One cannot for an instant begin to presume Bradley Manning was in one breath the sage and the next the fool. It would be equally ludicrous to believe he was somehow unaware of the import of the information he was about to make public. One cannot suppose he was naively ignorant of the possible “official” responses to his actions within what all know to be the totalitarian environment of military service. This is especially the case for those who actually reside within the system of of the “armed forces.” Those who preside over this system consistently and persistently make it clear, there is a hierarchy of rule and order. It is the incessant mantra of the day. Only the village idiot could miss the ever present message of action and consequence.

Bradley Manning chose to act, while an active duty member of the “volunteer” Army, outside the safe boundaries of logic and rationality. Mr. Manning’s actions were those which we, his fellow humans, would hope to be the actions of the majority of our species as well. Mechanistic responses of logic and rationality gave way to human emotion and compassion. The consequence of this human action within its context, was easily predictable.

It would then seem that the subject, which has been taken to task by progressives, could not possibly be that of existential accountability. It would appear instead that liberal sensibilities are outraged in response to the “inhumane” treatment of Bradley Manning, received at the hands of those who literally (and “legally” for whatever it is worth) hold him captive. The absence of a higher moral code of human behavior among his captors seems more a matter of concern among many of those who classify themselves as liberals than the self initiated acts of conscience and free will which led to his incarceration. It is at this juncture that the entire issue becomes problematic for me.

In general humans crave attention for actions they have taken in the public sector. When our thoughts or behaviors are adjudged to be “good” we gladly bask in the limelight of adulation. Conversely when our actions are viewed less favorably we hurriedly seek circumstances outside ourselves upon which to place accountability. In the case of Bradley Manning, we have elected to direct our public outrage toward the military subculture and the soldiers who find themselves to be elements within it. We ask of them and ourselves, “How can they not only allow but participate in such blatant disregard for the basic human rights of another human being?”

Raising the issue of moral or humanitarian behaviors within the context of a social instrument (the Military) designed and specifically tasked with penultimate antisocial and inhumane objectives (i.e. those of the coercion and/or killing of state sanctioned “enemies”) is either quintessential hypocrisy or madness. The military culture is not a spontaneous event. It is a social construct evolved and developed over the course of our human history and arising from the primal desire of our species to survive. The military, at this juncture in its evolution, is an end game. Military objectives at the level of the individual soldier are not directed at middle ground or compromise. Objectives are very simple: win or lose, live or die. This is pointedly reflected in a variety of boot camp indoctrinations engineered to aid in the transition of the individual from civilian to soldier. I can still hear the voice of my own Marine Corps drill instructor during our bayonet training, “Slide the leading foot forward (accompanied by a jabbing motion with my bayonet ensconced rifle) Kill !!! Kill !!! Kill !!!” Duly note the D.I.’s instructions were not to wound, disable, frighten nor incapacitate. Not surprisingly, the concept at work here was not that of scaring an enemy into submission but rather that of conditioning the soon to be soldier to the unconventional task of killing or risk being killed.

Under the Geneva Conventions, “protected persons” are identified as: wounded or sick fighters, prisoners of war, civilians, medical and religious personnel. As such:

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honor, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

This can be contrasted with the United States’ military mission as quoted from the USMC Warfighting Manual regarding the wartime mission of the Marine Corps:

The object in war is to impose our will on our enemy. The means to this end is the organized application or threat of violence by military force. The target of that violence may be limited to hostile combatant forces, or it may extend to the enemy population at large.

Stop here for a moment and attempt to juxtapose the concept of “the organized application or threat of violence by military force” with that of “respect for their persons, their honor, family rights, religious convictions /practices, and their manners and customs.” Not only is this task difficult, but I would guess nearly impossible. Try as one may, these two antithetical conceptual models of behavior do not reside well within the same framework.

The difficulty arises in part from the fact that each is a dichotomous aspect of situational ethics. The military construct is obviously a product of our most primitive primal drive toward survival, (kill or be killed, survival of the fittest) and is common among most species. It has presumably been with us since our inception and has been integral in our ongoing existence in an environment which is becoming increasingly hostile and aggressive. (The latter being a “natural” consequence, from the Dark Ages to the present, of increasing numbers of consumers competing for proportionally decreasing resources.)

