6.08.2013

read matt taibbi on bradley manning court martial

While I'm not writing, I hope you will read this excellent article by Matt Taibbi on mainstream media coverage of the Bradley Manning court martial.

I cannot understand why good writers like Taibbi continue to refer to the "Bradley Manning trial". A trial is, in theory, an impartial hearing, where an unbiased judge and 12 ordinary citizens hear a full range of evidence from both prosecution and defense.

Bradley Manning, by contrast, is being tried by his accusers. The accusers are judge and jury, and they write the rule book.

What's more, the court martial procedures used by the United States military do not comply with accepted international standards of justice. This was proven in the cases of Chris Vassey and Jules Tindungan, US Iraq War resisters living in Canada.

Calling Bradley Manning's court martial a trial connotes justice, fairness, and due process, where none exist.

3 comments:

allan said...

For what it's worth, I left a comment on the RS story, making this point. I have no idea if he will see it. There is no email address for him at the RS site.

laura k said...

I tweeted him before I posted this.

>>@mtaibbi Thx 4 great #bradleymanning coverage, but why do u call it a trial? Gives impression of justice, due process, where none exists.

laura k said...

Glad you left the comment, too.