The Questions That Must Be Asked About Bradley Manning Case

July 31, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

 

From a reader:

In all the discussion about Bradley Manning why isn't anyone from the mainstream media or the government who are so busy instructing the people how to think about this case—how to understand the rule of law and Manning's legal and moral responsibility to honor his oath as a soldier—why aren't any of them posing the questions:

WHY IS IT ACTUALLY THE LAW THAT TO FAIL TO REPORT A WAR CRIME IS ITSELF A WAR CRIME? WHY ISN'T THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION ABOUT BRADLEY MANNING BEING FRAMED AROUND HIS REVEALING OF HORRIFIC AND BRUTAL WAR CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE US MILITARY, WHILE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS NOT PROSECUTED A SINGLE WAR CRIME OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, AND, IN FACT, HAS COMMITTED WAR CRIMES?*

 

* From an article by Marjorie Cohn; Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former President of the National Lawyers Guild. First published on Truthout.org:

The "Collateral Murder" video [released by Bradley Manning] depicts a US Apache attack helicopter killing 12 civilians and wounding two children on the ground in Baghdad in 2007. The helicopter then fired on and killed the people trying to rescue the wounded. Finally, a US tank drove over one of the bodies, cutting the man in half. These acts constitute three separate war crimes.

Manning fulfilled his legal duty to report war crimes. He complied with his legal duty to obey lawful orders but also his legal duty to disobey unlawful orders.

Section 499 of the Army Field Manual states, "Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." The law of war is contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions describes making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack as a grave breach. The firing on and killing of civilians shown in the "Collateral Murder" video violated this provision of Geneva.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires that the wounded be collected and cared for. Article 17 of the First Protocol states that the civilian population "shall be permitted, even on their own initiative, to collect and care for the wounded." That article also says, "No one shall be harmed . . . for such humanitarian acts." The firing on rescuers portrayed in the "Collateral Murder" video violates these provisions of Geneva.

Finally, Section 27-10 of the Army Field Manual states that "maltreatment of dead bodies" is a war crime. When the Army jeep drove over the dead body, it violated this provision.

Enshrined in the US Army Subject Schedule No. 27-1 is "the obligation to report all violations of the law of war." At his guilty plea hearing, Manning explained that he had gone to his chain of command and asked them to investigate the "Collateral Murder" video and other "war porn," but his superiors refused. "I was disturbed by the response to injured children," Manning stated. He was also bothered by the soldiers depicted in the video who "seemed to not value human life by referring to [their targets] as 'dead bastards.' "

The Uniform Code of Military Justice sets forth the duty of a service member to obey lawful orders. But that duty includes the concomitant duty to disobey unlawful orders. An order not to reveal classified information that contains evidence of war crimes would be an unlawful order. Manning had a legal duty to reveal the commission of war crimes. [back]

Send us your comments.

If you like this article, subscribe, donate to and sustain Revolution newspaper.