 |
Sometimes the truth has to be fought for! (Foto: Kyozai)
|
Let's start with the central point: the question is not «Did Julian Assange have contact or even initiate contact with Bradley Manning?», «Did Julian Assange convince or even push Bradley Manning to leak data?» or «Did Julian Assange provide infrastructure to Manning in order to leak data?», no, the central question is: «Did Bradley Manning expose any crimes?». If alleged whistle-blower Manning exposed any crimes, especially those of public interest, all surrounding actions become legal by definition of whistle-blowing which in the US and Great Britain for example are well protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act or the False Claims Act and others…
TWO DEFINITIONS OF «CRIME»
There are two definitions of the word «crime» (actually there are three but for an easier understanding we leave out the religious definition). One is a legal definition. The other is a cultural definition.
Let’s examine those two definitions for a moment: a legal definition is a definition inscribed in the written law of a country, an institution or any legal entity. A cultural definition is what the cultural consent and common sense in a certain culture at a certain point of time dictates. In our days it's usually the cultural definition that takes precedence over the legal definition.
«There is a big difference between leaking state secrets and leaking state crimes.»
(Anoncro, Anonymous Hrvatska v/Twitter)
In world war two for example the gassing of millions of jews and minorities might have been a permissible, legal act by german law. The cultural consent and common sense of the world population at that time dictated however that it was a horrible crime however «legal» it might have been in the german jurisdiction. Hence those crimes were illegal and later prosecuted in the infamous Nuremberg Trials. Our example shows clearly that not all written legal law is always correct and ethical. Most often it is but not always.
Let’s examine those two definitions for a moment: a legal definition is a definition inscribed in the written law of a country, an institution or any legal entity. A cultural definition is what the cultural consent and common sense in a certain culture at a certain point of time dictates. In our days it's usually the cultural definition that takes precedence over the legal definition.
«There is a big difference between leaking state secrets and leaking state crimes.»
(Anoncro, Anonymous Hrvatska v/Twitter)
In world war two for example the gassing of millions of jews and minorities might have been a permissible, legal act by german law. The cultural consent and common sense of the world population at that time dictated however that it was a horrible crime however «legal» it might have been in the german jurisdiction. Hence those crimes were illegal and later prosecuted in the infamous Nuremberg Trials. Our example shows clearly that not all written legal law is always correct and ethical. Most often it is but not always.
WHISTLE-BLOWING: NOT NORM, NOT EGOISTIC, NOT TRIVIAL, NOT RISK-FREE
Valid whistle-blowing usually fulfills following four criteria: it has to be a controversial disclosure, the whistle-blowers motive should be altruistic, the exposure needs to have the character of an alarm call, the whistle-blower takes a considerably high risk of an economic (e.g. loss of job), private (e.g. loss of friends and or social life) or even safety (e.g. risk of detainment, prosecution or even bodily harm) nature.
Valid whistle-blowing usually fulfills following four criteria: it has to be a controversial disclosure, the whistle-blowers motive should be altruistic, the exposure needs to have the character of an alarm call, the whistle-blower takes a considerably high risk of an economic (e.g. loss of job), private (e.g. loss of friends and or social life) or even safety (e.g. risk of detainment, prosecution or even bodily harm) nature.
It is also important to consider each leak separately. Each leaking instance should be individually judged and acted upon.
BREAKING SECRETS VERSUS LEAKING CRIMES
In the case of purported leaker Bradley Manning we see that not only all of the whistle-blowing criteria are more than fulfilled but that this fact holds true for the whole number of his alleged leaks: the Collateral Murder Video, the Afghan War Logs, the Iraq War Logs as well as the 250’000 US Embassy Diplomatic Cables.
Much more irritating is that all four leaks reportedly coming from Private Bradley Manning show highly irresponsible handling of security information by the government as well as an incredible number of already committed crimes and human casualties vastly exceeding the possible crimes and casualties that could have ever been caused by the leaks themselves. Not one casualty, being the direct result of the alleged leaks, has been reported until the present day.
So… what about stopping to pretend and starting to honor the truth? This is the least we, the world and the United States of America in particular, owe to Bradley Manning but also to all the soldiers having risked and still risking their lives for the «right cause». We owe it especially to the thousands of people that have been wrongfully killed or harmed in any way on «the battlefield», we owe it to all people whose tax money is being spent on a very questionable part of the «war on terror» and we owe it to all people wanting to responsibly vote and take part in politics for their picture of the world would be far too partial without that leaked knowledge. And last but not least we owe it to ourselves to be able to choose wisely who should politically represent us, the people. Good information is critical to be able to take informed decisions and actions so that we can see our children grow up in the world we wish for them, a world that maybe – maybe – could be a little paradise.
