Skip to main content

Bradley Manning and the Nuremberg Principles

Nuremberg Principle I

Principle I states, "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment."

Principle II

Principle II states, "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."

Principle III

Principle III states, "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."

Principle IV

Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".

Classifying the evidence of criminal actions does not make the actions untouchable

Reporting criminal actions done by others and providing evidence of those criminal actions, especially when the evidence of criminal actions have been covered up by "classifying" the evidence, is not illegal, but in fact, is a very brave response.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Terrorism" and other manipulations

From The Next Big Future, which I believe is Brian Wang's website/blog (I'm new at this stuff) , I find a piece entitled Terrorism is a subset of Murder http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/terrorism-is-subset-of-murder.html (asserting, if I get it right, that Terrorism is illegitimate by virtue of being criminal). One commenter, Gigi, responded: As I have already tried to say before, I consider any use of the word “terrorism” more or less pointless. In fact, reading much of the western media about “terrorism” there is almost nowhere any clear definition of the word “terrorism”, for the simple reason that for any kind of such definition many of the military actions taken by the West against unarmed civilians in, say, Iraq or Vietnam may well fall in this definition. Is this an action of terrorism? http://boingboing.net/2010/04/... Simply put it, if Hamas kills one Israeli civilian it is terrorism, if the US or Israel directly kill 10 or more Palestinian it is ...
2 comments
Read more

AW.C moderation back-up 5/16/2018

The Zionists, through their American fifth column, have bought and repurposed the US govt since 1948 (if not before). Congress is owned/subverted by AIPAC, with money from the hoodwinked US J*wish community, to serve Israeli interests ahead of American interests. And they own the State Dept -- and with it US foreign policy -- through more numerous and more abundantly-funded policy shops in DC. This "ownership" has been in effect through US administrations at least back to Truman, but you, addicted to Trump-hate, insist on making it about Trump. It is the opposition to Trump, the opposition by folks like you, in your refusal to help rebuild America, in your petulance and emotional self-indulgence, that drove Trump into the arms of the worst of America's domestic enemies. Trump's failure to drain the swamp falls squarely at the feet of those like you, who refused to support the President in his efforts to fix America. Have a peacef...
Post a Comment
Read more

The movement to free Julian Assange

In response to a similar comment by  ISHKABIBBLE   /   FEBRUARY 18, 2019 on Caitlin Johnstone's Website: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/02/18/watch-my-speech-on-assanges-persecution-for-whistle-blowing-wikileaks-the-future-of-democracy/#comment-9130 I am comprehensively in agreement with you. For the last two or three years, I have entertained the same idea. So let me now expand on your — and my — suggestion. First of all, this undertaking should be done completely out in the open. There should be no secrecy involved. It should be a mass, overt, worldwide effort, with invitations to assemble in London for the event sent out to all those who support Assange. There should be no question whatsoever that it is an in-your-face repudiation and challenge to the British “Establishment”/Deep State. The action would be nothing less than a “Declaration of Independence” issued by the people of the world against the craven and unlawful imprisonment of by the UK...
Post a Comment
Read more