What is wrong with the following sentence?
‘Bradley Manning will spend the next sixty years going mad in a tiny cell and his publisher Julian Assange will be let go free and never, ever prosecuted in any jurisdiction.’
What is wrong with it is it is logical nonsense. One white male, American, is to be tortured for the rest of his life and another white male, Australian, his partner, his partner in crime, is to be not even harassed.
What is also wrong with it, and even worse, is it is official Australian Labor Party policy.
Discuss.
Name:
Brad Manning is subject to the jurisdiction of the uniform code of military justice. In being granted his security clearance, he signed a non-disclosure document that warned of the consequences of unauthorised disclosure of information. He would have known the consequences of his actions. Hence no problems with those consequences being bourne out on him. He allegedly stole information that was the legal property of the U.S. Government and passed this on to a third party without authorisation. Governments do not appreciate this breach of trust. Governments have laws against this. Manning is about to face these laws. BTW – being locked in a cell is not torture – its funny how the definition of torture keeps being stretched and extended to include just about anything that is unpleasant. By overuse of terms that are supposed to be grave, it diminishes the impact of those terms when used in context.
BTW – I would be very careful with your words there. You are effectively stating that Assange has committed a crime or is a criminal associate.
Governments do not appreciate this breach of trust. Governments have laws against this.
Many Governments spend an enormous amount of money on technology and manpower to acquire this information from other Governments, usually foreign governments. A great number of books and films have been made about these efforts. In many of these films and books the protagonists that secure this information are made out to be great heroes.
Put the rape accusations to one side and what have you got. You have two guys, one an effeminate five foot nothing soldier who probably joined up for the uniform to stop being asked in every bar if he had proof of age to get served a beer. The other a guy a 6’2’’ pale rider, who travels the world with a back pack, a change of shirt, and a non-descript suit, a Clint Eastwood character with a back pack instead of a poncho. And what they have done is lobbed a huge cream pie or two in the face of the world, the serious face of “we know best”, removed a wooden brick from a Jenga edifice of hypocrisy and secrecy, double dealing and clay footed pomposity. Poked out a tongue, given the bird, bared their buttocks.
Now in a Fatty Arbuckle or Laurel and Hardy film or Blazing Saddles, there would be a second or two of rage a la James Finlayson, one eye closed and balled fists, before the pie fight would begin.
Two things.
The first is a name. Daniel Ellsberg. Check your facts because I think he was in a position to have been bound by sworn secrecy which he conscientiously abandoned in the public interest. There is a military doctrine of obedience to lawful orders and disobedience to the point of mutiny of unlawful orders established in the wake of the Nuremberg trials, and therefore called the Nuremberg defence to insubordination.
Second a word on associations. One can have an association even with a criminal that being not in connection with any criminal act is itself not criminal in nature. Being chopper Read’s biographer for example.
I’m really not quite sure where Bob was going with this but I do suspect that a very strong case ought be made that Manning released material pertaining to Military adventures that would be considered unlawful acts under UN auspices apart from the distorting affect of the US veto and the general tenor of American exceptionalism.