The other is a by-product of ourselves in our role as “clever monkey’s.” Based upon little more than evolved survival skills and a self-proclaimed presumption of hierarchical superiority, we preside over all that we purvey. It is the process by which we attempt to demonstrate through “intellect” and/or “Divine right” arguments those justifications which support our reversals and contradictions in ethical and moral behaviors. We are intellectual, we are spiritual, we are evolved; we are the (co)creators of ourselves and our beliefs. That being said, are we not the creators of our humane/inhumane dichotomy as well?

The antagonist of this current morality play is the Military/Industrial paradigm, a construct to which we provide 54% of our national budget. The individual soldiers, several of whom serve in the capacity of “guards” for Mr. Manning were provided the highest and most advanced training available to perform the jobs we require of them at an average cost to the taxpayer of $400,000.00 per soldier. In his book, On Killing, Lt. Colonel David Grossman indicates that much psychological work has been done to enhance the training and ultimately the efficiency of our soldiers in the performance their roles. As the title of the book implies and the statistical data provided supports, we have become extremely skilled at the task of killing our own to survive. For the average U.S. citizen, the relative success of our investment in those who serve in our national defense can be somewhat attested to by the infrequency of “violence or threats of violence by military force” implemented by foreign armies, occurring within our own National boundaries.

How our “security,” (from the level of the individual to the more global scale of protecting the resources of the larger society overall) is achieved, and at what human cost, is something of which “civilized” societies prefer not to be aware. To this end the military is, for the most part, allowed autonomous self governance regarding the attainment of their objectives. By contemporary example one need look only at the torture which has taken place at Guantanamo Bay or Bagram Airbase, the more recent state sanctioned assassinations of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden, or the ongoing daily predator airstrikes which have killing hundreds of innocent civilians through out the Middle East. Examples of our most negative human potentials are running rampant. On a Likert scale where 1 is the most primal and savage of responses and 10 the most humanistic utopian ideal, successful military operations in the field would depend upon actions far closer to one than ten.

The morality of torture, murder and assassination is not situational. If these actions are wrong for the individual members of a society or are to be used as the criteria by which we adjudge a societies’ enemies, then this is a standard we must apply to ourselves as well. If we are to exempt a subculture within our society (the Military) from the cultural mores which we claim define us, then we must also waive our right to criticism and judgement of their actions. It is far too convenient and hypocritical to lay blame and responsibility for that which we as a society have condoned upon those (the individual soldiers) who have the least ability or access to power to resist what we ask of them. If we continue to allow our military to engage in acts of aggression such as assassinations and military occupations of other sovereign nations without even so much as a Declaration of War, or if by our silence we are complicit in their behaviors, then we must bear equal or greater responsibility for these actions as well.

1. The killing of non-combatant civilians, in declared or undeclared war, “police action”, intervention, or even within a group of humans purporting membership in a “civilized” society, is MURDER, plain and simple. It cannot be re-defined as self-defense or “collateral damage”. Its fault cannot be re-directed to victims who “were in the wrong place at the wrong time”, or who happened to support a political party whose ideology is unpopular with others. All who kill or support the killing of the innocent, participate in a crime against humanity for which they, or those they represent, must be held accountable.

2. Recently, over six hundred human beings, in a publicly transparent international mission of peace, were searched and cleared of contraband by x-ray machines and metal detectors. They then boarded ships and set out to sea. These were avowed peace activists on a declared humanitarian mission. In darkness, and far out in international waters they were boarded by Israeli commandos after which at least nine civilians were dead, six were missing and another 48 wounded by gunshots. Calling them “terrorists”, extremists or insurgents, or even a lynch mob does not magically transform the nature or intent of their mission. One of the nine, a 60 year old man, was shot four times, once each in the temple, chest, hip, and back. Another, a 19 year old Turkish-American boy, was shot 5 times, once in the face, the head, twice in the legs and once in the back. All the civilian dead and wounded were shot by trained military commandos at close range. This is hardly a textbook description of “self defense.”

