Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty

[WildCat]

What would be illegal is keeping up the fire if these people had thrown down their weapons and surrendered.

I don't think you can surrender to an aircraft. Otherwise they'd just "surrender" the minute aircraft were overhead, thus protecting themselves from being fired upon, then resume fighting the minute the aircraft are gone.

 

[WildCat]

"On several occasions, the Apache gunner appears to fire rounds into people after there is evidence that they are have either died or are suffering from debilitating wounds. The Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Combat do not permit combatants to shoot at people who are surrendering or who no longer pose a threat because of their injuries." link. (highlighting mine)

Absolute nonsense when it comes to air attack.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I don't think you can surrender to an aircraft. Otherwise they'd just "surrender" the minute aircraft were overhead, thus protecting themselves from being fired upon, then resume fighting the minute the aircraft are gone.

It's kinda like surrendering to a submarine. Not only is it not really possible but unlike with surface ships, the law of the sea (to render assistance to men in the water) is not possible due not only to their mission objective of remaining undetected but also because there is no room for prisoners.

Back when they were first being used in warfare several countries considered them underhanded because of this and either refused to have them in their navies or when they did have them they considered the men who crewed them to be rouges, even the officers were snubbed by their peers.

 

[WildCat]

"Mark Taylor, an expert on international law and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, has stated that there is "a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed".[101] An article in Gawker stated that Reuters reporter Luke Baker had written an article claiming that the airstrikes may have been war crimes, but the editor in chief of Reuters declined to run the story.[102]"

Of course a case can be made. A case could be made that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. A case could be made that Charles Manson is innocent. A case could be made that evolution is a hoax to discredit God. A case can be made that Bigfoot exists.

So?

 

[Travis]

<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?

In other words you don't want diplomacy. Because it is impossible if the other nations know everything you think about them in the same way it would be impossible to have friendships if everyone knew what you thought all the time.

See the mess with Ecuador as a good example of this. They have a lot of corrupt politicians. We talked about it. They found out we talked about it and didn't like it so now we're enemy #1 to the nation of Ecuador.

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.”

Link
"As Scott Shane, the New York Times' national security reporter, puts it: 'American taxpayers, American citizens pay for all these diplomatic operations overseas and you know, it is not a bad thing when Americans actually have a better understanding of those negotiations'. Mr Shane goes on to suggest that 'Perhaps if we had had more information on these secret internal deliberations of governments prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, we would have had a better understanding of the quality of the evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.'

The Economist also wrote, "Greg Mitchell's catalogue of reactions to the leaked cables is a trove of substantive information. For example, drawing on the documents made available by WikiLeaks, the ACLU reports that the Bush administration 'pressured Germany not to prosecute CIA officers responsible for the kidnapping, extraordinary rendition and torture of German national Khaled El-Masri...'"

With due respect I don't know anyone who is arguing what you are suggesting.

Yeah your quotes are not persuasive.

If you don't think anyone is agitating for full disclosure (some are, see above) then what do you think of Wikileaks releasing all the diplomatic cables hindering diplomatic efforts?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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 are aware that the full video is 38 minutes long, and very little of it is shooting? There was substantial time in between the shootings in which there was no shooting and no troop presence. There was still a helicopter circling a couple of kilometres away but there were always helicopters circling and as the video shows, people just don't notice them.

Unless you think civilians have x-ray telescopic vision the fact that ground forces were "still approaching" but minutes away in a city is not something you can possibly contend that they could or would know.

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.

Surprise, surprise. Iraqi civilians dress like Iraqi civilians. Maybe to you that means it's open season on people dressed like Iraqi civilians but the laws of war as observed by the civilised nations are not interested in your opinion.

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.

Crap. To be an illegal combatant you have to be a combatant. A civilian dressed as a civilian rendering assistance to the wounded after a battle is over is not an illegal combatant in eyes of the GCs. Stop making things up.

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.

Stop making things up. US troops were fired on nearby earlier that day. There is not and has never been any evidence the people killed by the gunship had anything whatsoever to do with the prior engagement.

Use some common sense - if those people had been shooting at US troops earlier that same day does it seem probable they would be so laid back about US troops? Yes, yes, they could be the coolest cucumbers that ever held an RPG, but it seems a lot more likely they were local militia and unrelated to the earlier fighting.

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?

To document the war zone that US-conquered Iraq had become?

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

Once again, you really need to check your facts. You can't get away with making stuff up here on the JREF forums the way you can in some other venues.

 

[Virus]

What Wikileaks didn't show you in order to play y'all for suckers.



Shouldn't have embedded with insurgents. Shouldn't have driven insurgents around in a black van. Shouldn't have brought kids to drive around insurgents.

Instead of doing that stuff, they shouldn't have done that stuff.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

In other words you don't want diplomacy. Because it is impossible if the other nations know everything you think about them in the same way it would be impossible to have friendships if everyone knew what you thought all the time.

So diplomacy means lying to your friends about what you think of them? You're right. If that's what diplomacy means then I don't want it.

A civilian dressed as a civilian rendering assistance to the wounded after a battle is over is not an illegal combatant in eyes of the GCs.

Yeah, but they're all towelheads so who cares?

Instead of doing that stuff, they shouldn't have done that stuff.

Shouldn't have - invaded a country on false pretenses.
Shouldn't have - murdered thousands of innocents
Shouldn't have - destroyed their infrastructure and fomented civil war.

No, we shouldn't have - but who gets the blame?

US to Iraq: "Why did you make me hit you?"

 

[Virus]

So diplomacy means lying to your friends about what you think of them? You're right. If that's what diplomacy means then I don't want it.

Yeah, but they're all towelheads so who cares?

Shouldn't have - invaded a country on false pretenses.
Shouldn't have - murdered thousands of innocents
Shouldn't have - destroyed their infrastructure and fomented civil war.

No, we shouldn't have - but who gets the blame?

US to Iraq: "Why did you make me hit you?"

In other words you totally bombed on that Collateral Murder stuff and were played for suckers by Assange & Co.

So what's Wikileak's great revelation again? Besides showing the hazards of embedding with terrorists and driving them around combat zones in vans.

 

[TjW]

So diplomacy means lying to your friends about what you think of them? You're right. If that's what diplomacy means then I don't want it.

So this would describe an evening at your house?

"Honey, does this make me look fat?"
"No, it's your big ass that does it."

 

[uke2se]

"Mark Taylor, an expert on international law and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, has stated that there is "a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed".[101] An article in Gawker stated that Reuters reporter Luke Baker had written an article claiming that the airstrikes may have been war crimes, but the editor in chief of Reuters declined to run the story.[102]"

What war crime was committed according to Taylor?

 

[Travis]

So diplomacy means lying to your friends about what you think of them? You're right. If that's what diplomacy means then I don't want it.

You've never eaten a laboriously prepared meal, hated it, but refused to condemn it so as to not offend? You've never held your tongue when someone said things in the heat of the moment?

I'd hate to live in this world you desire where everyone knows everything.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Yep, sill weaseling out.

I did answer in #114. You lied, and now you are weaseling out of answering. Thanks, and have a nice day.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

their case, not mine

Yeah your quotes are not persuasive.

If you don't think anyone is agitating for full disclosure (some are, see above) then what do you think of Wikileaks releasing all the diplomatic cables hindering diplomatic efforts?

If others wish for full disclosure, that is their case to make. As I have said several times, Manning should be the subject of this thread, not the specifics of Wikileaks subsequent actions. If I had been in Manning's shoes (or in the shoes of anyone to whom Manning leaked), I would have probably have released information more selectively, as I have indicated several times already.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

specious arguments

Of course a case can be made. A case could be made that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. A case could be made that Charles Manson is innocent. A case could be made that evolution is a hoax to discredit God. A case can be made that Bigfoot exists.

So?

More specious logic from the same commenter that made a flawed argument before. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You are aware that the full video is 38 minutes long, and very little of it is shooting? There was substantial time in between the shootings in which there was no shooting and no troop presence. There was still a helicopter circling a couple of kilometres away but there were always helicopters circling and as the video shows, people just don't notice them.

Unless you think civilians have x-ray telescopic vision the fact that ground forces were "still approaching" but minutes away in a city is not something you can possibly contend that they could or would know.

So in other words you can't define when the battlefield was inactive. Got it.

Surprise, surprise. Iraqi civilians dress like Iraqi civilians. Maybe to you that means it's open season on people dressed like Iraqi civilians but the laws of war as observed by the civilised nations are not interested in your opinion.

No. Surprise, surprise. When combatants dress as civilians then civilians will get mistaken for combatants. It is the fault of the illegally dressed combatants that this happens and it is against the rules of war as defined in the Geneva Conventions.

Crap. To be an illegal combatant you have to be a combatant. A civilian dressed as a civilian rendering assistance to the wounded after a battle is over is not an illegal combatant in eyes of the GCs. Stop making things up.

One of the things that makes an illegal combatant an illegal combatant is the lack of a uniform or other identifiable markings. Stop arguing about something that you apparently know nothing about. It makes you look like a fool.

Stop making things up. US troops were fired on nearby earlier that day. There is not and has never been any evidence the people killed by the gunship had anything whatsoever to do with the prior engagement.

Well, except for the weapons found with their bodies and that the ground forces had been shot at with weapons just like them of course...

Use some common sense - if those people had been shooting at US troops earlier that same day does it seem probable they would be so laid back about US troops? Yes, yes, they could be the coolest cucumbers that ever held an RPG, but it seems a lot more likely they were local militia and unrelated to the earlier fighting.

Common sense says that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck that it's probably a duck. Unless of course you really want it to be a goose...

To document the war zone that US-conquered Iraq had become?

Conquered areas are not war zones.

Once again, you really need to check your facts. You can't get away with making stuff up here on the JREF forums the way you can in some other venues.

My facts are sound and verifiable. You are conflating facts with your opinion which is apparently less than sound and made up in your head as you go.

Fact: Combatants dressed as civilians were firing on US forces.

Fact: Said combatants had civilians in their midst.

Fact: Said civilians did not have any identifiable markings discerning them from combatants (such as a Red Cross or Red Crescent). As such they were treated as combatants in a combat situation.

Fact: Combat was still in process when the civilians were fired upon. That the civilians did or did not not know this is irrelevant and is why this action was not a crime. It's very sad but this is how it works out sometimes.

You are free to think what you may however the facts will not change.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

subject

You said that no one you knew of advocated that view. Wikileaks does so.
That the people you cite and you don't wasn't ever the question.

(highlighting mine) Although I find this mildly interesting, I thought Manning (not Wikileaks) was the subject of this thread.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

He did not say that

What war crime was committed according to Taylor?

It seems to me that (besides missing the bigger picture altogether) you are mischaracterizing what Mr. Taylor said.

 

[tyr_13]

(highlighting mine) Although I find this mildly interesting, I thought Manning (not Wikileaks) was the subject of this thread.

Wikileaks is who Manning supplied the information to which they used in the manner you criticized Travis for objecting to. It sure seems Manning didn't disagree with their use of it.

That's a very weak deflection. Bradley supplied the information to Wikileaks which is itself the crime, and Wikileaks holds the view (or at the very least acted in accordance with that view) you claimed not to be held by anyone you know. Your objection to Travis' post is immaterial as the subject of this thread acted in accord.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Wikileaks is who Manning supplied the information to which they used in the manner you criticized Travis for objecting to. It sure seems Manning didn't disagree with their use of it.

That's a very weak deflection. Bradley supplied the information to Wikileaks which is itself the crime, and Wikileaks holds the view (or at the very least acted in accordance with that view) you claimed not to be held by anyone you know. Your objection to Travis' post is immaterial as the subject of this thread acted in accord.

I reject your characterization that I criticized Travis, although he has yet to say what he does want, as opposed to what he does not. I already said that I was happy for the new information, but I tire of having to type the same thing twice. With respect, it is WikiLeaks that is potentially the tangent. Let me remind you of the following exchange:
"The judge, Col. Denise Lind, asked the prosecutors a brief but revealing question: Would you have pressed the same charges if Manning had given the documents not to WikiLeaks but directly to the New York Times?

The prosecutor’s answer was simple: 'Yes Ma'am.'"

Professor Benkler continued, "But that 'Yes Ma'am' does something else: It makes the Manning prosecution a clear and present danger to journalism in the national security arena."

The extent of the leaks may be germane to the thread, but much of the verbiage of the last few pages is not IMO.