First, hello Mij...nice to see you.
I hope this is of interest to some.
Tons of articles have been written on the leading anti-war sites such as, Counterpunch
, Iraqi Veterans Against the War
, Veterans for Peace
, etc., etc., etc., and the common characteristic of the antiwar sites is that they are virtually all in support of Manning. We are not like all of the antiwar sites here at the zappaforum... just an observation.
With that said…Some comments on what was posted after my last post…
A soldier is sworn to first uphold the Constitution, he and any US citizen is supposedly guaranteed that the Constitution (including 6th Amendment), will be faithful to him.
This did not happen in the case of Manning. He is an embarrassment to the criminal elite. Our rulers have tortured Manning, and then denied his Constitutional right to a trial by a jury of his peers, (there was no reason for denying this).
The public has also been denied the right to witness the trial, possibly a reason there was no 6th Amendment for Bradley. No doubt Obama / the elite in power want embarrassing truths to be withheld from the general public. Damage control on the TV to shape the “general consensus.” [I believe this is also the reason bin Laden was killed after he was captured, rather than being brought up and tried on mass murder charges…better if America does not hear why bin Laden issued the fatwa. No, not defending him.]
Citizen Manning clearly exposed repeated, routine war crimes to his fellow citizens (you and me). I want to know when my government routinely covers up its crimes against humanity, done in the name of America. I am not afraid to know that, and I prefer it to force its way into the “news,” this forcing its way into the general consensus.
Similar to another time in which I lived which saw public dissent heightened by the leaking of the Pentagon Papers. The Anti-war community reacted similarly in support of those war crime leaks then as well.
It’s VERY interesting that Manning revealed war crimes, and the only one prosecuted was Manning...those who committed the crimes have been given a pass...not one of them prosecuted...and because that’s kept off the news, hardly anyone even notices.From "35 Years for Manning: 35 Cheers for US Hypocrisyhttp://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/22/ ... hypocrisy/
“The only person prosecuted for the crimes and abuses uncovered in the WikiLeaks’ releases is the person who exposed them. That alone proves the injustice of one more day in prison for Bradley Manning.”
- Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.
In 2010, Bradley Manning revealed more than 700,000 truth documents to the anti-secrecy website Wikileaks – the largest leak in US military history, and no one was harmed by it.
(baddy's note: even Vice President Biden admitted that although the information was embarrassing, he said, "I don't think there was any substantive damage."
... furthermore, as expected from elitists and their cheerleaders...Obama was lying about trumped up "damages," "Reuters reported that other officials were admitting in private that they were exaggerating the damage that resulted from the leaks in order to bolster the legal efforts against WikiLeaks and Manning."
Yet he has now been sentenced to 35 years in prison. For every document that Manning revealed, the US War on Terror has claimed at least one life. Yet no one in this country has been held accountable for it.
And getting to the crux of the biscuit…http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/02/ ... stitution/How the Manning Trial Betrayed the Constitution
The fundamental structural defenses against tyranny – the separation of powers and federalism – are collapsing, while the democratic liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights are eroding. These developments are the product of an elite political class consolidating the power necessary to impose the extreme economic inequality of a plutocratic tyranny in a time of a disintegrating civilization.
Those at the forefront of undermining the Constitution are acting in violation of their oaths as “executive and judicial officers … to support this Constitution.” Art, VI, cl 3. Bradley Manning, like every other member of the military subset of those officers, took this same oath to uphold the Constitution. He fulfilled that oath by disclosing war crimes. Those who have imprisoned and court-martialed him stand in violation of their constitutional oaths.
Ultimately, whether the Constitution will remain relevant as the United States continues its decline into a tyrannical plutocracy will depend upon whether the military will fulfill its oath to uphold the Constitution or will instead redefine its mission as the extra-constitutional guarantor of a new political order where might backed by money makes right.
The military under its civilian commander in chief denied Bradley Manning his constitutional right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment to try charges of whistle-blowing that took place off the battle-field, ... His interest as a citizen to share his knowledge with other citizens about the crimes being committed in their name was inherently civilian in nature, not military.This denial of Bradley Manning’s rights also deprived “we the people” of our constitutional rights to witness a “public trial” as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Attorney General Eric Holder tried to put a happy face on a former democracy seen by the world as slipping into a totalitarian tyranny when recently seeking, not to legally extradite Edward Snowden, but rather to have him “returned” from Moscow like a wayward piece of imperial baggage, like a “subject” of a despotic state rather than a citizen of a republic. Holder not only made the embarrassingly necessary formal promise not to kill or torture Snowden, but also stated the basic ground rules that Snowden would be tried in an Article III “civilian court … supervised by a United States District Judge” with “all the protections that United States law provides.” ...