In another incident at sea in 1985, the Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro, was hijacked off the coast of Egypt, this time not by Israeli commandos but instead by four members of the Palestine Liberation Front. A disabled, Jewish – American passenger was killed and thrown overboard. In that instance the United States, Israel and the world were outraged, prompting the creation of:

Article 3 of the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988, stating it is an international crime for any person to seize or exercise control over a ship by force, and also a crime to injure or kill any person in the process.

Apparently the Rome convention overlooked the obvious fact that this international law was meant to apply only in cases where Palestinians attacked Israelis and not the reverse. Or so it would seem in the case of the deaths aboard the Mavi Marmara.

The one local author in his letter to the editor, made the claim, “A state, in a time of conflict, can impose an embargo and carry out embargo activities in international waters,” a statement which holds partial truth under “The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea 14 June 1994.” There are, however, 18 pages of guidelines for naval conflict among which are the ground rules for establishing a naval embargo or blockade. Within these guidelines, a blockade is considered “illegal” when: a.) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival or, b.) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

Numerous reports by the United Nations, and internationally recognized humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International, Red Cross, Oxfam, and UNICEF, CARE International, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Medecins du Monde, Save the Children and Trocaire, have taken the position that a humanitarian crisis exists in Gaza. Among the reasons which have led to their conclusions:

• Unemployment rates in Gaza of over 40% (with 70% of those gainfully employed before Operation Cast Lead now jobless),
• Over 4000 private residences destroyed with little or no access to materials for rebuilding (creating 20,000 homeless and 10,000 w/o access to drinking water),
• Non-availability dozens of basic medicines (World Health Organization),
• 1.1 million of a total 1.5 million residents are now completely dependent upon external aid for basic survival (65% of these being children).

Although as many as 10,000 truckloads of goods entered Gaza as recently as January of 2007, that number had decreased to 3000 by January of 2009. Contributing significantly to this worsening situation was Israel’s implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” against both the military and civilian populations of Gaza, destroying individual homes, small business’, hospitals, and sewage/water treatment facilities upon which residents were dependent (The latter resulting in 40-50 million liters of raw sewage being dumped into the sea daily). Lack of access to necessary materials has meant that much of the damage incurred by Israel’s attack has to date not been repaired.

Basic necessities deemed by Israel to be legitimate definitions of “humanitarian aid” consist of a list of roughly 81 items, subject to daily reclassification and change. As Israel will not publicly release the guidelines for classification, the list of items which in the past have been designated as “contraband” under an increasingly implausible banner of Israeli “self defense” can give some indication as to what types of international “aid” would not be allowed to enter Gaza. The following is a partial listing of these items:

Musical Instruments – Light Bulbs – Sheets – Mattresses – Cutlery – Crockery – Glasses – Electric Wheelchairs – Cancer Treatment Medicine – Dentistry tools – Plastic Toys – School Desks – Blackboards – Pencils- Chalk – Paper – Books – Jam – Nuts – Canned Fruit – Dried Fruit – Candy – Spare Parts for cars and other machines – Refrigerators – Washing Machines – Plaster – Paint – Tires – Glue – Floor Tiles – Book Bags – Crayons – Sports Equipment – Carpeting – Curtains – Textiles – Thread – Needles – Chocolate – Fruit Juice – Water Filtration equipment – Fabric for Clothing – Wood for Furniture –Wood for Construction – Furniture – PVC pipe – Solar Panels – Cement – Generators – Fresh Meat – Coriander – Ginger – Nutmeg – Seeds – Fishing Rods – Ropes for Fishing – Donkeys – Horses – Goats – Cattle – Chicken Hatcheries – Chickens – Newspapers – Macaroni – Tomato Paste – Lentils- Empty cans for Canning – Margarine – Vinegar – Honey

