Rupert_Baehr Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 People can have crises of conscience. If you worked for an organisation that you believed was acting in a criminal or immoral way would you stand back and do nothing because you'd "signed a contract" or would you try to expose the wrongdoing? Manning didn't 'sign a contract'- he swore an oath. A bit of a difference. Had he genuinely felt that what he (or the army or the government) was doing was immoral or criminal, then he could have registered his complaint and (in all probability) would have been removed from his post. He would (in effect) have been treated as a 'conscientious objector'. He is entitled (indeed, he is obliged) to refuse to obey an unlawful order, particularly where that order might involve him in an act which would breach 'The Rules and Articles of War'. It appears that - although he had ready access to people who could have advised (and would have been obliged to advise) him on the legality (or otherwise) of what he was doing, he chose not to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Manning didn't 'sign a contract'- he swore an oath. A bit of a difference. . As did Richard Nixon. How come he never went to jail? Was it because he broke his vows in his own narrow self interest, whereas Bradley Manning did it for what (rightly or wrongly) he believed was the common good? Are those the rules? Pray clarify these apparent inconsistencies concerning breraking 'solemn oaths.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.