Bradley Manning's 'sole purpose was to make a difference'. (defense's closing arguments)

[99th_Monkey]

Bradley Manning's 'sole purpose was to make a difference', lawyer insists
In closing arguments, defence lawyer paints portrait of Wikileaks source as someone without 'evil intent'
Ed Pilkington at Fort Meade * The Guardian * Friday 26 July 2013 15.27 EDT

The lawyer representing the WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning has asked the judge presiding over the soldier's court martial to decide between two stark portrayals of the accused – the prosecution's depiction of him as a traitor and seeker of notoriety, and the defence's account that he was motivated by a desire to make a difference in the world and save lives.

Over four hours of intense closing arguments at Fort Meade in Maryland, David Coombs set up a moral and legal clash of characterisations, between the Manning that he laid out for the court, and the callous and fame-obsessed Manning sketched on Thursday by the US government. "What is the truth?" the lawyer asked Colonel Denise Lind, the presiding judge who must now decide between the two accounts to reach her verdict.

"Is Manning somebody who is a traitor with no loyalty to this country or the flag, who wanted to download as much information as possible for his employer WikiLeaks? Or is he a young, naive, well-intentioned soldier who has his humanist belief central to his decisions and whose sole purpose was to make a difference."

Coombs answered his own rhetorical question by arguing that all the evidence presented to the trial over the past seven weeks pointed in one direction. "All the forensics prove that he had a good motive: to spark reforms, to spark change, to make a difference. He did not have a general evil intent."

Coombs ridiculed the prosecution case as a "diatribe" and said that its account of his client as someone who only cared about himself as the opposite of the truth. "He is concerned about everybody, he is concerned to save lives."

The lawyer continued: "He felt were were all connected to everybody, we had a duty to our fellow human beings. It may have been a little naive, but that is not anti-American, it is really what America is about."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/26/bradley-manning-wikileaks-defence-lawyer

[Laughing Mirror]

1. "You have to view that through the eyes of a young man who cared about human life"

That's the whole problem there. They cannot look at the world that way. They will not. They will refuse. Anything having to do with being connected to everybody else and having a duty to our fellow human beings sounds crazy to them. Because all they know is us against them. That's what was taught them. That's what they believe. And with that belief, they will punish Bradley Manning because he believes otherwise.

[99th_Monkey]

2. That may be. But then "Nuremberg" must sound "crazy" to them as well.

... because they have already become the very thing they are "fighting against".