Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty

[Travis]

Why do we keep talking about whistleblowing. Nothing done here was whistleblowing.

Here, allow me to illustrate:

Whistleblowing:] Bradley Manning comes across a video of an Army Colonel ordering the execution of a nine year old girl because...he's evil or something. Manning thinks "crap, that ain't right!" and decides to smuggle the video out so that justice can be done.

Not Whistleblowing:] Bradley Manning decides to just dump a buttload of classified documents he's never read (and thus has no way of knowing their content) into the hands of avowed anti-American—and multi-continent lecherous slimeball—Julian Assange.

 

[WildCat]

Why do we keep talking about whistleblowing. Nothing done here was whistleblowing.

Here, allow me to illustrate:

Whistleblowing:] Bradley Manning comes across a video of an Army Colonel ordering the execution of a nine year old girl because...he's evil or something. Manning thinks "crap, that ain't right!" and decides to smuggle the video out so that justice can be done.

Not Whistleblowing:] Bradley Manning decides to just dump a buttload of classified documents he's never read (and thus has no way of knowing their content) into the hands of avowed anti-American—and multi-continent lecherous slimeball—Julian Assange.

Exactly.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why do we keep talking about whistleblowing. Nothing done here was whistleblowing.

Here, allow me to illustrate:

Whistleblowing:] Bradley Manning comes across a video of an Army Colonel ordering the execution of a nine year old girl because...he's evil or something. Manning thinks "crap, that ain't right!" and decides to smuggle the video out so that justice can be done.

Not Whistleblowing:] Bradley Manning decides to just dump a buttload of classified documents he's never read (and thus has no way of knowing their content) into the hands of avowed anti-American—and multi-continent lecherous slimeball—Julian Assange.

He got really lucky then, because (as I have established already) the video released under the misleading "Collateral Murder" title does indeed show what is highly likely to be a war crime committed by US forces. Funny how things work out sometimes.

 

[uke2se]

He got really lucky then, because (as I have established already) the video released under the misleading "Collateral Murder" title does indeed show what is highly likely to be a war crime committed by US forces. Funny how things work out sometimes.

Which court has made that decision?

Or is it just you?

 

[The Big Dog]

Which court has made that decision?

Or is it just you?

You are quite correct, the "Collateral Murder" video does not, and certainly the entire video (before being misleadingly edited by Julian the House Sitter) contradicts that.

The response also completely ignores the fact that the VAST majority of what he stole and sent to wikileaks was the war logs and the diplomatic cables, the overwhelming majority of which Poor Brad did not and could not read, and even if he could have, did not have the knowledge to understand the significance of what he was stealing.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are quite correct, the "Collateral Murder" video does not, and certainly the entire video (before being misleadingly edited by Julian the House Sitter) contradicts that.

This is why the E in the JREF forums is sometimes problematic. A lengthy exchange involving multiple people just established the exact opposite of what you are now claiming.

Shooting civilians who are helping the wounded is a war crime. It's an amusing piece of hypocrisy and special pleading though - apologists for this particular war crime love to pretend to be experts on the GCs, despite the fact that to my knowledge none of them are a court. When they get exposed as culpably ignorant of the matters they've been expounding about, suddenly it's all "Are you a court? Because if you're not a court, the plain English of the GCs could mean anything. It could be talking about kangaroos and kings for all you know. None of us really know anything."

The response also completely ignores the fact that the VAST majority of what he stole and sent to wikileaks was the war logs and the diplomatic cables, the overwhelming majority of which Poor Brad did not and could not read, and even if he could have, did not have the knowledge to understand the significance of what he was stealing.

It's an interesting situation. Manning's on record as saying the incident with the shooting of civilian Good Samaritans was part of what made him leak.

So you know that you've got at least one war crime on your hands. You have access to a lot of stuff, and you don't know what's important and what's not. You're only going to get one chance to leak. The content you are leaking is classified but not highly classified, so there's no basis for worrying about enemy powers benefiting from your leak or anything, any enemy power who cares already knows this sort of stuff. How much do you leak?

Manning decided to leak the lot. It's an interesting choice. I'm not saying it's right but I can see how he got there.

 

[uke2se]

This is why the E in the JREF forums is sometimes problematic. A lengthy exchange involving multiple people just established the exact opposite of what you are now claiming.

It did? Please show us.

Shooting civilians who are helping the wounded is a war crime.

Nope. Read the actual laws.

It's an amusing piece of hypocrisy and special pleading though - apologists for this particular war crime love to pretend to be experts on the GCs, despite the fact that to my knowledge none of them are a court.

Are you a court? Is the people you referenced - who you think established that shooting people (hint: everyone in this incident was dressed as a civillian) helping wounded is a war crime - a court?

When they get exposed as culpably ignorant of the matters they've been expounding about, suddenly it's all "Are you a court?

No such exposure has occured except maybe in your head.

Because if you're not a court, the plain English of the GCs could mean anything. It could be talking about kangaroos and kings for all you know. None of us really know anything."

Please point to the article of the Geneva Convention that establishes that shooting people helping wounded is a war crime.