In the case of purported leaker Bradley Manning we see that not only all of the whistle-blowing criteria are more than fulfilled but that this fact holds true for the whole number of his alleged leaks: the Collateral Murder Video, the Afghan War Logs, the Iraq War Logs as well as the 250’000 US Embassy Diplomatic Cables.
 |
| Supporters of Bradley Manning protest for better prison conditions. (Foto: AP/BDAPD) |
Much more irritating is that all four leaks reportedly coming from Private Bradley Manning show highly irresponsible handling of security information by the government as well as an incredible number of already committed crimes and human casualties vastly exceeding the possible crimes and casualties that could have ever been caused by the leaks themselves. Not one casualty, being the direct result of the alleged leaks, has been reported until the present day.
So… what about stopping to pretend and starting to honor the truth? This is the least we, the world and the United States of America in particular, owe to Bradley Manning but also to all the soldiers having risked and still risking their lives for the «right cause». We owe it especially to the thousands of people that have been wrongfully killed or harmed in any way on «the battlefield», we owe it to all people whose tax money is being spent on a very questionable part of the «war on terror» and we owe it to all people wanting to responsibly vote and take part in politics for their picture of the world would be far too partial without that leaked knowledge. And last but not least we owe it to ourselves to be able to choose wisely who should politically represent us, the people. Good information is critical to be able to take informed decisions and actions so that we can see our children grow up in the world we wish for them, a world that maybe – maybe – could be a little paradise.
If you like this essay, you might also like the following ones:
The death of our mainstream media The mentioned quotes in the beginning of this essay sadly illustrate the catastrophic shape of much of our old mainstream media. They prove what we suspected for a long time already: our old mainstream media are dead…
More restrictive weapon laws? (in
german with good english video material) Bullshit! Roosevelt hit it
with his – by now infamous – saying: We have nothing to fear but fear
itself. (Franklin D. Roosevelt)…
The danger of censoring child pornography! Child pornography is not always bad…
Prison Rape The story of prison rape is one of power, silence and underreporting…
Excellent post. I really like the way you clarify the problem, which is popularly mischaracterized as anything other than "Was Bradley Manning blowing the whistle on corrupt or criminal state behavior?" As this question has a dangerous answer, it seemingly can not even be asked in "serious" news media.
I'm sorry, you were doing so well with this article then you just wrapped up with the "Well, obviously Manning exposed warcrimes" argument but you present nothing to back up that claim. By your own definaition the killing of the Reuters reporters is not a crime as they weren't intentionally targeted. The reporters, the van, all of them were legally engaged. Is it tragic? Yes. Regrettable? Indeed. But a crime? Hardly.
I will agree with you though, the central issue is did he expose secrets, or crimes.
Instead of comparing the acts to the Nazi’s gassing of Jews why not actually analyze it for what it is, a tragic mistake. The collateral murder video is a snapshot in time and gives insight to the decision making process. While tragic it's unfortunate that people like you feel free to "monday morning quarterback" the Soldiers and their decisions. The men act as if they are carrying weapons, take up firing stances and behave in manners consistent with folks that have just carried out an attack. We have the luxury of watching the video on a large high resolution screen with captions and artificial zooms. The pilots saw a screen the size of an iPhone with the resolution of a CRT television.
I'm not saying the Soldiers in the video are completely without fault, but they were investigated fully and cleared of charges. The group had just attacked an Army patrol and then (unknown to the pilots) hid their weapons. By the time the helicopter caught up to the men they were going off the last known information. They weren't looking to kill, but they were prepared to.
I’d be interested if you did an actual unbiased review of the facts. While you tried to solve the problems with your logic, all you did was show your logic was flawed.
Wow, I really fat fingered definition.
I really think Bradley Manning did nothing wrong. He blew the whistle, as you say it.
These soldiers (the ones on the Reuters reporters video) maybe made a mistake when they first attacked the reporters, but the vehicle which approaches trying to help them is another thing. They fired their weapons from a helicopter to some people trying to help those injured. They do know they are not supposed to shoot Red Cross people, don't they?
Besides, even if Manning committed a crime, no one deserves torture as punishment. USA soldiers should stop killing people first and asking questions later. Then they wouldn't have to worry about whistleblowers.
