Traitor or hero whistleblower? Court-martial is set for Bradley Manning
Source: NBC News
Pfc. Bradley Manning says he was driven by an unquenchable thirst for information and wanted to show the world the truth about the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military says he helped enemies of the United States.
Now a judge will decide his fate.
Manning, a 25-year-old former Army intelligence analyst, goes on trial Monday in a military court at Fort Meade, Md., for his release of hundreds of thousands of secret documents to WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website.
Here’s a rundown of the case:
WHAT WE KNOW
This much is undisputed: Manning, while serving in Iraq, stole U.S. diplomatic cables and other military documents. While on leave in Maryland in 2010, he began sending them to WikiLeaks.
At a hearing last November, he said that he had become disillusioned by behavior that did not seem worthy of the United States, including a foreign policy bent on “killing and capturing people.”
Read more: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/02/18659993-traitor-or-hero-whistleblower-court-martial-is-set-for-bradley-manning?lite
While regime changing away in countries formerly peaceful and far afield, the US seems reluctant to consider the value of reform based on a well-informed review of factual truth about its own shortcomings. Manning's case proves that loyalty to a system he's helped expose as both deadly and corrupt is absolutley requisite to membership. No congressional, let alone military authority has undertaken the key task of exploring any of the widely available evidence that might exonerate him for his actions, deemed a threat to safety. Isn't it dangerous to keep on pretending war crimes never happened and/or are therefore OK?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
question everything
(47,556 posts)in other not that friendly countries. They embarrassed our nation with many friendly governments and put many lives in danger, perhaps even caused executions.
These were individuals who were willing to cooperate with us. They, and their families, do not deserve to be tortured and die. (Maybe.)
This is the same with James Rosen of Faux. Revealing our knowledge about N. Korea exposed the fact that we have a line of information inside this country.
It is very easy for us to sit on a high horse and condemn our foreign policy. But such a policy often involves lives of real individuals in other countries, who are not guaranteed many of the freedom here that we take for granted.
Cha
(297,911 posts)
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,598 posts):O) or not.
We can say that Bradley Manning revealed things hitherto unknown to the general public. All I know is I saw footage of US servicemen in a helicopter treating Iraqi civilians like they were ducks in a shooting gallery.
How this makes him a traitor is beyond me...............
Pelican
(1,156 posts)As far as their ability to retaliate against the helicopter they may as well have been ducks in a shooting gallery. That does not make them illegitimate targets. Walking around in that specific area, in groups with weapons was an illegal act and they exposed themselves to targeting.
Beyond that he released hundreds of thousands of documents, the majority of which he couldn't have read. This undermines security and for the peaceful types, it makes diplomacy more difficult. Other nations are less likely to deal with us if they feel that their business is going to be put out to the world.
Weaker diplomacy = more guys on the ground with guns
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,598 posts)wasn't it a violin case or something? We all know (at least I hope most of us on DU know) that the invasion of Iraq was politically motivated and our armed forces shouldn't have been there to begin with. It's disturbing to find out some of us are ok with what amounted to human target practice......... just sayin'
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... or you can listen to Assange himself during his Colbert interview.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,598 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)without the edits...the one Stephen Colbert watched...
http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills-wikileaks-founder-on-helicopter-video
midnight
(26,624 posts)trumps peace.. 
I noticed that too. Question everything unless... LOL
question everything
(47,556 posts)of bad Americans good everyone else, right?
At least I question. What do you do? Frankly, I don't want to know. Just had dinner.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In most of the world these days, U.S. military "victory" just means victory for the rich. None of those people were trying to help the poor, the dispossesed, women, gays, or anyone other than the "tribal leaders" we have such a fetish for in places like Afghanistan. None of them had positive motivations.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Our government went off the reservation. Are we all supposed to just act like it didn't?
question everything
(47,556 posts)and impose it on different countries. Yes, we complain the treatment of the poor, women, gay, etc. in Iran, practically the whole Middle East and Central Asia - except Israel - but their view of their surroundings is vastly different. Mainly, they are concern about food and shelter. How can you talk about "positive motivation" until and unless you've lived their life? And even if you spent several years, you would never understand. You will know that you can always return to safe, warm, good ole USA.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If you're making common cause with people who are invading your country, your main concern is probably going to be personal power and, perhaps, settling old scores. Food and shelter won't enter into it.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)this is not speculation: I am not a murderer. None of my soldiers are murderers. our actions had clearly defined moral and legal boundaries. Talk about a high horse, how is the view from yours?
