Yea but that is the America system, democracy and an informed public, free speech is one of the basic rights allowed for in the bill of rights of the constitution. So a system in which the "media" is controlled by the government is unconstitutional.Originally Posted by Neotropic
The problem isn't media control of the government being "evil" persay, but the fact that this makes the government hypocritical, as the highest level authority of the government is derived from the constitution, controlling the media is a violation of this making their entire system inconsistent. They need to either abandon the constitution's bill of rights or overthrow them and continue with media control... or they need to not attempt to control the media.
PFC Manning's case essentially comes down to holding two pieces of legislation into contest... one is the "aiding the enemy" charge against the "freedom of speech" in the constitution. The way I see it military people take an oath to defend our sovereign nation, so how is leaking information to our sovereign nation "aiding the enemy" unless that nation they are defending is the enemy? In my opinion, this is allowed due to "freedom of speech" unless that information can be shown in some way to potentially "aid" our true enemy, the opposition we are fighting against in iraq or afghanistan. In the event that this information is potentially able to aid the enemy, then it is in the same venue as the typical case of yelling "fire" in a crowded building which freedom of speech does not protect. Since the sovereign citizens of the united states can be potentially subject to harm as a result of the leaked information then the speech is malicious in content, but this must be proven... simply the act of disseminating information to the public against orders is irrelevant if this information is not malicious to the security of the people within our nation as a unified whole, as this speech is protected at the highest level of authority by our constitution, if I was him I'd take contest at the supreme court level, at the very least if it makes it that high, it could spark a debate in the media over freedom of speech in war time in the modern information age... which I think is an issue which needs to be examined.
From a practical point of view, its probably better to fight it in military court then appeal to the supreme court afterwards.
Also I think the military has a justification to discharge him dishonorably or otherwise, as the constitution, protecting free speech, doesn't protect your right to keep a job if you violate orders. Of course, being the commander and chief, the president and his joint chiefs of staff can intervene if they so wish to override decision in the chain of command.
Reply With Quote