Bradley Manning's legal duty to expose war crimes

To prove Manning violated the Espionage Act, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had "reason to believe" the files could be used to harm the United States or aid a foreign power. When he pled guilty, Manning stated, "I believed if the public, particularly the American public, could see this, it could spark a debate on the military and our foreign policy in general as it applied to Iraq and Afghanistan." He added, "It might cause society to reconsider the need to engage in counterterrorism while ignoring the situation of the people we engaged with every day." These are hardly the words of a man who thought his actions could harm the United States or help a foreign power. To the contrary. Manning will be permitted to introduce evidence about his belief that certain documents would not cause harm to national security if publicly released. It was after Wikileaks published evidence of the commission of war crimes against the Iraqi people that Iraq refused to grant criminal and civil immunity to US troops if their stay in Iraq was prolonged, causing Obama to withdraw them from Iraq. This saved myriad American and Iraqi lives.

Making an example: cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment

Manning was 22 years old when he courageously committed the acts for which he stands criminally accused. For the first 11 months of his confinement, he was held in solitary confinement and subjected to humiliating forced nudity during inspection. In fact, Juan Mendez, UN special rapporteur on torture, characterized the treatment of Manning as cruel, inhuman and degrading. He said, "I conclude that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement (regardless of the name given to his regime by the prison authorities) constitutes, at a minimum, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the Convention against Torture. If the effects in regards to pain and suffering inflicted on Manning were more severe, they could constitute torture." Mendez could not conclusively say Manning's treatment amounted to torture because he was denied permission to visit Manning under acceptable circumstances. Mendez also concluded that, "Imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence."

Obama himself has also violated Manning's presumption of innocence, saying two years ago that Manning "broke the law." But although the Constitution requires the President to enforce the laws, Obama refuses to allow the officials and lawyers from the Bush administration who sanctioned and carried out a regime of torture - which constitutes a war crime under Geneva - to be held legally accountable. Apparently if Bradley Manning had committed war crimes, instead of exposing them, he would be a free man, instead of facing life in prison for his heroic deeds.