PFC Manning is not a traitor. He did not betray this country, our ideals or his values as a soldier. Sending this stuff to wikileaks took a lot of courage frankly. He knew that he would be caught and spend the rest of his life in federal prison. But he went on regardless.
question everything
(47,556 posts)I admit, I did not follow this case closely, I just remember the specific examples of individuals cooperating with us who were exposed.
And, perhaps, it is better that their name would be forgotten, if they managed to survive.
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)to not embarrass out nation with many friendly governments is not to do things that would embarrass us if somebody revealed them.
question everything
(47,556 posts)in the world, be able to reign on tornadoes and hurricanes, forest fires and earthquake.
Let's be realistic, OK?
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)unfriendly nations. I don't think that Bradley Manning told them anything they didn't already know.
North Korea may be a bit of a different case since the government has North Koreans locked down to a greater extent than perhaps any other country.
But the government of any nation that did not know that we have friends who share secrets for various reasons in their countries would be too naive to last long.
If anything, foreign governments probably exaggerate the breadth and capacity of our intelligence network. It probably isn't as good as they think.
We have foreign students from just about every country in the world visiting us. And then there are foreign scholars. Plus there is the internet. People in the governments of other countries know that we have a huge intelligence apparatus.
I hope that if the government relies on the argument that Manning put our friends in other countries at risk, it is prepared to prove that claim with specific examples.
question everything
(47,556 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Because I consider him to be an unstable person. He appears to be emotionally immature but very intelligent. Some geniuses become obsessed with an idea and get in big trouble, not looking at the big picture.
I am hoping he cared about who could be hurt by what he did - worst scenario, he may have convinced himself that any 'collateral damage' would be justly deserved by any person who aided the American side of the war. I don't know.
I think he was taken advantage of by others who profited by what he did and were not at risk. That angers me for his sake and those that might have been killed overseas.
IMHO, he did not think it all the way through, was caught up in an idealistic fantasy. Sadly, I do not see that his revelations changed much.
If he gave impetus to ending the state of war we inherited from Bush, good for him. Although I believe that was in the cards aleady. His contribution was overrated, but the horrors of war need to be considered in this world, always.
Humanity must stop rewarding those who profit from war, if possible. They have played this game for centuries, it's time for mankind to stop falling for it.
AFAIK I know he is not charged with treason, or any crime that would lead to the death penalty. I think glorifying or villifying anyone in this case is mental masturbation.
His crime was betraying the trust he was given. He was only in that position since he made a pledge to not do what he did do. That's his crime in my eyes, which is insubordination, but the military may not see it as simply as I do.
My disclaimer being, I am not in the military and cannot speak for his fellows. Some of them are furious at what he did.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Why would I ever trust a guy who betrayed his comrades and every oath he took to protect and defend this nation?
Why would I trust someone who lied and said he read nearly all 750,000 cables he released when this is an impossibility?
Why would I trust someone who physically assaulted a female soldier?
I don't tend to trust oath breaking, lying misogynists that deserve to rot in jail for their actions.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 3, 2013, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)He struck a female, he could not possibly read more than a handful of those reports, and he broke his oaths. Which part is a lie?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)"Why would I trust someone who lied and said he read nearly all 750,000 cables he released when this is an impossibility?"
Full of shit, you are.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Dense you are.
I don't believe he read most of them....someone else said he did, therefore Manning is a liar because it is impossible to do as he claimed.
WOW......
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Same thing with what got us into Iraq in the first place, people, including some of our elected officials, refusing to avail themselves of critical information and just going along with the lies they were told.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and has stated that 'no harm was done' by those leaks other than some 'embarrassment'. Is Gates a liar?
Additionally Wikileaks asked the US Military to cooperate with them in removing any such information before they released anything. The US did not respond.
And furthermore, Manning had access to actual top secret material, none of which he released. What he did release was classified, or 'secret' and was available to tens of thousands of other people.
There is no comparison with Rosen and Manningl. Was Rosen trying to stop torture eg? Manning did not reveal, according the man who should know, Gates, any information that caused any harm to any individuals, unless Gates is a liar.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)He wanted my husband to testify about his character. The prosecutor called him the night before the trail was suppose to start. Well he kept telling my husband about his past before he came into the military. My husband told him it had nothing to do with this case. They never did call him up. The guy was a Sergeant Major and he was busted to Sergeant and he got a dishonorable discharge and had to pay the money that he stold back. This guy got a fair trial and I hope Manning gets one to. I don't understand a lot of this case but I have a feeling he is a hero and not the devil the government wants us to believe.
railsback
(1,881 posts)Not deliberately, which makes me kinda sad for him, but still a dumb ass traitor.
cstanleytech
(26,344 posts)atleast because he knew he was breaking the law when he didnt need to as he could have given the intel to a member of congress or the inspector generals office to report any wrong doing if I recall correctly and it would have been perfectly legal for him to do so.
tblue
(16,350 posts)He saw atrocities and decided to expose them. I consider him someone who broke a law that needs to be overturned.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)the "atrocities" and "war crimes" he saw....I have posted this question in three threads and no one has even offered. Saying war crimes over and over again does not make legal military actions war crimes. Abu Ghraib, definitely a war crime. Manning's data dump, not a single war crime. Collateral Damage video? It is almost a crime how long it took to get steel on target in that video. That was a commander that was almost too hesitant to engage hostiles in a free fire zone.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the answers you received. Apparently you do not consider torture, eg, to be a 'crime' although it is widely accepted by all civilized nations, since the Geneva Conventions were written to ensure that after Nuremberg, rules of war would be established that would prevent the kind of human rights abuses that had occurred during that horrible conflict.
So stop asking for information you have already been provided with. Not to mention that your stated hero, Ellsberg provided the answers you keep asking for, and which I personally provided you with, which you promptly rejected, essentially back tracking and calling the man who claimed to view as a hero, a liar.
I have no intention of humoring you again. Go back and read my responsed and Ellsberg's words and you have your answers, but you already did that and rejected those facts.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)You have yet to do so ma'am.
You have no intention of humoring me, because you have no evidence to the contrary. I have read every response you have posted, sincerely looking for ANYTHING approaching factual information that could exonerate Manning. You refuse to post facts, just random catch phrases and hazy information. I am really curious about this torture Manning supposedly exposed. I do consider Ellsberg a hero for what he did in 1971, I also consider him a fool and a liar for his recent support for Manning. Both of these opinions are consistent given the facts of each case. Ellsberg did it the right way, Manning did not. Ellsberg is a hero, Manning is a traitor who will rot in jail.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on, was what? An attempt to get some creds here? I gave you Ellsberg's response to your questions regarding 'what crimes did Manning uncover' because you CLAIMED to respect him. Lol!
Ellsberg outlined the crimes, which I provided for you, assuming you would take the word of one your heroes over mine.
Once you got the information you requested, you tried to move the goal posts again.
Not to worry, I am very used to these tactics so I don't mind at all.
So here's my question to you. Since you regard Ellsberg (I hope you won't change your mind again now) as a hero for what he did, how exactly did Ellsberg 'do it the right way' as opposed to Manning? Both went to the press, you are aware that Wikileaks had long been regarded as a very credible international news source which would respect the privacy of whistle blowers. Ellsberg didn't have a Wikileaks, he used the tools available to him at the time. He is also a supporter of Wikileaks btw.
