Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes

[MrScorpio]

15. There's proper procedure to report warcrimes, as well as a proper chain…

A proper chain to whom those crimes are supposed to be reported while in the performance of one's duties. There's few other flaws in this line of reasoning that will certainly exploited by the prosecution.

Such as the non-specific nature of the information that he released. Also, there's a false equivalence in comparing Manning to Daniel Ellsberg. The Pentagon Papers were meant to be historical documents compiled by Ellsberg research, information whose eventual purpose was to be made public… To be seen by Presidents, public officials, historians and even the general public.

After the government went out of it's way to hide that information, and the truth about the Vietnam War, Ellsberg (a civilian), was quite correct to leak his own specifically compiled information to the press.

Manning, on the other hand, did not compile the information he released, his role was only that of custodian. He had absolutely no way of knowing the complete extent of the information that he was responsible for securing. Also, that information was never meant to be made part of the public record without a thorough vetting and declassification process. Now whether or not that it would eventually become declassified is a moot point. Manning's transferral of that information to an unauthorized agent, Wikileaks, before the vetting process will certainly be problematic for his defense.

Also, as a military member, unlike Ellsberg, the civilian, he was bound by a certain set of rules that could not be applied to Ellsberg.

What Manning's defense needs to do is prove that his orders to secure and maintain the data under his custodianship were, in fact, illegal orders. That he also did everything within his power to report these crimes, as he perceived them, in both the proper manner and to the proper channels. Which would also call into question his qualifications as a valid witness. Was he there and observed the alleged war crimes in person? What were his qualifications to classify the information held on the information that he released AS war crimes? Also, his other actions and the persons that he's talked to are going be examined as well.

These are things that he most certainly will need to prove in his favor if he is going to win his defense.

All in all, Manning's acquittal will hinge upon his success or lack of success in either changing the definition of whistle-blowing to his favor, or validating that his actions were valid in violating the terms of his military duties as they stood, by proving that his actions did not damage the security of the US and most of all what were his intentions.

Did he do this out of expectations of personal gain? Did he release that information because of some personal vendetta that he held against the government?

These things are going to come out in his trial.

Will he be up to the task?