The U.S. government made 6 mistakes. So far, the U.S. Army...

A. ... ignored Manning’s disqualifying shortcomings during basic training;
B. ... then promoted him multiple times, finally to Private First Class (E-4);
C. ... deployed him to a far-flung, desolate outpost in a war zone;
D. ... failed to enforce standard technical security measures;
E. ... allowed peers and superiors to repeatedly torment and beat him; and
F. ... ignored his reports of war crimes.

The extent of Manning’s guilt and innocence have yet to be proven. The world still doesn’t know...

1. ... whether Manning will plead guilty or innocent;
2. ... what exactly he did (if anything);
3. ... what the damages are (if any);
4. ... who was hurt (if anyone);
5. ... what his defense is;
6. ... why U.S. Marine Corps prison officials refused to let him have confidential visits with either U.S. Congressional Representative Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) or United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur For Torture Juan Mendez; and
7. ... how nearly one year of inhumane pre-trial detainment affect this case.

Everyone — on all sides — should stop declaring various levels of guilt, innocence, heroism, or treason until after the 7 facts above are well known and fully understood.

That’s a long way off yet. The crimes allegedly occurred in 2010; the trial starts in 2011; when it ends in 2012, Manning will have spent nearly 2 years in prison.

I believe that *Kofi Annan* on behalf of the U.N. and the majority of "the good people of the world" (for want of a better term) made it quite clear at the year 2000 Human Rights conference that any individual in the world is quite free to be a self appointed *Human Rights Volunteer* at any time and to blow the whistle on potential Human Right's abusers as and when "we" please.

..

Of course, with events such as *Bush Turkey's* invasion of Iraq and the ongoing use of Uranium235 Enrichment Waste Munitions (amongst other nefarious past times), it is quite clear that U.ncle S.atan does not accept the U.N.'s jurisdiction in cases such as this, as it appears to value other "principles" more highly than "Human Rights."

..

However, as one diplomat said to me whilst in Geneva, it is not that "everyone" accepts that *U.ncle S.atan* should be free to do as it pleases and hold itself above international law with contempt and flagrant disregard, it is just that they believe that the alternatives to U.ncle S.atan are worse. .. How would you be, for instance, if the *Butchers of Beijing* were regulating your "life?"

..

I am sure that giving the historical issues at play, that *Obama* would be getting a number of the same comments that *Colin Powell* received and the fact that it doesn't appear to be being covered in Australia is a powerful motive i.m.o. for a wide ranging inquiry into the media, not just a limited grab for any direct "hacking" akin to that which recently occurred overseas.

..

In fact, I would likely argue that the coverage pre the invasion of Iraq was on balance so distorted because of its refusal to report something of both sides of the situation as to constitute an "incitement to war."