So define for us the 'right way' for Manning to have revealed the crimes outlined by Ellsberg and other human rights and legal organizations, he revealed? Don't forget, that Manning while having access to top secret information, did not release any of it. Another important point made by Ellsberg.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)and I stand by my statement from the other day. Ellsberg is a hero for doing it right, Manning is a traitor for doing it wrong.
You have a very interesting way of shifting the world to meet your views........Manning is a hero even though he is a traitor, Wikileaks is the press, even though it really isn't, and war crimes are war crimes, even though you have no proof they are not war crimes.
Please continue to mock me instead of addressing anything else. I do enjoy watching you squirm in discomfort that most people don't buy the B.S. you are peddling.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It was based on your own words. What is the difference between what Ellsberg did and what manning did? Just for your info Ellsberg says there is no difference.
He says Manning did it right. I am not mocking you, I am trying to get answers, trying to find out why you would reject the words of a man you call a hero who is in a far better position than any of us to know the elements of this case.
And your claim that no one answered your questions was simply wrong. I corrected that.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)except your change in tactics, I have been consistent since day one that Manning in my opinion is a traitor. We talked about it a lot in that other thread. Brave though Sabrina, even now you refuse to provide a single fact, just personal attacks on me. Don't worry I am going nowhere and will be here to debunk any Manning nonsense in the future. But now I have to go to work almost 9 A.M. here in Hawaii, and the Army doesn't like it when I am late.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)links to credible sources, is NOT a personal attack. It is disagreement. And no matter how long you are here, you won't convince a majority of people here that Manning is a traitor. Making such a claim when there has not yet even been trial, loses a person credibility on this forum. It is false.
Manning knew what he was risking, he knew what to expect, yet he felt that stopping war crimes, and yes, torture is still a war crime, was more important. That is what makes someone a hero, doing something their conscience tells them is the right thing to do even when they know the consequences to them are likely to be severe.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)At least that's what I remember from hearings at the time, and found a link to what I'd seen. His statement at the Winter Soldier hearings is not for the squeamish, and is part of why I and others took to the street across the USA:
VIETNAM WAR VETERAN JOHN KERRY'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 22, 1971
https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/johnkerrytestimony.html
I insert this to my point that if soldiers were ordered to set up free fire zones in Iraq, they did not have the protections of GC. And for those who seem to think that atrocities in wars are a recent invention, or that the lives we live outside a war zone here in the USA, are a standard condition of the human race in other countries, at war or not. We have laws that give us rights that much of the human race as not concieved of, and are tossed aside in wars. But we still have laws about warfare.
Bush didn't obey the GC in his plans for warfare in Iraq. GWB's contention was that it was an unconventional enemy and the GC rules of war did not apply. Non-combatants were routinely being taken hostage, tortured and executed like Daniel Pearl as well as whole villages wiped out by forces in the region, or by Saddam Hussein himself, for political reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
Torture, Abu Graif, the bombing of Fallujah and so many other things were okay with Bush in that context. But we still have the testimony of those who came back from Iraq who said they followed strict rules of engagement with armed and non-armed persons there. And were not ordered or permitted to do such things as conduct a free fire zone.
Since Blackwater was doing those things, we cannot escape responsibility for what they did. No more than the actions of the British East India Company could be separated from the history of the British Empire. Most of us have seen video of Blackwater mercenaries acting as if they were imperial forces and just joyriding over humans. And some say they were in charge of what happened at Abu Graif - that was clearly a war crime by the GC and totally unnecessary and without use. It has damaged the reputation of the government of the USA in our own eyes and all the world.
I can see Bush's reasoning if one assumes the man was at all honest. I consider him unfit for the office that he attained, more on the level of a criminal and incapable of leading properly as he seems to have had no regard for the lives or the rights of anyone at home or abroad. The only thing I could possibly say in his defense was he was over his head in everything he did.
Most of the world and many DUers didn't agree with the Iraq War and that means everything that followed the invasion was illegitimate. Neither do I. But then, I didn't agree with the war itself, am still in sync with Kerry on this from years ago, so admit to possessing a strong bias, and unable or unwilling to support what was done in Iraq in my name, even though I support taking care of all the wounded. And there are many kinds of wounds that all soldiers have to live with if they survive the experience.
Some may consider holding to such concerns to be part of an antique world that is in the past. But that would disqualify us as a nation from having acted as a Constitutional republic acting legally through UN resolutions, acts of Congress to go to war, and a whole host of civil rights and traditions for which we claim to be protecting. If we act like an empire, we meet the fate of one, and the Constitution and the laws most of us live by are hard to defend, they are merely excuses. Most of us will not surrender that easily.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)In this case, the protection of the Geneva Conventions does not provide a mantle to civilians when they take “a direct part in hostilities.” Armed men (even civilians)in a free fire zone are legitimate targets, Free fire zones that do not meet this rule are illegal.
cstanleytech
(26,344 posts)The first is it was that as far as I am aware the none of the material he stole and supplied to wikileaks involved any premeditated crime being committed and alot of it involved memos from embassies that was largely just embarrassing so it clearly wasnt about exposing a crime.
The second is that in this case he actually had a perfectly legal way notify someone in congress and or the inspector generals office if he believed a crime was committed and being covered up by slapping "Classiefied" on it but he choose not to do that.
So really in the end he did break the law tblue
hack89
(39,171 posts)he needs to go to prison for a while.
msongs
(67,470 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)The monster.
It's hard to put to words something so obvious and evil. Maybe it's just because I was raised hearing about the military as a business. My dad wasn't perfect, but he sure knew good from bad. He used to say that we ought to be dropping refrigerators on countries, not bombs.
jmowreader
(50,572 posts)but the indiscriminate dump of a quarter-million State Department cables makes him a criminal, and he needs some jail time for it.
Pragdem
(233 posts)A lot of ignorant people will disagree with his punishment and produce a lot of crocodile tears to promote their kooky agendas, but let them. This guy is getting exactly what he deserves.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What diplomatic ties did he weaken?
How can you show that the cables he released actually caused harm?
I don't think your comment deals with the reality of his case.
I think Manning has already agreed to confess to certain crimes. The claims now being decided against him, as I understand it, require a higher standard of proof of damages.
Manning will serve time, but how much is the question. As I said, he confessed to certain actions and explained his motivations.
From Raw Story:
Manning has offered to plead guilty to 10 offenses, including breaches of military discipline and good conduct, which could see him sentenced to 20 years under the courts-martial process at Fort Meade military base in Maryland.
However, he could face a maximum term of 154 years in jail if found guilty of the more serious charges, including that of “aiding the enemy.”
Part of the US government’s case against Manning asserts that late Al-Qaeda leader Bin Laden had asked an aide to retrieve documents from the Internet that the soldier had passed to WikiLeaks.
. . . .
Since taking office, Obama has invoked the Espionage Act, passed in 1917 to punish those who aid US enemies, six times — twice as often as all previous presidents combined.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/02/bradley-manning-facing-possible-154-year-jail-sentence-as-trial-begins/
mallard
(569 posts)... have surfed Wikileaks. This is the kind of 'evidence' the prosecution intends to draw on to show that Manning aided the enemy
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)If he had selectively leaked only the helicopter video or whatever it was that exposed really bad shit, then I'd call him a whistleblower and be demanding complete immunity for him. But that's not what he did. He leaked anything and everything he could get his hands on and he also did so as a member of the military. He deserves to be prosecuted and locked up for awhile.
cstanleytech
(26,344 posts)members of congress as well as the inspector general if he thought it was a crime being covered up which would have been perfectly legal.
The Wizard
(12,552 posts)as prescribed by the Geneva accords, of which the United States is a signatory. He was obligated to report what he saw as war crime. Covering up war crimes should be punished.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)he supposedly uncovered?
cstanleytech
(26,344 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)WikiLeaks: Iraqi children in U.S. raid shot in head, U.N. says
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/31/122789/wikileaks-iraqi-children-in-us.html#storylink=cpy
A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.
