• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty

halides1 said:
At this point (circa 2010) Manning was legally innocent. Speaking only for myself, If I were put under those conditions for an indefinite period of time, I might consider suicide.
Click to expand...

I suggested it earlier, Poor Brad could have volunteered for some light mine sweeping duties.

Think of the fresh air!
 
halides1 said:
At this point (circa 2010) Manning was legally innocent. Speaking only for myself, If I were put under those conditions for an indefinite period of time, I might consider suicide.
Click to expand...

Well, as I said it is essentially designed to be the worst boot camp type situation possible, which is allowable or else there would be changes to the rules for boot camp. Now to be honest the average person in boot camp will probably never go through all of those military rigors all at once or for a long period of time but just because they don't usually do that doesn't mean that they can't do that every day if they wanted to. Of course people would be leaving in droves and other people wouldn't sign up if that level of rigor was a daily standard for an extended period of time so that's why it isn't done.

I've been subjected to everything that was mentioned (strict scheduling, uncomfortable seating/standing, short bathing windows etc.) in my boot camp days as well as a couple of hour long "Forced" exercise periods as a form of punishment for ridiculously dumb reasons after our normal duty day was completed. Not the POI or suicide watch stuff though but then again none of us were considered suicidal either. It's tough but it's not torture and (in boot camp anyway) it has a purpose.

When you sign up the military owns you and if you didn't know this when you signed up then you weren't paying attention. Setting the Stripes and Private Benjamin type jokes aside you are made aware of the possible conditions before you sign your life away.
 
Apache attack helicopter

WildCat said:
<crickets>

As always when I challenge anyone to show any story broke by wikileaks
Click to expand...
You threw a blanket over Peephole's list without discussing individual instances. Here is a link to some examples. Amy Goodman wrote, "More on Manning shortly. First, a reminder of what he is accused of leaking. In April 2010, the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks released a video called Collateral Murder. It was a classified US military video from July 2007, from an Apache attack helicopter over Baghdad. The video shows a group of men walking, then the systematic killing of them in a barrage of high-powered automatic fire from the helicopter. Soldiers' radio transmissions narrate the carnage, varying from cold and methodical to cruel and enthusiastic. Two of those killed were employees of the international news agency Reuters: Namir Noor-Eldeen, a photojournalist, and Saeed Chmagh, his driver."
EDT
I suppose one might argue that the fact of the killing was known prior to the leak. However, the relevant question is whether or not the circumstances of the killing was known IMO.
 
Last edited:
from The New Republic

Yochai Benkler wrote, "In fact, neither side disagrees with this central critique: That for 150 years, well before the rise of the modern First Amendment, the invention of muckraking journalism, or the modern development of the watchdog function of the press in democratic society, no one has been charged with aiding the enemy simply for leaking information to the press for general publication."
 
antidepressants

BenBurch said:
If we had allowed him to kill himself, that would have made you happy, I suppose?
Click to expand...
I am not sure to whom this is addressed. Manning says that antidepressents helped IIRC. I don't see how only twenty minutes of sunshine call promotes good mental health. I am still on the fence as to whether or not all of the conditions to which Pvt. Manning was subjected were necessary to prevent him from killing himself.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
You threw a blanket over Peephole's list without discussing individual instances.
Click to expand...
Because I'm not going to respond to a wall of text covering multiple incidents, that's what truthers and creationists and other woo-merchants do to "win" debates. Pick a single incident that wikileaks broke, if you do you'll be the first.

halides1 said:
Here is a link to some examples. Amy Goodman wrote, "More on Manning shortly. First, a reminder of what he is accused of leaking. In April 2010, the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks released a video called Collateral Murder. It was a classified US military video from July 2007, from an Apache attack helicopter over Baghdad. The video shows a group of men walking, then the systematic killing of them in a barrage of high-powered automatic fire from the helicopter. Soldiers' radio transmissions narrate the carnage, varying from cold and methodical to cruel and enthusiastic. Two of those killed were employees of the international news agency Reuters: Namir Noor-Eldeen, a photojournalist, and Saeed Chmagh, his driver."
EDT
I suppose one might argue that the fact of the killing was known prior to the leak. However, the relevant question is whether or not the circumstances of the killing was known IMO.
Click to expand...
I assume this is your strongest case, and it really added nothing new. Journalist embeds with armed insurgents, gets smoked with the insurgents. Calling it "murder" in an effort to sensationalize it added nothing buy hype. If anything the video confirmed the US military's side of the story, which was already known.
 