There is no valid reason under the U.S. Constitution why Bradley Manning, whose conduct served the same patriotic goals as Edward Snowden, should not be entitled to the same constitutional rights that Eric Holder, with unearned innocence, holds out to Snowden as inducement for Russia to deny Snowden asylum. That Bradley Manning chose a career of service to his country in the armed forces, honored his oath to support the Constitution, but did not – or did not have the opportunity to – seek timely refuge in a country just beyond the reach of reliable imperial coercion constitutes no justification for denying Manning constitutionally guaranteed rights.
...in the leading case on the constitutional authority of Congress to permit the military to conduct constitution-free court-martials, Toth v Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 21-22 (1955), the Supreme Court held that “the constitutional grant of power to Congress to regulate the armed forces … itself does not empower Congress to deprive people of trials under Bill of Rights safeguards, and we are not willing to hold that power to circumvent those safeguards should be inferred through the Necessary and Proper Clause.” The Court goes on to explain: “There are dangers lurking in military trials which were sought to be avoided by the Bill of Rights and Article III of our Constitution. Free countries of the world have tried to restrict military tribunals to the narrowest jurisdiction deemed absolutely essential to maintaining discipline among troops in active servi
Bradley Manning’s court-martial betrays the military’s universal oath to support the Constitution. It ignores the Bill of Rights guarantee of a jury trial in cases...
By the express terms of the Constitution Bradley Manning is entitled to a full Sixth Amendment jury trial. The military is in violation of its oath to uphold the Constitution until it releases Bradley Manning to civilian authorities for purposes of providing him his constitutional right to a trial by a jury of his peers....
Under the Constitution it is the people, through the constitutional process of a civilian jury trial, not the military apparatus, who must be the judge of whether Manning’s selfless act of service to the people is deserving of punishment. So long as the military continues to hold Manning they are denying him the speedy and civilian trial that the Constitution requires.
In conclusion, another article, another thought: Obama failed to break the spirit of Bradley Manning...
An Open Letter to President Obama You Failed to Break the Spirit of Bradley Manninghttp://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/22/ ... y-manning/
As commander in chief, you’ve been responsible for the treatment of the most high-profile whistleblower in the history of the U.S. armed forces. Under your command, the United States military tried — and failed — to crush the spirit of Bradley Manning.
Your failure became evident after the sentencing on Wednesday, when a statement from Bradley Manning was read aloud to the world. The statement began:
“The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life. I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country.
Bradley Manning’s statement after sentencing on Wednesday said:
“It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.”
Public accountability is essential to democracy. We can’t have meaningful “consent of the governed” without informed consent. We can’t have moral responsibility without challenging official hypocrisies and atrocities.
After being sentenced to many years in prison, Manning conveyed to the American public an acute understanding of our present historic moment:
“In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.
“Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.”
Clearly, Mr. President, you have sought to make an example of Bradley Manning with categorical condemnation and harsh punishment. You seem not to grasp that he has indeed become an example — an inspiring example of stellar courage and idealism, which millions of Americans now want to emulate.
From the White House, we continue to get puffed-up sugar-coated versions of history, past and present. In sharp contrast, Bradley Manning offers profound insights in his post-sentencing statement:
“Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light. As the late Howard Zinn once said, ‘There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.’”
Notes in the margin…http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/23/ ... -happened/
We compete against a gigantic corporate owned tsunami of purposeful idiocy, by an army of high paid spokes idiots on all the airwaves. TV, in particular, is a brainwashing machine that would even make Joseph Goebbels blush.
The owners do not mind that it’s a world wide race to the bottom
regarding hours, wages and safety. There has been no time in America when the left had a seat at the table of power. The best years, for most people, were the mid 1960s to mid 1970s, anti-Vietnam War to No Nukes er
How can we, as people, and groups, like Move On, simply give Obama a free pass on abuses that we would be livid over had Bush Junior done them? Rightly so. They are the very same abuses. Often Obama has made them worse. We have a government now completely out of control.
And…Here also are some comments from The Ron Paul Channel