Goods designated by the San Remo Manual, (governing legal embargo) lists as “free goods” (therefore not subject to capture) the following:

a.) religious objects
b.) articles intended exclusively for the treatment of the wounded and the sick and for the prevention of disease
c.) clothing, bedding, essential foodstuffs, and means of shelter for the civilian population in general, and women an children in particular, provided there is not serious reason to believe that such goods will be diverted to other purpose, or that a definite military advantage would accrue to the enemy by their substitution for enemy goods that would thereby become available for military purposes.
d.) items destined for prisoners of war, including individual parcels and collective relief shipments containing food, clothing, educational, cultural and recreational articles;
e.) goods otherwise specifically exempted from capture by international treaty or by special arrangement between belligerents; and
f.) other goods not susceptible for use in armed conflict

Immediately evident is the fact , that were independent flotillas of ships allowed direct access to the Ports of Gaza, many of the goods and materials international law deems “essential” would fall among those items Israel has arbitrarily classified as luxury, contraband or nonessential. There is a perverse irony inherent in the fact that goods “destined for prisoners of war” ((d.) above) are denied to a civilian population which Israeli propagandists have claimed to be free of even the restraint of “occupation.”

Numerous alternatives to the commando assaults of the recent weeks exist within international law. Under embargo, Israeli inspections could be or have been made of the cargoes of neutral aid ships (such as Turkey, Ireland, or the United States) in their ports of origin. Another option would be that of a warship from the sponsoring country accompanying an aid ship or flotilla to insure security and integrity of the cargo. The sponsor country, prior to departure would verify the cargo to be humanitarian aid. In these examples aid ships, within the guidelines of embargo, could sail directly to the ports of Gaza without additional inspection or impediment. There is an additional possibility that some humanitarian aid ships might offer, although not legally required to do so (and this was the case with the “Freedom Flotilla”), to be voluntarily boarded and inspected by members of the Red Cross or United Nations prior to landing in a port. These are very real alternatives, some of which are put forward in the same text of International Law which Israel has used to “legitimize” its embargo.

As eyewitness reports become public and being aware of the legal options already in place , one has to wonder why non-confrontational, state supported options for the delivery of aid were rejected in favor of a “ marine commando” assault under cover of darkness. It would not have been difficult to predict the possibility of what actually ensued (i.e. the illegal seizure in International waters of several ships, crews, cargoes, passengers and their personal effects, replete with the confusion, confrontation and unwarranted deaths) would, in fact, occur. The greatest threat posed by the non-confrontational options for the delivery of aid would seem to be the extreme limitations these options would place upon Israel’s ability to self-determine, (without respect to international law), what commodities are to be considered contraband and which would be allowed to pass. The obvious disparity between legally defined “free goods” and those commodities previously banned by Israel lead one to question the actual motivations behind the embargo.

Contrary to the claims of Israel, conditions under which the civilian population of Gaza currently reside are deteriorating. These extreme conditions were initially created and influenced by the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure during Israel’s’ “Operation Cast Lead”. They have been artificially extended and maintained by the severe limitations imposed by the Israeli aid embargo. So abysmal is the situation that it led Navi Pillay, the United Nations’ human rights chief, to determine, in an August 2009 report, that it constituted collective punishment. This determination by the United Nations, not only makes the blockade illegal under the San Remo Manual guidelines, but a crime under guidelines set forth by the Geneva Conventions.

If we presume ourselves civilized and governed by law, then law must be applied equally and equitably. Rogue states cannot be allowed to recognize the legitimacy of the International community only when it is convenient for them to do so. If heads of state cannot be depended upon to enforce these laws, then we, the worlds citizens, through the strength of our unified voices, through boycott, through public protest and resistance must lay claim to the birthright of our collective humanity.

