Watch this video, and ask yourself this question. How does Manning square with Nuremberg? Click here.
---
"If Bradley Manning sees atrocities committed in the course
of a war crime, it's not just some choice he made. It's not just a moral obligation. Under international law, he actually had a legal obligation, and
certainly a defense, for doing what he did." — Paul Jay
“(A) state's responsibility is one thing. But those who are
technicians of the state, those who act on behalf of a government, of a
military, you know, of any bureaucracy have a conscience, and that conscience
is legally binding. You know, it's not just that they must follow God or their
moral compass or things, but there's a legal requirement that if the conscience
suggests that something is wrong, they have to act.”
— Vijay Prashad
“(W)hen Manning sees the video of the helicopter gunning down essentially unarmed people and then shooting this van that comes up
afterward to help these people, that's a war crime. More than that, it's a war
crime within a war where the whole war itself is a war crime because it's
illegal. And he has a legal obligation to do what he can to go against that.
And I wish that had been his defense, and it wasn't, but I wish they'd used
Nuremberg as his defense, because then it would have put the war on trial.”
— Paul Jay
“Many people saw that this was a great--let's just call it
mistake that had taken place. When questions were asked at the time about that
attack in New Baghdad, the United States government denied that anything was
wrong, and the United States government also said there is no video. In other
words, the government was lying and covering up what took people on the ground.”
— Vijay Prashad
|
Pages
▼
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete