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.
No comments:
Post a Comment