It's about time that the Forces of Reason had a spokesman of informed ferocity. Mr. Greenwald takes on the obvious insanity of trying to fit Julian Assange up in some American kangaroo court like Guanatanamo, given that nobody can think up any crimes he's committed (leaving aside the Swedish circus, irrelevant to the American case).
The other obvious fact is that it's not clear what Bradley Manning could be guilty of, even if he were to be the leaker of the Iraq and Afghanistan documents, the Iraq helicopter video, and all the cables. It ain't treason, according to to the American Constitution Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Note from the US Constitution Online:
"The authors were concerned about the definition of treason. They thought that it was used too broadly to define any dissenting opinions. Their new country would be much stricter about what treason was, and how one would be accused and convicted of it.
"Treason, then, is defined only as going to war against the USA, or aiding the enemies of the USA. To be convicted, the accused must confess to treason, or be accused by two direct witnesses of the treason.
"The authors were also concerned that the person convicted of treason be the only one to suffer for the treasonous acts. The Constitution explicitly states that there may be no "corruption of blood," or that the children and relatives of the traitor not be considered traitorous simply by relation; the "no forfeiture" clause basically means that once the traitor dies, "payment" for the crime ends."
Nor has Bradley Manning been charged with treason. It might be shown that he disobeyed an order of his President, but what if he did so to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"?
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
[emphasis added]
As I read it, not being an American, the oath is to the American Constitution, not to the President, the Armed Forces, or anybody else. If domestic enemies of the American Constitution turn out to exist in the Executive Branch (and how else can one interpret extrajudicial assassination, indefinite detention without trial, military trials outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution, invasion of a foreign country?), then Mr. Manning (or whoever was the leaker) was upholding his or her constitutional obligation.
Wilhelm Keitel was hung at Nuremberg because he failed to refuse an unlawful order.
Go, Glenn!