So you know that you've got at least one war crime on your hands.

Nope, nobody knows that. Not even you. You might believe it, but you would be wrong.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I gave up on it. You can't convince those that don't want to be convinced. The incident has been looked at and no war crime charges have been or will be presented. The only people still going on about it are those with an axe to grind.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is why the E in the JREF forums is sometimes problematic. A lengthy exchange involving multiple people just established the exact opposite of what you are now claiming.

Actually, having drafted the OP, I have read every post in this thread, so you can drop the patronizing tone.

And not only has it not been established that there was a war crime, it does not appear that you actually succeeded in convincing ANYONE of the merit of your argument, which appears to boil down to: YOU don't think that there was an on-going battle. We understand that you are convinced.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I gave up on it. You can't convince those that don't want to be convinced. The incident has been looked at and no war crime charges have been or will be presented. The only people still going on about it are those with an axe to grind.

No more people are going to be charged over the USA torturing people to death in Iraq either. You have to be rather naive to think that what determines whether a crime has been committed by the US armed forces is whether the USA decides to charge the culprit(s) over the matter.

I can see how that simple-minded heuristic might be of great comfort, however, depending on what one wanted to believe.

Actually, having drafted the OP, I have read every post in this thread, so you can drop the patronizing tone.

And not only has it not been established that there was a war crime, it does not appear that you actually succeeded in convincing ANYONE of the merit of your argument, which appears to boil down to: YOU don't think that there was an on-going battle. We understand that you are convinced.

Lacking mind-reading powers I can't tell if you have in fact read every post. I do know whether or not you've understood every post though - you have not.

You missed the gotcha. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the GCs saying that a battle has to be over before it becomes a war crime to shoot civilians who are assisting the wounded. Sure, if there is actual shooting going on, particularly shooting involving illegal combatants in civilian garb, it becomes one hell of a lot easier to defend oneself for shooting a civilian Good Samaritan but it doesn't make it legal. (Not so much when there is no combat going on.)

Sam.I.Am guessed that there was something in the GCs that said it was okay to shoot civilian Good Samaritans if there was an ongoing engagement, because Sam.I.Am hilariously misread something I wrote. I played along for a while, just pointing out the sheer malignant absurdity of this nonsensical apology for war crimes, given that the engagement was over by any remotely sane standard. So even if Sam.I.Am had not been deluded about what the GCs said, they'd still have been presenting a moronic argument.

Then I got bored and pointed out to them that whether or not the engagement was ongoing in any sense was legally irrelevant. That's when Sam.I.Am retreated with the feeble argument quoted above, realising that their position had been entirely destroyed along with their credibility.

 

[Alt+F4]

So you know that you've got at least one war crime on your hands.

Wrong, Manning, or any other individual, does not determine what action is a war crime. Manning was a private in the U.S. Army, nothing more.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lacking mind-reading powers I can't tell if you have in fact read every post. I do know whether or not you've understood every post though - you have not.

You missed the gotcha. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the GCs saying that a battle has to be over before it becomes a war crime to shoot civilians who are assisting the wounded. Sure, if there is actual shooting going on, particularly shooting involving illegal combatants in civilian garb, it becomes one hell of a lot easier to defend oneself for shooting a civilian Good Samaritan but it doesn't make it legal. (Not so much when there is no combat going on.)

Sam.I.Am guessed that there was something in the GCs that said it was okay to shoot civilian Good Samaritans if there was an ongoing engagement, because Sam.I.Am hilariously misread something I wrote. I played along for a while, just pointing out the sheer malignant absurdity of this nonsensical apology for war crimes, given that the engagement was over by any remotely sane standard. So even if Sam.I.Am had not been deluded about what the GCs said, they'd still have been presenting a moronic argument.

Then I got bored and pointed out to them that whether or not the engagement was ongoing in any sense was legally irrelevant. That's when Sam.I.Am retreated with the feeble argument quoted above, realising that their position had been entirely destroyed along with their credibility.

Odd that you said that you could not read minds and yet make numerous claims that the helicopter pilots knew that the people with the "illegal combatants in civilian garb (with RPGs and Automatic Weapons)" were "citizens." Further, you acknowledge that the war crime claim is defensible, but conclude it is a war crime in any event.

Well, given the presumption of innocence, it appears your belief is: "unfounded." Now, if you want to sneak Julian out of his retirement villa and actually prosecute, I say GO FOR IT BRO!

 

[Alt+F4]

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.'"

Of course. The charges are against Manning, not WikiLeaks or the New York Times.

 

[uke2se]

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the GCs saying that a battle has to be over before it becomes a war crime to shoot civilians who are assisting the wounded. Sure, if there is actual shooting going on, particularly shooting involving illegal combatants in civilian garb, it becomes one hell of a lot easier to defend oneself for shooting a civilian Good Samaritan but it doesn't make it legal. (Not so much when there is no combat going on.)

Please point to the article of the Geneva Convention that makes it illegal to engage persons in a combat zone (don't even pretend this wasn't) that appear to be aiding wounded.

 

[Alt+F4]

I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information ... this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general.

Tell me again how knowing about Gaddafi’s voluptuous blond Ukrainian nurse makes me want to debate U.S. foreign policy?

 

[Sabrina]

Of course. The charges are against Manning, not WikiLeaks or the New York Times.

I tried to point that out numerous times, Alt+F4; not sure he ever actually paid attention amidst the diatribe against the supposed suppression of the First Amendment.

Can't be stressed enough though, all the same.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

No more people are going to be charged over the USA torturing people to death in Iraq either. You have to be rather naive to think that what determines whether a crime has been committed by the US armed forces is whether the USA decides to charge the culprit(s) over the matter.

I can see how that simple-minded heuristic might be of great comfort, however, depending on what one wanted to believe.

You are attempting mind reading and doing a horrible job at it. I didn't say that only the US had looked into it and no one else. Where is the outcry from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Human Rights First for war crime charges to be pressed in this instance? Are you saying that they don't have the exact same information on this? That their lawyers are all incompetent? That they are toadies of the US Government? That this high profile case has somehow slipped under their radar over the last few years? Don't you think that if there was a case to be made that they would have made it by now? Or is it simply that you think that you know more about it than all three of those very well known and outspoken organizations on the matter?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Odd that you said that you could not read minds and yet make numerous claims that the helicopter pilots knew that the people with the "illegal combatants in civilian garb (with RPGs and Automatic Weapons)" were "citizens." Further, you acknowledge that the war crime claim is defensible, but conclude it is a war crime in any event.

This is verging on total incoherence.

I have no idea what you think it means to accuse me of thinking that illegal combatants are citizens. If it matters, yes, I am pretty sure that an Iraqi citizen who becomes an illegal combatant is still an Iraqi citizen, I just have no idea what you think it means.

If you made a typo for "civilian" then you are just plain wrong. I suspect wishful thinking is in play. You want to have an argument where someone else says "OMG the initial shooting of militia was a war crime!" so you can say "lol no" and win. Sorry. Your wish is not going to come true in this thread.

What we are saying is that the subsequent shooting of people in civilian clothes who were helping the wounded, and who did not have weapons, was a war crime. Not the first shooting, the second. Got it straight now?

You are attempting mind reading and doing a horrible job at it. I didn't say that only the US had looked into it and no one else. Where is the outcry from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or Human Rights First for war crime charges to be pressed in this instance?

You must really have a low opinion of your own ability to read simple text in plain English if you need those organisations to read it for you.

Never mind that there was at least one quote presented earlier in the thread from people with relevant expertise who said that the shooting of civilian Good Samaritans could be a war crime.

If you can read simple text in plain English you could try reading the GCs. Take a look for yourself. Try to find the bit that says it's okay to kill civilian Good Samaritans who are offering assistance to the wounded. Pro tip: The bits that talk about the protections afforded to units marked with a Red Cross or equivalent are different bits.

 

[The Big Dog]

You missed the gotcha. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the GCs saying that a battle has to be over before it becomes a war crime to shoot civilians who are assisting the wounded. Sure, if there is actual shooting going on, particularly shooting involving illegal combatants in civilian garb, it becomes one hell of a lot easier to defend oneself for shooting a civilian Good Samaritan but it doesn't make it legal. (Not so much when there is no combat going on.)

Sam.I.Am guessed that there was something in the GCs that said it was okay to shoot civilian Good Samaritans if there was an ongoing engagement, because Sam.I.Am hilariously misread something I wrote. I played along for a while, just pointing out the sheer malignant absurdity of this nonsensical apology for war crimes, given that the engagement was over by any remotely sane standard. So even if Sam.I.Am had not been deluded about what the GCs said, they'd still have been presenting a moronic argument.

Then I got bored and pointed out to them that whether or not the engagement was ongoing in any sense was legally irrelevant. That's when Sam.I.Am retreated with the feeble argument quoted above, realising that their position had been entirely destroyed along with their credibility.

This is verging on total incoherence.

I have no idea what you think it means to accuse me of thinking that illegal combatants are citizens. If it matters, yes, I am pretty sure that an Iraqi citizen who becomes an illegal combatant is still an Iraqi citizen, I just have no idea what you think it means.

If you made a typo for "civilian" then you are just plain wrong. I suspect wishful thinking is in play. You want to have an argument where someone else says "OMG the initial shooting of militia was a war crime!" so you can say "lol no" and win. Sorry. Your wish is not going to come true in this thread.

What we are saying is that the subsequent shooting of people in civilian clothes who were helping the wounded, and who did not have weapons, was a war crime. Not the first shooting, the second. Got it straight now?

whoops, meant civilians. My bad

 

[theprestige]

I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information ... this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general.

Since in fact these issues are constantly debated in the US, I have adopted the following rule of thumb: Any time someone tries to excuse their bad behavior by saying they wanted to "spark a debate" or some such sophomoric crap, what they really mean is "I'm butthurt that people don't always agree with me, and so I'm throwing a temper tantrum like I'm five years old."