The unclassified cable, which was posted on WikiLeaks' website last week, contained questions from a United Nations investigator about the incident, which had angered local Iraqi officials, who demanded some kind of action from their government. U.S. officials denied at the time that anything inappropriate had occurred.
But Philip Alston, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in a communication to American officials dated 12 days after the March 15, 2006, incident that autopsies performed in the Iraqi city of Tikrit showed that all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Among the dead were four women and five children. The children were all 5 years old or younger.
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
~snip~
Alston said he could provide no further information on the incident. "The tragedy," he said, "is that this elaborate system of communications is in place but the (U.N.) Human Rights Council does nothing to follow up when states ignore issues raised with them."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html
MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:
Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH
6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.
Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH
4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.
Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177
The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)not exactly a war crime. So please try again.
No jackbooted support from me, just a commitment to concise consistent logic. There is proof that these people were murdered, if there is evidence that shows American soldiers did this, I would like to see this evidence.
What you did is a neat little trick, it goes like this
1. Something bad happened in Iraq
2. Unknown facts behind something bad happening
3. It must be a U.S. war crime
Still waiting for a Manning exposed war crime like Abu Ghraib where there is no doubt who did what. But we both know you have nothing other than obfuscation.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Look at Articles 4, 5, 9, & 12 for starters.
Who the fuck do you think took this film?
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)and how exactly is this a crime? A legitimate target was identified (men with weapons), the target was called into the TOC to ask if it could be targeted. That region of Baghdad was a free fire zone, if you had weapons on the streets in plain view, you were a legit target. Confirmation to engage the target was given after consultation at the TOC by the command group. The targets were engaged, most were killed. One survived and was killed in cold blood (which most definitely would have been a war crime). In fact the pilot said a few times "if he picks up a weapon, we can kill him". That demonstrates that the pilot and gunner of this Apache understand the fucking rules of war FAR better than you do. Next a van shows up, into a free fire combat zone, the van rolls up to the dead and/or wounded survivors of the original attack. The van has no Red Cross, Red Crescent symbol on it that would have singled it out as a true medical vehicle. The pilot AGAIN goes through the process of asking for permission to engage the target. Again demonstrating complete understanding of the rules of engagement and laws of land warfare. He gets that permission and engages the van. The tragedy is that two kids who were brought into a combat zone were wounded, but that is a tragedy, not a crime. So please take your twelve year "sticking it to the man" and tell me again how this video is a crime? This video is a textbook demonstration of soldiers in combat doing everything they can to follow the rules of engagement and NOT commit a war crime. You and others attempting to claim it shows the opposite is laughable and embarrassing. I am looking forward to the day of the court martial when this video comes up and witness after witness calmly and politely explains to the judge, and the media present how this is EXACTLY legal. 130 witnesses can cover a lot of ground, a very good friend of mine from the 35F School house is there for his testimony. He was Manning's instructor (I taught there at the same time, but I didn't teach Manning), he was the one that initially identified that Manning might be a problem due to the Youtube videos he posts of Prosser Village and other key classified areas of Fort Huachuca when he was a student.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)That's a camera. Namir Noor-Eldeen was a Reuters news photographer. Stop your bullshit.
The UN Conventions were in regards to the WikiLeaks cables that referenced how the US stopped Spain's investigation of the Bush administration for torture.
The US squelched the real war crimes trial of torture at Abu Gharaib (and Bagram & Guantanamo.)
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)other men had cameras........You believe what you want, I will believe what my own trained eyes tell me.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)War crime? According to whom? Charles Graner and Linndy England weren't charged with war crimes before an international tribunal at the Hague. Stop making up bullshit.
Graner was sentenced to eleven years and served six. That's just like Rudolph Hess in Spandau prison! (Almost.)
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)In that case the pictures demonstrated real war crimes. The Collateral Damage video is the opposite of a war crime, it shows a chain of command clearly following the rules. And I am not making anything up, I deal in facts, not generalities.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)then the US was obligated to assist Spain's investigation of US torture under the Geneva Convention.
