If you want to respond write it yourself!

      

                                  Whether we like it or not

I got a response from a good friend to yesterday's post, citing an article by Christopher Hedges filled with flamboyant and inflammatory exaggerations related to the Manning trial. My friend cites Hedges as a "respected" source. I responded as follows: 

  Christopher Hedges -  respected ?  By whom? Certainly not his former employers at the NY times “His newspaper, The New York Times, criticized his statements and issued him a formal reprimand for "public remarks that could undermine public trust in the paper's impartiality." which is why he changed jobs.

Hedges is as extremist to the far left as Wayne La Pierre is to the far right. Where he was educated or his religious background does not automatically earn him respect. The contradiction of Hedges is that he cut his teeth  on the subject of global terrorism, and is properly considered an expert in the field. So his understanding of the threat should, one might suppose, also give him some sense of the measures which might be necessary to protect Americans for the greater good. Yet, he says: “….. the nation’s citizens—the most spied upon, monitored and controlled population in human history—to the judicial lynching of Manning means they will be next.” Not only massively untrue (Britain has much more overt and covert intelligence gathering and control of their population and that is almost surely dwarfed by China and Russia) but based on really little more than Hedges' already established point of view re: Manning’s offence(s).  Blatant exaggeration is, or should be, beneath legitimate journalists.

Hedges is one of those who dislikes authority in any form and has the perfect bully pulpit: “If we are attacked. It’s the Government’s fault because they didn’t do enough to prevent it. If we take somewhat draconian steps to prevent it, the Government is the enemy.” It’s perfect. Either way,  Hedges and his ilk are free to attack the Government.

Let’s start with this statement:  “Under the military code of conduct and international law, the soldier had a moral and legal obligation to report the war crimes he witnessed.”  Manning actually "witnessed" nothing, Period (can you say "artistic license and editorial hyperbole?") . Manning’s position certainly would have allowed him to tell his story as he viewed it  after he no longer was in uniform, and even then there is a question of legality; but there is no overarching right for a serving member of the Armed forces to violate the National Security  Act by releasing classified documents to the general public. In Hedges Land, free press literally means that there would be no such thing as legitimate classified material, Which mimics Assange of Wiki leaks.  

     The problem here is that it is a legally simplistic case. Did PFC Manning knowingly and with appreciation for the possible consequences break the law? Yes, he did. Could he have been imprisoned for the rest of his life (75 years) Yes, he could have . Does Chris Hedges have a history of grossly exaggerated and inflammatory anti-military and anti establishment rhetoric?” Yes, he certainly does.

Are these thing related? Of course they are, but that simply allows  Chris Hedges to use Bradley Manning in much the same way Al Sharpton used  Tawana Brawley – as a public soapbox for his own agenda. Manning got a fair and open trial. From the get go, there was no question of his culpability, and the Military judge was actually merciful. In “Hedges’ World” where laws need not be obeyed and the establishment is always maleficent, the sentence of PFC Manning signals  “The end of the rule of law!”  In the real  world (you know, the one where we are actually accountable for our actions?) it is precisely the opposite – the rule of law applied, consistent with the facts, rather than with the emotions.