10th July 2011 6:05
► link ♥ 20 notes
► reblogged from jonathan-cunningham (originally jonathan-cunningham)
Greenwald- "The Motives of Bradley Manning"

jonathan-cunningham:

The morality at play in the Manning persecution is mangled beyond belief.  It’s perfectly conventional wisdom that the war in Iraq was an act of profoundly unjust destruction, yet normal, psychologically healthy people are expected to passively accept that there should be no consequences for those responsible (a well-intentioned policy mistake), while one of the very few people to risk his life and liberty to stop it and similar acts is demonized as a mentally ill criminal.  Similarly, the numerous acts of corruption, deceit and criminality Manning allegedly exposed are ignored or even sanctioned, while the only punished criminal is — as usual — the one who courageously brought those acts to light.  Meanwhile, Americans love to cheer for the Arab Spring rebellions —look at those inspiring people standing up to their evil dictators and demanding freedom — yet the American government officials who propped up those dictators for decades and helped suppress those revolts, including the ones currently in power, are treated as dignified statesmen, while a person who actually exposed those tyrants and played at least some role in triggering those inspiring revolts (Manning) rots in a prison after enduring 10 months of deeply inhumane treatment.

If you expressed outrage at the documents that Manning leaked becoming public but stayed silent on what the documents revealed, you are officially part of the problem.

What is the point of bringing into the article the fact that the web-designer is gay and that Manning was struggling with his sexuality himself? This information is irrelevant to the issue. I don’t see, at any point, any one’s race or religion being pointed out. I mean, if we’re going to do with pointing out irrelevant characteristics, then go all out and go all out for everyone.