Blog 2 Manning, Human Rights

Human rights has been long fought for, taken away, and given back to different area of the world, but what will happen in the time of war. How can we as a government penalized the people that betray us. Do we treat them with a gold platter and treat them like kings, or do we just treat our threats as scum and make them wish they were never born and show the world to never cross the United States government. In my opinion the United State is a big hypocrite when it gets down to human rights. It’s almost like the United States has it’s own rules that it follows and it gives other countries another set. We as “world police” can not continue to lead by this example, we have to change and show the world they can trust us again. In the case of Bradley Manning the 1st amendment can give him some protection, freedom of speech is what made the United States one of the best countries in the world. People left their native countries for freedom of speech and to make the most out of their lives. International laws do apply to every country even the United States, and the fact they are not following the human rights laws for torture done to Bradley Manning is out of this world.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Responses to “Blog 2 Manning, Human Rights”

  1. Robert Klein says:

    I believe that all governments are out for their own benefit. Regardless of what you hear or read, every action has a reason behind it. I do not always believe that reason is a good reason as well. I also understand that in order to succeed with changing governments in other nations, we sometimes do have to treat them differently. They have a different culture and a different way of living. Here in America we live in a more intellectually based society of living where as some other nations do not.

  2. kurman100 says:

    I agree with Robert in the sense that each government has its own ways and ideas about how to achieve its goals. It is also true that in order to relate to other societies we sometimes have to change our way or compromise in order to reach a solution.

  3. Prof. Hala says:

    Lively post. Just to be clear, as an enlisted soldier in the US Army, Manning is bound by a different set of standards than, for example, a civilian journalist. His defense isn’t likely to hinge on the protections of the 1st amendment. Rather, the case for Manning’s defense will probably be based on the argument that he acted patriotically: witnessing serious violations of the American military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice, violations of the rules in US Army Field Manual, and violations of international law, he brought those wrongdoings to light out of a sense of duty to his country, as a citizen and a soldier.