Last edited:
NotJesus said:
This is very disappointing. Why couldn't he just be a successful quarterback like his brothers?
Click to expand...

Don't expect Eli to bring home a third ring.

I hear the Patriots won't be renewing Bradleys contract as head of playbook security.
 
halides1 said:
You threw a blanket over Peephole's list without discussing individual instances. Here is a link to some examples. Amy Goodman wrote, "More on Manning shortly. First, a reminder of what he is accused of leaking. In April 2010, the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks released a video called Collateral Murder. It was a classified US military video from July 2007, from an Apache attack helicopter over Baghdad. The video shows a group of men walking, then the systematic killing of them in a barrage of high-powered automatic fire from the helicopter. Soldiers' radio transmissions narrate the carnage, varying from cold and methodical to cruel and enthusiastic. Two of those killed were employees of the international news agency Reuters: Namir Noor-Eldeen, a photojournalist, and Saeed Chmagh, his driver."
EDT
I suppose one might argue that the fact of the killing was known prior to the leak. However, the relevant question is whether or not the circumstances of the killing was known IMO.
Click to expand...

The video was not called "collateral murder" when it was stolen from the US. That was the title given to the intentionally misleading edit that Julian Assange made and released for "maximum" political impact. Stephen Colbert called him out for that. Do yourself a favor and don't bother quoting wildly slanted nonsense from the Guardian, look for a neutral source.
 
When you go and pick the one thing that was intentionally edited to tell a completely different story than the truth as an example of Mannings "Whistleblowing" then you truely do "Got nuttin'".
 
WildCat said:
Because I'm not going to respond to a wall of text covering multiple incidents, that's what truthers and creationists and other woo-merchants do to "win" debates. Pick a single incident that wikileaks broke, if you do you'll be the first.


I assume this is your strongest case, and it really added nothing new. Journalist embeds with armed insurgents, gets smoked with the insurgents. Calling it "murder" in an effort to sensationalize it added nothing buy hype. If anything the video confirmed the US military's side of the story, which was already known.
Click to expand...

Keep saying it and it will become true.

The USA did not ignore the laws of war accepted by the rest of the world by firing on unarmed civilians who were assisting the wounded as is their legally protected right. Keep saying it and it will become true.

The helicopter crew did not lie and claim that the civilians were picking up weapons in order to get permission to fire on them. Keep saying it and it will become true.

The militia killed by the helicopter were a clear and present danger to an Apache so they were defending themselves, despite the fact that the militia were unaware of the helicopter, the helicopter was over a kilometre away and the maximum effective range of the weapons the militia were carrying is in the hundreds of metres. Keep saying it and it will become true.

The USA did not mind at all that people became more generally aware that they had gunships hovering over Iraq, killing people for the crime of going armed in a war zone where attacks by rival militias were an everyday threat. Keep saying it and it will become true.

Nothing Bradley Manning did mattered. You've got to keep saying it.
 
People who assist other people on the battlefield, military or civilian, medical or otherwise, are required to wear identifying markings on their vehicles and persons. If they are not and the battlefield is still active they will be considered the enemy.

The people who were shot "Picking up weapons" picked up weapons (or to be more correct, placed their hands on things that were thought to be weapons at the time).

The people on the ground were a danger to the other people on the ground heading towards them. In a war the enemy doesn't have to be shooting at you to be viable targets however in this case the aircraft was there to support the people on the ground.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid. I hear that the grape stuff is pretty tasty.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Keep saying it and it will become true.

