutional.

The US government is ‘spying’ on Americans at the behest of those very same Americans, as authorized by their elected representatives in Congress, and as administered by the courts in compliance with the Constitution.

The American people did not, however, authorize the alleged war crimes committed in their name by their government.

Bottom line is both broke solemn oaths to their country and both deserve scorn. They also deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

No matter what the motivation

Manning's motives include revealing war crimes that he was obligated to report under international law, yet the government has banned his defense from presenting that evidence:

"The military trial of Bradley Manning is a judicial lynching. The government has effectively muzzled the defense team. The Army private first class is not permitted to argue that he had a moral and legal obligation under international law to make public the war crimes he uncovered. "

With War Crimes Argument Banned, Manning's Military Trial Is Judicial Lynching

 

[georgephillip]

"The moral order is inverted. The criminal class is in power. We are the prey. Manning, in a just society, would be a prosecution witness against war criminals. Those who committed these crimes should be facing prison. But we do not live in a just society."

With War Crimes Argument Banned, Manning's Military Trial Is Judicial Lynching

 

[daveman]

Manning's motives include revealing war crimes that he was obligated to report under international law, yet the government has banned his defense from presenting that evidence:

I keep asking, and no one answers:

Where does it say Manning was obligated to report to a stateless intelligence gathering and disseminating operation?

 

[sealadaigh]

Manning's motives include revealing war crimes that he was obligated to report under international law, yet the government has banned his defense from presenting that evidence:

I keep asking, and no one answers:

Where does it say Manning was obligated to report to a stateless intelligence gathering and disseminating operation?

i agree. it really isn't so much of a case of what he did as the way he did it.

also, his charges include a crimes other than the exposure of war crimes.

 

[daveman]

Manning's motives include revealing war crimes that he was obligated to report under international law, yet the government has banned his defense from presenting that evidence:

I keep asking, and no one answers:

Where does it say Manning was obligated to report to a stateless intelligence gathering and disseminating operation?

i agree. it really isn't so much of a case of what he did as the way he did it.

also, his charges include a crimes other than the exposure of war crimes.

Indeed. The material he released included the names of some Afghan nationals who worked with the US military.

The Taliban has those names, and has said they will hunt those people down.

Their blood is on Manning's hands.

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of those who claim he has some moral high ground here, huh?

 

[georgephillip]

Manning's motives include revealing war crimes that he was obligated to report under international law, yet the government has banned his defense from presenting that evidence:

I keep asking, and no one answers:

Where does it say Manning was obligated to report to a stateless intelligence gathering and disseminating operation?

Manning was obligated to reveal war crimes under Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Maybe Fox News wasn't interested in reporting what Manning was required to reveal?

 

[daveman]

Manning's motives include revealing war crimes that he was obligated to report under international law, yet the government has banned his defense from presenting that evidence:

I keep asking, and no one answers:

Where does it say Manning was obligated to report to a stateless intelligence gathering and disseminating operation?

Manning was obligated to reveal war crimes under Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Maybe Fox News wasn't interested in reporting what Manning was required to reveal?

Please link for me where it says he was obligated to reveal anything to Wikileaks.

 

[georgephillip]

I keep asking, and no one answers:

Where does it say Manning was obligated to report to a stateless intelligence gathering and disseminating operation?

i agree. it really isn't so much of a case of what he did as the way he did it.

also, his charges include a crimes other than the exposure of war crimes.

Indeed. The material he released included the names of some Afghan nationals who worked with the US military.

The Taliban has those names, and has said they will hunt those people down.

Their blood is on Manning's hands.

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of those who claim he has some moral high ground here, huh?

Are you saying the US invasion of Afghanistan was a moral response to the murders of nearly three thousand innocent Americans?

 

[georgephillip]

I keep asking, and no one answers:

Where does it say Manning was obligated to report to a stateless intelligence gathering and disseminating operation?

Manning was obligated to reveal war crimes under Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Maybe Fox News wasn't interested in reporting what Manning was required to reveal?

Please link for me where it says he was obligated to reveal anything to Wikileaks.

Direct your question to the Pentagon:

"'Enshrined in the US Army Subject Schedule No. 27-1 is 'the obligation to report all violations of the law of war.' At his guilty plea hearing, Manning explained that he had gone to his chain of command and asked them to investigate the 'Collateral Murder' video and other 'war porn,' but his superiors refused. 'I was disturbed by the response to injured children,' Manning stated. He was also bothered by the soldiers depicted in the video who 'seemed to not value human life by referring to [their targets] as "dead bastards.'"

Bradley Manning?s Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes | Global Research

 

[FA_Q2]

I keep asking, and no one answers:

Where does it say Manning was obligated to report to a stateless intelligence gathering and disseminating operation?

i agree. it really isn't so much of a case of what he did as the way he did it.

also, his charges include a crimes other than the exposure of war crimes.

Indeed. The material he released included the names of some Afghan nationals who worked with the US military.

The Taliban has those names, and has said they will hunt those people down.

Their blood is on Manning's hands.

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of those who claim he has some moral high ground here, huh?

And that is where the trial will, and should, nail him BUT limiting his defense options is wrong. His defense should not be limited so that a conviction is easier for the government.

He should also not be tried in a military court.