What Was Bradley Manning's Sin? by Michael S. Rozeff

LewRockwell.com ANTI-STATE • ANTI-WAR • PRO-MARKET

What Was Bradley Manning’s Sin?

Michael S. Rozeff at 12:03 pm EDT on August 22, 2013

What was Bradley Manning’s sin that warrants a sentence of 35 years? It was a sin manufactured by the State against the State’s version of righteousness. A righteous person, according to the State, is a State co-conspirator who is required to keep silent when observing crimes of the State. There is a conspiracy of silence and secrecy, like the Mafia’s omerta. Manning joined the conspiracy and then broke the rule of silence. He failed to place his conscience on hold or abeyance while serving the State. Now he must pay for his “sin”, the State claims. What sin? There is no real sin here on his part, and no real crime. There is only a power play, as authority attempts to prevent information from spreading about what its actions really are and really entail. The sentence of Manning has absolutely nothing to do with justice and honesty. There is no justice without honesty. The State is encouraging the dishonesty of silence about its nefarious operations.

The State’s preferred veil of secrecy places documents into “Classified” status. Some are kept secret for 50 years. After two generations have passed, interest has died down and/or the facts have been so obscured that figuring out the State’s culpability becomes a big chore. Even after 50 years, there is always still the option of blacking out (redacting) revealing passages. Furthermore, information is lost, destroyed, burned, misplaced, fades, withers, deteriorates or is electronically terminated. Information is zapped. A few days ago, I read an article explaining how U.S. Army records are being lost simply by the typical government inefficiency and blundering.
How can public policy ever be influenced by informed public opinion if the public does not have timely access to information? It is an impossibility. The government wants for itself to be an independent “agent”, free of being influenced much less controlled by public opinion. It wants the appearance of being an agent of, for and by the people while really acting independently. It does not want a free and inquiring press. It wants a controlled and pliant press. It wants to control the flow of information and its interpretation.