The USA did not ignore the laws of war accepted by the rest of the world by firing on unarmed civilians who were assisting the wounded as is their legally protected right. Keep saying it and it will become true.

The helicopter crew did not lie and claim that the civilians were picking up weapons in order to get permission to fire on them. Keep saying it and it will become true.

The militia killed by the helicopter were a clear and present danger to an Apache so they were defending themselves, despite the fact that the militia were unaware of the helicopter, the helicopter was over a kilometre away and the maximum effective range of the weapons the militia were carrying is in the hundreds of metres. Keep saying it and it will become true.

The USA did not mind at all that people became more generally aware that they had gunships hovering over Iraq, killing people for the crime of going armed in a war zone where attacks by rival militias were an everyday threat. Keep saying it and it will become true.

Nothing Bradley Manning did mattered. You've got to keep saying it.
Click to expand...

lolz. We are just going to assume you slurped up Julian's intentionally misleadingly named and edited video without question. You should definetly watch him get dismantled by Stephen Colbert.

Regarding the title Toby Harnden in the Daily Telegraph wrote: "Oddly enough, it was Stephen Colbert, ostensibly a comedian, who skewered him":

The army described this as a group that gave resistance at the time, that doesn’t seem to be happening. But there are armed men in the group, they did find a rocket propelled grenade among the group, the Reuters photographers who were regrettably killed, were not identified…You have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called ‘collateral murder.’ That’s not leaking, that’s a pure editorial.

According to Harden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."[Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation'".

Bill Keller of The New York Times wrote "But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric Collateral Murder."The New York Times reported that "Critics contend that the shorter video was misleading because it did not make clear that the attacks took place amid clashes in the neighborhood and that one of the men was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade."

Yeah, Julian lied to you. But he's an Aussie Mate! By way of Ecuador, I guess. How's the whole hiding out going anyway?
 
Last edited:
mikedenk said:
Still better than what he deserves, which is death, obviously.
Click to expand...
114,731 violent civilian deaths, and an estimated one million excess deaths - the result of an unnecessary invasion started under false pretenses. Bradley Manning deserves nothing less than Death, simply for being a member of that evil organization.

That he will probably get off lightly is disappointing. That those ultimately responsible for the atrocity euphemistically called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" will never be brought to justice, is a travesty.

Bradley Manning might get some sympathy from me if at least one of the reasons he leaked the information was because he was appalled by what the military was doing, and decided that the public had to know about it. However that doesn't make him a 'hero' just because he eventually decided to do the right thing.

Sabrina said:
“Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”
Click to expand...
That is The Law, and if Manning broke it then he should suffer the consequences, right? Some may feel that since his actions didn't result in any deaths or any other serious damage apart from 'embarrassment', that the harsh punishment he is receiving does not fit the crime. Others argue that 'spying' is only one step below treason, and punishment should be meted out accordingly. Still others simply point out that he knew The Law, and therefore deserves to get what's coming to him.

In some other countries Manning might have gotten sympathy for going up against a corrupt and evil government that has no qualms about murdering thousands of innocent civilians simply because they are foreigners. But this is America, and nobody gets away with subverting the will of our military-industrial complex, no matter what moral imperative they may have. The Law is The Law and he broke it, period!

However, there is one thing that I am a bit uneasy with. If in sending classified documents to WikiLeaks Bradley Manning was "knowingly giv[ing] information to ... the enemy" then 'the enemy' is in fact the News Media, and by extension the People. Are We the People enemies of the military-industrial complex? Does Manning deserve Death despite being on our side, simply because The Law is on the side of the oppressors? If so, I can understand those who agree with rape victims being executed for adultery in Muslim countries - after all, The Law is The Law! :boggled:
 
16.5 said:
The video was not called "collateral murder" when it was stolen from the US. That was the title given to the intentionally misleading edit that Julian Assange made and released for "maximum" political impact. Stephen Colbert called him out for that. Do yourself a favor and don't bother quoting wildly slanted nonsense from the Guardian, look for a neutral source.
Click to expand...
Your argument is a deflection.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom