Amnesty International says Manning verdict reveals US government’s misplaced priorities
This article was originally published on the website of Amnesty International. 30 July 2013.
Despite the acquittal of Private Bradley Manning of the most serious “aiding the enemy” charge against him, today’s verdict reveals the US government’s misplaced priorities on national security, Amnesty International said after he was found guilty on a range of other charges.
“The government’s pursuit of the ‘aiding the enemy’ charge was a serious overreach of the law, not least because there was no credible evidence of Manning’s intent to harm the USA by releasing classified information to Wikileaks,” said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International.
“The government’s priorities are upside down. The US government has refused to investigate credible allegations of torture and other crimes under international law despite overwhelming evidence.
“Yet they decided to prosecute Manning who it seems was trying to do the right thing – reveal credible evidence of unlawful behaviour by the government. You investigate and prosecute those who destroy the credibility of the government by engaging in acts such as torture which are prohibited under the US Constitution and in international law.”
The hundreds of thousands of documents Manning released to Wikileaks included videos and dossiers that pointed to potential human rights violations – including breaches of international humanitarian law – by US troops abroad and the CIA closer to home.
The court found Manning guilty of a range of additional charges, including 10 lesser charges relating to misuse of classified information to which he had already pleaded guilty.
Any sentence imposed for the other charges must take into account information relating to Manning’s reasonable belief that he was exposing serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.
It undermines accountability when the US government is so selective about who it chooses to investigate and prosecute, Amnesty International said. This is particularly true when they seem intent on punishing those who reveal unlawful government behaviour and protecting those who actually engaged in or ordered such behaviour.
“Since the attacks of September 11, we have seen the US government use the issue of national security to defend a whole range of actions that are unlawful under international and domestic law,” said Brown.
“It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that Manning’s trial was about sending a message: the US government will come after you, no holds barred, if you’re thinking of revealing evidence of its unlawful behaviour.”
Thank you, Mr. Brown. Well spoken. The truth here hits the nail on the head clearly.
In my ethics class two years ago, I spoke about these things in a paper I wrote. We were to present both sides and make statements based on our analysis. I wrote how, though I didn’t think it would happen – and it hasn’t – regardless of any guilt on Brad’s part, what was done was done, and Barack Obama and his administration, as embarrassing as the leaks were, should humbly acknowledge the wrongs they have committed against Americans and the world at large. It would increase the respect of its people for their government. Anything short of that would simply elevate and accentuate their arrogance.
The right or wrong actions in any issue should not preclude doing the right thing from that point forward. Admitting the truth however is often the most difficult part. To facilitate that in the future I believe 1) there should be a better system of checks and balances in the government, and a way to encourage truthfulness might be to make others in government aware that it really does pay off in their relationships, and 2) to instill in them that the majority of Americans are really, when you get right down to it, just like Brad Manning! All they really want is to be able to trust their leaders, and they in turn need to have confidence in the American people to do so. But apart from good leadership, the people are at best, like sheep going astray. The ancient Hebrew Scriptures put it this way: “Righteousness EXALTS a nation, but sin (wrong doing) is a REPROACH to any people” (Proverbs 13:34).
it is a felony to attempt to use the classification system to hide a crime or protect the powerful from embarrassment. Such material remains unclassified even after being stamped.
Title 18 US Code contains the law. Executive order 13526 declares that crimes and embarrassing material CANNOT be classified:
Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be
maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
Also see
403 U.S. 713 (1971)
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 1873.
That sure sounds familiar. Come to think of it, someone who covers up war crimes could be considered a “domestic” enemy, right? Where have I heard that before?…
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…
The U.S. government must set free a man who has just told the truth. I am Bradley Manning
“I am Bradley Manning.”
How cool would it be to see thousands of people wearing t-shirts saying that?
The prosecution and sentencing judge are aiding the DOMESTIC ENEMIES who are covering up war crimes.
If this were not true, they would not be trying to crush him an adolescent attempt to be brave.
Can you think of ANY other situation, where the US government has attempted to crush a soldier for something he did as an adolescent? It’s just to look righteous.
Is anyone fooled by the coincidence of Manning’s trial–after waiting for how long?–is suddenly carried out at precisely the right time for American’s to blur impressions with Snowden’s exposure of the NSA PRISM problem? If encryption can be legally classified as MUNITIONS, so should the trial of one person in such a way as to defame another.
Who thinks for one second that the government would be able to get away with ANY of the UNDERHANDED and SNEAKY misdirection schemes it’s playing at if the public were as wise to tactics and strategies played out–not against the enemy, but the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
To give you an idea of what I mean, while I was considering re-enlisting and waiting to by interviewed by a PSYOPS commander, I had to wait for him to clear a news clip for a local TV reporter.
WE ARE BEING LIED TO BY PROFESSIONALS! If we do not think like professionals, there is no hope.