For those that have commented above that the collateral murder is "regrettable" but a "crime hardly" shows a complete lack of understanding. The rules of engagement were not followed. Even if the first incident could be justified by some strange stretch of imagination the second incident of killing people trying to rescue an injured individual is not. Injuring two young children and living them for dead is criminal. The tone of the US soldiers' laughing and joking is absolutely disgusting.
See Ethan Mc Cord's speech on what happened that day from the link below - he was the soldier who saved the children:-
http://current.com/news/92659005_wikileaks-collateral-murder-u-s-soldier-ethan-mccord.htm
See what the Iraqi family say from the Reuter's journalist and the two children shot at that day - link below
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw_5tZqzwXg&feature=player_embedded
The original Collateral Murder link in full is below -
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dis9sxRfU-ik%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded
This is one incident only of what was leaked.
In regard of the Iraq War Logs -
No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq
No links to Al Qaeda
No links to 9/11 or European Terrorist Attacks
See the Analysis of the Iraq War Logs below from these links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU718vXkrwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QMQKcVCJxs&playnext=1&list=PLABC93876CB01DAFF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvsKc3BYRbw
You will note:-
66,000 Civillian Deaths which amounts to 2/3rd's of all death's in Iraq in the war. This is documented by America Soldiers
7 incident reports of Al Qaeda in the first year of war - this rose to over 8,000 incidences after the US/UK/Australian invasion.
Thousands of incidents of torture were reported by US Soldiers of Iraqi on Iraqi torture. A US government order in these logs Frago 242 told soldiers only to report and not to intervene - this is in direct opposition to International Law of which the US and its allies are a signatory.
Secret Prisions used by the CIA in Poland and Romania. Complicity of European Nations in illegal activity. See link below:-
http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.pdf
Outside of the leaked US documents. The UK now declassified documents also show clear misleading statements by the British Government - Note Blair's first assertion is WMD are "no more of a threat than 3 years prior" - Blair has wished for regime change but this was not on a legal footing internationally:
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/50751/Blair-to-Powell-17March2002-minute.pdf
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/50772/Powell-to-Blair-19July2002-minute.pdf
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/42691/fco-diptel-73of101727Z.pdf
The cables have shown:-
A directive signed off by Hilary Clinton authorizing spying on UN delegates. Again against international law.
Shannon Airport - Ireland - Neutral in the war being used to re-fuel planes. This is contary to parliamentary rulings and in complete objection to the citizens of Ireland.
Poland/Romania - allowing CIA facilities outside of International Law
CIA video's of interrogation being disposed of.
@anonymous You are absolutely right, I didn't back up my statement " this fact holds true for the whole number of his alleged leaks:" enough. This could enhance my writing a lot. I never said "Well, obviously Manning exposed warcrimes" though. That is your shortsighted argument. The comment before mine here (no.5) caught up on some of my missing argumentation.
You say: "By your own definaition the killing of the Reuters reporters is not a crime as they weren't intentionally targeted. The reporters, the van, all of them were legally engaged. Is it tragic? Yes. Regrettable? Indeed. But a crime? Hardly." I agree partly with what you say here. But even Assange says: It's not entirely the soldiers fault, as a soldier you get intentionally debased and that for a good reason! I agree also with what you said about the Reuters' group. But the targeting of the van is something else. Those were unarmed civilians trying to help a wounded. This is why they were saying to themselves: "Pick up a weapon, pick up a weapon [because this would give us legal reason to engage]"
But what about the broader picture: Reuters had the right to ask for that video under US law and they did several times and were refused over three years until it was leaked by Wikileaks. That's a scandal. Do we have the right to debase soldiers without helping them sufficiently to integrate back into their old lives (http://uleak.it/?397)? Why were the families of the injured children never adequately compensated? Why does the army not publish the rules of engagement by themselves? For what reason do journalists not dare to report about the apache incident even though they had enough material for over a year? What does that say about a country's policies and free speech?
Note: The link to "Nuremburg Trials" links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower#cite_note-18. Did you mean to link somewhere else?
For clarity sake, call me Vic.
I made the leap of argument because that's what was left. There was no path to take so I went where the map pointed is all. I agree you never said it, but if you tell me to go to the big home improvement store with the blue sign, I'm going to Lowes.
