Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty

[WildCat]

With respect to the first question, I'd suggest reading the cites I gave; apparently, that would be novel in this thread. With respect to the second, I am sorry to say that it is a bit of a strawman for the reasons I have already given.

So you're just going to weasel out of answering a direct question?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

copycat

I assume the video you are talking about is Assange's fraudulently edited collateral murder that he intentionally edited and titled for his own political purposes. The remainder of you post is a meandering gish gallop.
The issue, friendo, was whether the stolen video was intentionally edited in a misleading way. From your response, I see that you don't disagree. Progress.

(highlighting mine)
That is almost a copycat argument of WildCat's equally logically flawed comment (message #71). It is a lazy and disingenuous short-circuiting of the process of debate (I had been hoping for actual information and/or cogent argumentation, but this is not the first thread to disappoint). It is all the more interesting an argument, in that your own comments have been free of citations that provide either facts or informed opinion. A definition of the actual meaning of Gish gallop can be found here. If you are going to use a term, you should make the effort to use it correctly next time. The issue you wish to discuss may be the editing of video, but I have already shown you why you are going off on a tangent. BTW your final assumption is also wrong; I have not expressed either agreement or disagreement with your characterization of the video. Thank you, and have a nice day.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Do you think the US goverment should reveal, for example, that they really think Kim Jong Un is a despicable two-faced POS

I get a very strong impression that they do think Kim Jong Un is a despicable two-faced POS. But where did I get that impression from, and if even I know about it then what are the chances that Kim Jong Un is still in the dark about how they really feel?

and make that their public stance?

When the government doesn't want to be seen making something their 'public stance' but still wants the public on their side, they simply leak the information. But when information is leaked about something nefarious that they don't want us to find out about, then they get all upset. That's perfectly understandable (in the same way that a criminal doesn't want people finding out about their crimes) but not the way that Democracy should work.

Where you have deals going on behind closed doors, and a public stance which may be at odds with actual agendas, you have great a opportunity for misunderstandings, corruption, and governments getting away with things that the people don't agree with. You might expect that kind of behavior in an oppressive regime like North Korea (and indeed, our government and the news media are constantly reminding us of how evil North Korea is) but similar things have gone on here too.

What's worse is that it only takes a few incidents to make everyone suspicious of all secret government operations - even those that may be completely benign and in our best interest. The only practical solution to this problem is to make all government actions transparent and open to public scrutiny. If some official has an opinion which might be politically damaging then he can either tell us all about it and suffer the consequences, or keep it to himself and not let it affect his duties. A government which tells its people one thing but thinks another behind their backs is not only two-faced and despicable, but also very dangerous. It's the sort of behavior that gets a country into illegal wars and puts blood on the hands of its citizens.

show of hands: who thinks all the things their nation's diplomatic apparatus discusses behind closed doors should be made available to everyone including the nations they are trying to have diplomatic relations with?

<puts hand up>

Which is better - closed discussions clouded in secrecy, with the public only finding out through second-guessing, innuendo, leaks and the occasional incident - or open discussions where everybody behaves because their actions may be scrutinized?

 

[Alt+F4]

James Madison observed, “[a] popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.”

He also said: “The two races cannot co-exist, both being free & equal. The great sine qua non therefore is some external asylum for the colored race.”

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The battlefield was not still active, except possibly in the minds of creative bush lawyers whose legal theory is "it's still active because we say it is". Hence civilians had the right, in the eyes of all civilised nations, to assist the wounded without needing any identifying markings whatsoever.

Not in the eyes of the USA, however. The USA makes up "rules of engagement" recognised by no other nation, and by their made-up rules it's okay to kill civilians assisting wounded people after a battle is over. As far as the rest of the world is concerned it's murder and a war crime but hey, the USA is okay thanks to a stroke of its own pen. (Keep saying it!).

Exactly when, in your opinion, was the battlefield inactive? I can tell you that in the opinion of the rest of the world throughout the history of modern warfare it is when both sides have stopped shooting and have disengaged. In this particular instance the ground forces were still approaching and had decidedly NOT disengaged. The aircraft obviously had not disengaged as it was still circling and firing its weapons into it.

You need to watch the video again. They were placing their hands on people who happened to be innocent, civilian journalists injured in the US attack.

The helicopter crew lied and indicated to their controller that they were picking up weapons. It's clear from the video footage that the good Samaritans did nothing which looked anything like picking up a weapon.

No it is not clear at all to me that those were civilians as they were dressed EXACTLY THE SAME as the people that were shooting at the ground forces. Now if you want to complain about that I suggest that you direct it towards the people on the ground who were, in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war contained therein, illegal combatants in not wearing a recognizable uniform or other markings.

Sure. However it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's a potential problem with turning a country into a war zone where rival militias attack each other, so that for that nation's inhabitants going armed for self defence is completely rational, and then massacring anyone with a weapon. It takes some real mental gymnastics to reach a position where the subsequent bloodbaths are all Somebody Else's Fault.

It also doesn't take a genius to notice that the people who got massacred had line of sight to a US army vehicle. You can see the photographer kneeling to take a photo, in fact. Yet they were completely chilled out and made no move either to seek cover or to point an rpg at the US forces. They were just standing around, almost as if they thought the US guys were on their side and not a threat to them. Maybe they are the coolest insurgents ever, anything's possible. But it's kind of hard to escape the possibility that they were a local militia armed to defend themselves against attacks by other militias and it hadn't even crossed their mind that they might get into a fight with US troops.

So the effect of Manning's leak is that perfectly rational and well-informed people might watch that video and think to themselves "You know, if this is what is going on in Iraq maybe it wasn't such a good idea to conquer the place, and maybe it's not such a good idea to occupy it".

It's funny how you can so easily ignore the facts and replace it with the fantasies in your head. The gunship was there AFTER they had been called in BECAUSE the people on the ground that were their intended targets were firing their weapons at US forces on the ground. US Forces are properly marked and are easily recognizable as such (unlike the people who were shooting at them). They knew exactly who they were shooting at. Why do you think that the journalists who were killed by their sides were there in the first place? To photograph a picnic and perhaps some of the local flora and fauna?

You might want to have the facts on your side before you make remarks like that. It cuts down on the potential irony.

Oh the irony. You did drink the grape stuff didn't you. That's not so good for you.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

consultation, not worship

He also said: “The two races cannot co-exist, both being free & equal. The great sine qua non therefore is some external asylum for the colored race.”

LOL, good one. I think Jefferson had a similar view, but I could be mistaken. I hope Madison was wrong about this, but the approximately 150 years since the end of slavery suggest that he might have had a point, unfortunately. I think it would be a mistake not to consult the founding fathers on many issues, such as the wall of separation between church and state. Consulting does not mean being held in thrall (hmm.., might be a better word for this).

 

[uke2se]

LOL, good one. I think Jefferson had a similar view, but I could be mistaken. I hope Madison was wrong about this, but the approximately 150 years since the end of slavery suggest that he might have had a point, unfortunately. I think it would be a mistake not to consult the founding fathers on many issues, such as the wall of separation between church and state. Consulting does not mean being held in thrall (hmm.., might be a better word for this).

Am I correct in understanding that you feel it might be impossible for whites and blacks to live side by side?

 

[WildCat]

I get a very strong impression that they do think Kim Jong Un is a despicable two-faced POS. But where did I get that impression from, and if even I know about it then what are the chances that Kim Jong Un is still in the dark about how they really feel?

Oddly enough, all the stuff in wikileaks was also known. But this information wasn't released officially, which smooths things diplomatically.

When the government doesn't want to be seen making something their 'public stance' but still wants the public on their side, they simply leak the information.

You think leaked information is always done because the government wanted it so? You're getting into conspiracy theory territory here.

But when information is leaked about something nefarious that they don't want us to find out about, then they get all upset. That's perfectly understandable (in the same way that a criminal doesn't want people finding out about their crimes) but not the way that Democracy should work.

What was "nefarious"?

Where you have deals going on behind closed doors, and a public stance which may be at odds with actual agendas, you have great a opportunity for misunderstandings, corruption, and governments getting away with things that the people don't agree with.

So you have examples of this, or is this just hypothetical?

You might expect that kind of behavior in an oppressive regime like North Korea (and indeed, our government and the news media are constantly reminding us of how evil North Korea is) but similar things have gone on here too.

Examples?

What's worse is that it only takes a few incidents to make everyone suspicious of all secret government operations - even those that may be completely benign and in our best interest. The only practical solution to this problem is to make all government actions transparent and open to public scrutiny. If some official has an opinion which might be politically damaging then he can either tell us all about it and suffer the consequences, or keep it to himself and not let it affect his duties. A government which tells its people one thing but thinks another behind their backs is not only two-faced and despicable, but also very dangerous. It's the sort of behavior that gets a country into illegal wars and puts blood on the hands of its citizens.

Once again, examples? Evidence?

<puts hand up>

Which is better - closed discussions clouded in secrecy, with the public only finding out through second-guessing, innuendo, leaks and the occasional incident - or open discussions where everybody behaves because their actions may be scrutinized?

So you think all diplomatic deliberations, debates, and considerations should be CC'd to the press?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

clarification requested

Am I correct in understanding that you feel it might be impossible for whites and blacks to live side by side?

No, I think it is possible but also that racial tensions in the period in question indicate how difficult it is to have a color-blind society. Personally I think that Madison's views on black-white relations are not terribly relevant to the present discussion, but perhaps I did not make that clear before.

 

[WildCat]

No, I think it is possible but also that racial tensions in the period in question indicate how difficult it is to have a color-blind society. Personally I think that Madison's views on black-white relations are not terribly relevant to the present discussion, but perhaps I did not make that clear before.

Did Madison release to the press all internal diplomatic communications and deliberations?

 

[WildCat]

And all the "tell it like it is" people here must have been big fans of John Bolton as UN ambassador, and Reagan calling the USSR an "evil empire".

 

[Virus]

Your argument is a deflection.

Journalist embedded with terrorists pointed his camera at a chopper.

Shouldn't have embedded with terrorists. Shouldn't have pointed his camera at a chopper.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

So you're just going to weasel out of answering a direct question?

Do you concede that your argument about "truthers and creationists" was wrong? Do you concede that bringing Valerie Plame into this discussion was a tangent?
EDT
Do you acknowledge The Economist as a credible source?
Do you agree that Manning would still have been charged if the NYT had made his information public?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How does that apply to diplomacy?

Do you think the US goverment should reveal, for example, that they really think Kim Jong Un is a despicable two-faced POS and make that their public stance?

The first question is very vague. My answer to the second question is "No."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Journalist embedded with terrorists pointed his camera at a chopper.

Shouldn't have embedded with terrorists. Shouldn't have pointed his camera at a chopper.

Cite? It would be a first. "The focus on Mr Noor-Eldeen and his camera is misleading. The helicopters had already decided to attack the group of men on the ground well before the photographer peeked around the corner." link

 

[uke2se]

Cite? It would be a first. "The focus on Mr Noor-Eldeen and his camera is misleading. The helicopters had already decided to attack the group of men on the ground well before the photographer peeked around the corner." link

I seem to recall the men being armed, so that's not really a surprise, is it?

And yes, I watched the film and was suitably horrified. The children dying was especially gruesome. However, it was a warzone, and the actual targets were armed combatants.

/ETA: I never understood what the major outcry over this video was about. Are people so detached from the reality of war that it never struck them that sometimes civilians get killed? "Collateral Damage" might seem like a cold phrase to describe it, but that's what it is. Accidental. It's the same in every single armed conflict. Horrible things happen, children get killed in horrible ways, people get shot by mistake because of faulty weaponry, erroneous identification or simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's absolutely frigging terrible, but such is the way of human conflict. Always has been, always will be.

 

[tyr_13]

Sorry, you have lost me. Travis wrote, "who thinks all the things their nation's diplomatic apparatus discusses behind closed doors should be made available to everyone including the nations they are trying to have diplomatic relations with?" I know that I never said that, and I cannot think of any time this view was put forward in the links I provided. IANAL but if people want to know where I am coming from, I recommend that people read Professor Stone's article in the Indiana Law Review.
"Mr. Stone teaches and writes primarily in the area of constitutional law. His most recent books are Speaking Out! Reflections on Law, Liberty and Justice (2010); Top Secret: When Our Government Keeps Us in the Dark (2007) and War and Liberty: An American Dilemma (2007). Mr. Stone’s Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism (2004) received the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award for 2005, the Los Angeles Times Book Prize for 2004 as the best book in the field of history, the American Political Science Association's Kammerer Award for 2005 for the best book in Political Science, and Harvard University's 2005 Goldsmith Award for the best book in the field of Public Affairs."

So you believe that you and your sources constituted the set of 'anyone'?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ellsburg interview

So you believe that you and your sources constituted the set of 'anyone'?

I am still not sure what you are asking. I don't have a problem with some state secrets. It seems to me that Daniel Ellsberg's position has merit: "As I've been saying elsewhere, I don't advise people to put out classified material they haven't read and formed a definite judgment of the need for disclosure on. In fact, I would advise them not to do that. How much the case of the Afghanistan documents involves doing that, and whether the risks outweigh the benefits, has yet to be seen. (On that count, I certainly don't give the judgment, or declarations, of Gates or Mullen or, for that matter, Obama much weight, despite, or really because of, their roles. Their commitment to secrecy and manipulation—along with their reckless and irresponsible policymaking—has already cost untold lives in the Middle East, and is continuing to do so.)"

 

[tyr_13]

I am still not sure what you are asking. I don't have a problem with some state secrets. It seems to me that Daniel Ellsburg's position has merit: "As I've been saying elsewhere, I don't advise people to put out classified material they haven't read and formed a definite judgment of the need for disclosure on. In fact, I would advise them not to do that. How much the case of the Afghanistan documents involves doing that, and whether the risks outweigh the benefits, has yet to be seen. (On that count, I certainly don't give the judgment, or declarations, of Gates or Mullen or, for that matter, Obama much weight, despite, or really because of, their roles. Their commitment to secrecy and manipulation—along with their reckless and irresponsible policymaking—has already cost untold lives in the Middle East, and is continuing to do so.)"

Wikileaks disagrees.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the rest of the interview is also interesting

Wikileaks disagrees.

Mr. Ellsberg has praise for Mr. Assange and Mr. Manning elsewhere in the interview. I hope that I have been clear that the almost singular focus on one incident involving Wikileaks in this thread is misguided IMO.