Instead, they stopped it.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)http://sourcedreporting.blogspot.com/2006/05/ishaqi-massacre-who-are-witnesses.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/haditha_06-02.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5039420.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5039714.stm
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-06-02-ishaqi_x.htm?csp=34
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/03/iraq.inquiries/
The Wizard
(12,552 posts)gunned down by American helicopter gun ship. The radio transmission indicates a shoot first American exceptionalism approach. The entire Iraq operation was a war crime and the perpetrators and profiteers are still reaping the benefits of their crimes against humanity. Just because the United States does it doesn't mean it's legal. Yes shooting unarmed civilians for practice is a war crime.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Except it doesn't.....the pilot repeatedly ASKS if he can engage. A target in Baghdad, in the city like that needs to be green lighted before he can engage. The pilot asks before he shoots the armed men, the pilot asks before he shoots the van removing the armed men from the battlefield. And those men were armed AK-47's at least.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)They were unarmed reporters, and that's a camera.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I am saying they are armed backed by evidence, In this case I am on the correct side. I have no doubt that two of those men have weapons and two others have cameras. Anyone trained as an Imagery analyst can see that. Unfortunately Manning the traitor was not an imagery analyst.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts).....was that that video was taken around 2am in a city under curfew, you can safely bet any groups of men with embedded reporters sneaking around at that time were insurgents. Why else would the Reuters reporters follow them?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)But he went much further than that. He leaked everything he could get his hands on, the vast majority of what he leaked had absolutely nothing to do with any crimes at all. For that, he should be punished.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Posters falling over themselves to defend the honor of corporations and an imperialist military force.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)He broke the law and he'll punished for it. That is what's supposed to happen. That we don't share your apparent worship of of Manning doesn't make anyone an imperialist. Using words like jackboot lust makes you look very foolish and very childish.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)The Authoritarians
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their
society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people
have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these
followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.
~snip~
Authoritarian followers seem to have a “Daddy and mommy know best”
attitude toward the government. They do not see laws as social standards that apply
to all. Instead, they appear to think that authorities are above the law, and can decide
which laws apply to them and which do not--just as parents can when one is young.
But in a democracy no one is supposed to be above the law. Still, authoritarians quite
easily put that aside. They also believe that only criminals and terrorists would object
to having their phones tapped, their mail opened, and their lives put under
surveillance. They have bought their tickets and are standing in line waiting for 1984,
The Real Thing. There might as well not be a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
And when the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is used to deny people the right of
habeas corpus--one of the oldest rights in western law--it is unlikely that right-wing
authoritarians will object to the loss of this constitutional guarantee either.
~snip~
The last string of studies I want to lay before you regarding authoritarian
submission concerns authoritarians’ willingness to hold officials accountable for their
misdeeds. Or rather, their lack of willingness--which catches your eye because high
RWAs generally favor punishing the bejabbers out of misdoers. But they proved less
likely than most people to punish a police officer who beat up a handcuffed
demonstrator, or a chief of detectives who assaulted an accused child molester being
held in jail, or--paralleling the trial of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley--an Air Force
officer convicted of murder after leading unauthorized raids on Vietnamese villages.
~snip~
If some day George W. Bush is indicted for authorizing torture, you can bet
your bottom dollar the high RWAs will howl to the heavens in protest. It won’t matter
how extensive the torture was, how cruel and sickening it was, how many years it
went on, how many prisoners died, how devious Bush was in trying to evade
America’s laws and traditional stand against torture, or how many treaties the U.S.
broke. Such an indictment would grind right up against the core of authoritarian
followers, and they won’t have it. Maybe they’ll even say, “The president was busy
running the war. He didn’t really know. It was all done by Rumsfeld and others.”
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Enjoy your teenage hero worship - I'm sure an address will be provided so you can write him in prison.
Struck a nerve, I see.
Kiss, kiss.
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Your mommy needs her computer now.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts). . . and the Nobel Peace Prize.
cstanleytech
(26,344 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I don't want to get into this again, but there is nothing that could be examined that would exonerate Bradley Manning. He leaked classified data that he did not have permission to do so. He leaked it to a non-state actor who edited it for his organizations own use. He transported classified material from a SCIF without permission, he knowingly gave false statements about the transfer of this material. This is as about an open and shit case as could possibly exist.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)set of marbles entirely.
He already pled guilty to the leaking, IIRC.
Marblehead
(1,268 posts)is being charged and Bush and Cheney are not.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)If anyone should be charged with a crime of leaking classified material it is the management of the military document system. Why were they letting their people download anything?
Our Gov seems to hate whistle blowers, the man exposed war crimes. He's a hero in my book.
As far as the diplomatic cables, they shouldn't be sending cables like that where they laugh over russias crappy boiled meat lunches or what countries leadership are to drunk to work. The food, suck it up. The drunk leaders that should be public a Leader is to tanked to sit at the table with another country.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)A troubled kid who acted out of ideals but stepped way outside the lines of what was legal or defensible (video is one thing, massive dump of cables without reading them quite another).
He doesn't deserve life in prison, nor does he deserve to be considered a hero and icon of freedom. 5 years in the brig, dishonorable discharge, and then he can go on the lecture circuit and enjoy a nice living while maintaining a public platform for his advocacy.
cstanleytech
(26,344 posts)After all it doesnt all add up because if he did it to reveal a crime being committed he didnt need to leak all those other classified documents not related to said crime but he did leak them all and he also didnt report it to someone in congress or to the inspector generals office which would have actually been perfectly legal and the military probably could not have prosecuted him for it then.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Oh, yeah! Outed Valarie Plame!
But I guess that's not "aiding and abetting the enemy."
--a few--
■Ever discussing Valerie Plame Wilson with Libby prior to the publication of Novak's column.
■Whether Scooter Libby knew about Valerie Plame Wilson on July 12, the day before the publication of the Novak column.
■If Libby ever told Cheney he had independent knowledge of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert identity
■Dictating notes to Libby on July 12, 2003 that Cheney said looked and sounded like something he might have dictated to Libby.
■Discussing the Novak column or any of its contents with anyone at the time it was published.
■Whether he discussed the Wilson trip with Libby as a sort of "boondoggle" or "junket," although he believed it possible that he had such a conversation.
■If Libby told him that Libby was not Novak's source.
■Libby telling him how he first learned that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative.
■Whether he told Libby that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/22-things-dick-cheney-cant-remember-about-plame-case
Perhaps Manning should just pull a Cheney (or Reagan) and say he doesn't recall anything...
cstanleytech
(26,344 posts)breaking the law?
KansDem
(28,498 posts)But, hey! I didn't write the rules!
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)and seeks to expose the systems around and leading to that issue - and there's nothing wrong with tying it all in to other issues. The thing is, though, the whistleblower is exposing something in particular, which can be as broad or narrow as needed.
Manning seems to have just collected a lot of random information and released it without any particular rhyme or reason. It's a grab-bag of stuff from all over that doesn't form together as an "issue," other than perhaps a general protest against the secrecy of military and diplomatic intelligence.
I wouldn't go so far as calling the man a traitor; that requires its own particular set of circumstances, after all. But I think calling him a whistleblower actually harms the notion of whistleblowers. He's not one, he's a guy who hurked thousands of documents on the internet. And while many of those documents could formth basis of a whistle-blowing campaign, he never did that. Equating him with whistle-blowing thus weakens the validity and protections deserved for those peopel who actually blow whistles.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)something can be done about whatever crimes they are exposing. It's not as glamorous as leaking to Wikileaks, but it is one's duty.
Unfortunately, until people learn to stand up for what's right and stop making excuses for their leaders' crimes, there won't be meaningful reform for this country. I guess it's easier to hang your head low, tuck your tail and follow the pack than to fight for new leadership.
It's funny how people always have plenty of criticisms for other nations shortcomings, but can't seem to focus any of that energy inwardly.