I agree that the Reuters requests should not have been ignored, that's definitely an issue that needs to be addressed regardless of the outcome of the case. But the reason more wasn't written about it is simply because the Soldiers weren't in the wrong. They followed the rules of engagement at the time. The van was shot cause for about 9 months anyone that gave aid to AIF (Anti Iraqi Forces) was considered hostile and could be engaged as well UNLESS they were marked by the Red Cross or Red Crescent. Keep in mind that by the rules of war protected buildings (Schools, Hospitals, & places of worship) can not be engaged unless they are used as staging grounds for attacks. In those instances they lose their protected status. However, every time a protected place was used, it wasn't attacked. Can you explain that restraint?
No one knew there kids in the van, except the driver of the van, untill after the ground units moved in. Yes, the pilots immediate response seems heartless, but later when they were debriefed they didn't recall saying any of that, and broke down when they were told there were kids that died. In a stressful situation it is common to detach your emotion from the situation. It's not just the military, it's everyone. Why do some people run into the burning building, work to save someone that's already dead, etc. It's just the way some folks are wired.
As you can no doubt tell I am a Soldier, but not your normal one. I returned almost a year ago but I was essentially living with the Iraqis in my area and working with them on a daily basis. They appreciate the work we've done and understand there are issues with getting the job finished. I know several of them that have lost homes and family members to US forces for a variety of reasons, including instances worse than what was in this video. They understand that we're not perfect, and see the greater work being done. I wish I could tell you that we're pillaging the countryside and we're all heartless goons, but I'm sorry...I can't.
Hi Vic,
As you have explained you are a soldier I would be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on the question below
Why did we invade Iraq?
As yet my government has never answered this. As a person who pays taxes and does not have an opt out option despite living in a democracy - its important to know when a government takes us to war the reasoning behind it. At the time of the invasion I had trusted what the government said.
I agree the pilots were debased and we do not have their thoughts. You say they broke down later on which I had not heard before - has this been reported or the investigation released to the public?
Ethan McCord had stated some of his platoon had joked that they would have shot the children rather than rescue them. He also stated like yourself this was not the worst incident he witnessed.
After seeing the analysis of the Iraq War from the US records - from the links posted above which give this - I find it incredibly hard to see the invasion helped. If anything problems escalated, sectarian violence increased, Al Qaeda swelled, torture by the Iraq police was rampant by 2008. It is understandable why we then would have to remain to calm the problem.
For the record - would also like to say Bradley Manning, Ethan McCord were soldiers too. We are not here to attack soldiers/pilots just to understand why such things are happening and why soldiers are not supported post war. Mc Cord had steel rods in his back after a bomb incident and suffered PTSD - the army said these were pre-existing conditions. Cannot understand when a soldier has finished service they are not afforded the help they need in civilian life. There are 100's of reports of soldiers suicides when they return.
Sorry for the delay. Wife had our second kid so it's been pretty wild around here.
Well, there are a few thoughts on why we invaded Iraq. Of course, WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) constantly gets mentioned, but it was authorized under the UN to enforce sanctions and Saddam's non-cooperation with weapon inspectors. That little detail get left out constantly. Much as in the US how people think that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves, when in fact it was state rights vs. federal powers.
Folks like to say that WMD was never found in Iraq, but I recall the wiki-leaks documents showing otherwise.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/
I personally know of another find as well.
Most of the Iraqis look at our invasion as a mixed bag. Yes, it was bad under Saddam, but at least they knew it would be bad. Now they have opportunity, but with opportunity comes risk. Interestingly enough, they believe we should have come in harder and knocked the insurgents on their ass from the start. Had we done that, and not disbanded the police or military, we could have already been gone.
It really makes me sick that guys who have served are getting screwed by the system. I'm helping a couple guys right now that are being pushed out and not taken care of. To me, it's not the fault of the system, it's fault of leaders not caring enough about people. Too many in the Army today have a "I got mine" attitude and don't give a crap about anyone else.
-Vic
all this talk, yer preachin to the chior, some of us are ready for action/ now who will strike first and truer, is the only question i care to hear answered. Stop drinkin your tap water , grow a pair, realise we were born for these times, flesh is not relevant, it is your undying conviction. Lets show these fkrs what real human guts looks like. You want him freed, We have to free him. that is all
Looks like I'm not allowed to post on here...
@Mgiuca: Thanx for the hint, the link should be corrected now. @Vic: Sorry bro, my mistake: The automatic spam filter held your comment back for moderation and I didn't realize it. I beg pardon, won't happen again. rlm
No problem....thought it was weird was all.
History will favor Bradley Manning over the war criminal Mr. George W. Bush
cheers,
macewan