I am a disabled combat veteran. I personally find nothing ennobling patriotic, nor honorable in the interventions and occupations which have defined my country’s history to the present moment. Forty years of reflection has not yet been time enough to construct an acceptable justifications for the images I carry. I still see the disembowelment of a Vietnamese Grandfather at the arm of his pre-teen grandson, the mutilation and dismemberment of two twenty year old (my own age at the time) “VC”( whose body parts were subsequently thrown into a holding compound containing their female relatives), and several human beings transformed before my eyes into living torches as their flesh was consumed by napalm. It has been calculated that for every “Viet Cong” killed, 50,000 rounds were fired. In the urban sequel to Vietnam, the occupation of Iraq, those figures have climbed to 250,000 rounds per “insurgent”. If it takes only one bullet to kill another human being and we generously allow as high as 100 rounds per insurgent (allowing for over achievement), one obvious question is raised, “What has happened to the remaining 249,900 rounds?” This of course, is an unfair and leading question. We know 250,000 represents a proportion of total rounds fired to the number of “legitimate” dead insurgents. (Which, incidentally aren’t officially counted for the very reason that their numbers can be misconstrued in writing such as this.) None the less these rounds are fired and unlike America’s much touted “smart bombs” small caliber ammunition resides at the low end of the munitions evolutionary chain. Lacking a visible target they do not fall harmlessly to the ground but follow a trajectory until they lose momentum or encounter an impenetrable obstacle.

Imagine yourself for a moment, living within a war zone, part and parcel of an occupation by a foreign army. You have learned to live with shortages, not to jump at every loud sound, trying as best you can to carry on with life in some abstract aberration of what you remember as “normal.” Every day you hope that it will all end, that these foreigners will depart, that you will once again have lights and perhaps even running water. You hope that the shops will re-open and hope that your children might one day safely return to school. You think of these things as you prepare the evening meal for your family. Your young son and infant daughter entertain one another safely within your sight on a rug in the kitchen. Your parents, whose own home was destroyed in fighting early on in the war, wait for dinner with visiting relatives in another room of the house. Somewhere outside, you hear the sound of approaching gunfire. As the fighting grows louder you instinctively take your daughter in your arms, place your son at your side and find protective cover behind an inside kitchen wall. Several of the “less-than-smart” 249, 900 rounds which “miss” the insurgents are being fired by a 50 caliber machine gun mounted atop an American Humvee. These rounds have been enhanced to give American soldiers an “edge” in the war on terror by the addition of depleted uranium. They now have the ability to penetrate nearly anything, including armor. They have little trouble cutting through the cinder blocks of your apartment and the wall you believed would protect you. The skull of your infant daughter is instantly atomized to a fine red mist of blood and bone. A second round removes your sons arm just above the elbow leaving a stump of shattered bone and torn strips of flesh. As dust settles and noise abates you find yourself sitting, physically unharmed on the floor of your kitchen, bathed in the blood of your children. Somewhere it will be mentioned that several insurgents were killed in your city by the American coalition forces. Your personal story will be condensed to an acknowledgement that there was some unavoidable collateral damage.

For each conservative who votes for the get tough policies of John McCain, the blood of every victim of every war, present and future, soldier and civilian, in which America participates lies directly upon your hands. If you are of the “old school,” old testament , eye for and eye system of beliefs, keep in mind this law applies reciprocally to you as well. Your soldiers and your armies have illegally invaded the homeland of another sovereign nation and you are deserving of whatever vengeance is brought upon you. You have created and perpetuated your own “terrorism.” If you are a liberal and have at any time claimed the moral high ground of being anti-war, all that will be visited upon your conservative brothers and sisters will become yours as well, perhaps doubly so as you have transformed your beliefs into hypocrisy. Only two candidates have been given visibility in the coming elections although others are running. Both of these have stated publicly their determination to stay the course in Iraq. McCain has expressed his desire to amplify the killing by invading Iran as well. Both will escalate the number of American troops illegally occupying Afghanistan to “bring the war” to the Saudi Arabian, Bin Laden. Obama has ramped up the mythical “War on Terror” threatening to invade Pakistan if necessary, while at the same time promising to continue the drone bombings of rural mountain villages.

When you vote, you transfer your power as a citizen to those who would claim to represent you. In war the imaginary scenario painted above is very real and plays out in the lives of innocents daily. To vote for a candidate who supports war is to vote in support of war. All non-combatants murdered while your candidates, liberal or conservative exercise your power become in turn, your victims. You have funded the weapons, trained the soldiers, provided the transport and approved the mission which for all soldiers in all wars has historically been same: Kill the “enemy” before they kill you.” In guerrilla war this necessarily includes the murder of ten times as many non-combatant innocents as those we would define as “enemy. Remember, as you vote for Hope, you more deservedly “earn” the World’s contempt.