Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty

[PhantomWolf]

Not EVERY bombing mission, but quite a few of them (most famously, Dresden) were trying to kill German civilians, and there was nothing "collateral" about it. And yes, today they would be considered a war crime.

Jerry Pournelle -- hardly a pacifist, -- wrote a modern sequel to Dante's "Inferno" and placed architects of British Bomber Command into eighth circle of Hell along with other monsters of history.

Here's a pretty good article on the Dresden bombing.

 

[Sabrina]

Tell me again what devastation Manning caused? I thought the Arab Spring was a good thing?

And aren't you blaming the messenger?

Revealing atrocities can hurt the troops, but not revealing them allows them to go on.

And after being lied to so the war would be acceptable, at what point should a patriot address the lies and coverups that are directed, not at the enemy, but toward the US citizens for political reasons?

I highly suggest you re-read my post.

I said "can have potentially devastating effects", not has had. It is entirely possible that mitigating measures can be taken to minimize the potential effects of revealing information that will affect national security. We're lucky in that the information Manning revealed, while embarrassing, was not severe enough to warrant use of such measures.

In addition, Manning can hardly be called a patriot, as the information he revealed did not expose any atrocities committed by military or government personnel. As others here have said, civilian casualties in a war are inevitable, and numerous agencies aside from the DoD have examined the video of the helicopter battle and have concluded that the soldiers did nothing wrong. It is virtually impossible to tell from the video that the soldiers had any definite knowledge that some of the people they were firing on were unarmed civilians. And if you want to know who's responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths since the war in Afghanistan started, I highly suggest you look to the Taliban and similar insurgent groups for that responsibility.

Bradley Manning has himself stated that he does not have the knowledge or experience to fully determine whether the information he revealed could have had a deleterious effect on the US Military's ability to carry out their duties; his exact words to the colonel in charge of his trial were "it's above my pay grade". So yes, I am absolutely blaming the messenger in this case, as his "message" carried nothing of substance and violated numerous punitive articles of the UCMJ for no good reason that I can determine.

And I think you are vastly misinterpreting my stance on the subject. I have no tolerance for anyone who uses their job as a member of the US Military to perpetrate atrocities on innocent civilians. If one of my soldiers ever tried to use that excuse to harm someone, I would have them in front of a judge so fast their heads would spin, and would advocate the harshest punishment the judge was willing to hand down. The difference lies in the intent; the soldiers in the video had no intentions of going out and finding civilians to shoot up for kicks, and there is nothing in the video to suggest otherwise. The few soldiers in the military who have performed such activities are all being tried and punished, and I hope those individuals are either imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives or are put to death for their crimes. Again, the difference between them and the soldiers on the helicopter is that they intended to shoot civilians; there is nothing to prove that the soldiers on the helicopter, by contrast, intended anything of the sort.

As far as I am aware, the only lies perpetrated to get us into war involved the situation in Iraq, not Afghanistan, so your last statement is superfluous in the extreme. In addition, any sane individual would realize that there are certain aspects of our military capabilities, armament, and tactics, techniques, and procedures that must BY NECESSITY remain secret from the general public in order to maintain the safety and security of the soldiers involved in the conflict. The vast majority of classified information is not classified for "political reasons", but rather in order to ensure that our soldiers, you know, those guys and girls who are out there risking their lives on a daily basis, can hopefully come home safe. Certainly there were documents in Manning's rather large data pull that WERE classified for "political reasons", but that can largely be confined to the State Department memos; the remainder of the documentation was classified for military reasons, and comprised the majority of what Manning gave to Wikileaks. The sheer volume of data downloaded means that Manning had virtually no idea if what he was providing contained information that could be devastating to military operations, nor even really any idea what the documentation contained at all; it would be impossible to comb through that many documents in the short period of time Manning was downloading them, therefore his statement given at trial is utter BS. Manning is no patriot; he is nothing more than a pathetic excuse for a soldier who deserves every ounce of punishment coming his way.

I don't particularly care whether you agree with me or not in that regard, but it is hard to argue with the facts of the case. Manning downloaded the documents and videos. He has admitted to this. He provided the documents and videos to Wikileaks. He has admitted to this as well. He has admitted that he didn't really know for sure exactly what all the documentation contained, and has also admitted that he did not have the authority to determine whether the documentation should have remained classified or not. This has all been attested to in court by Manning himself or in statements given by Adrian Lamo, the hacker who turned Manning in. Given these facts, it is patently obvious that Manning violated numerous articles of the UCMJ for no good reason, and should be punished accordingly. And that is my take on the matter.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I highly suggest you re-read my post.

I said "can have potentially devastating effects", not has had.

It's been a couple years. Don't you think then, that we'd know by now what these devastating effects have been?

It is entirely possible that mitigating measures can be taken to minimize the potential effects of revealing information that will affect national security. We're lucky in that the information Manning revealed, while embarrassing, was not severe enough to warrant use of such measures.

And yet he's been treated like America's worst enemy after Bin Laden.

In addition, Manning can hardly be called a patriot, as the information he revealed did not expose any atrocities committed by military or government personnel.

That's your opinion and not everyone holds it.

And I think you are vastly misinterpreting my stance on the subject. I have no tolerance for anyone who uses their job as a member of the US Military to perpetrate atrocities on innocent civilians. If one of my soldiers ever tried to use that excuse to harm someone, I would have them in front of a judge so fast their heads would spin, and would advocate the harshest punishment the judge was willing to hand down. The difference lies in the intent; the soldiers in the video had no intentions of going out and finding civilians to shoot up for kicks, and there is nothing in the video to suggest otherwise. The few soldiers in the military who have performed such activities are all being tried and punished, and I hope those individuals are either imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives or are put to death for their crimes. Again, the difference between them and the soldiers on the helicopter is that they intended to shoot civilians; there is nothing to prove that the soldiers on the helicopter, by contrast, intended anything of the sort.

What makes you think the point of releasing the video was to blame the soldiers? From what I see the point was to show the government was covering this stuff up, lying to the citizens of the country.

If people are to have an effective democracy, the government can't be keeping more secrets than are truly necessary. Downplaying civilian deaths so your citizens won't object to the actions you are taking is not about national security, it's about lying for political expedience.

As far as I am aware, the only lies perpetrated to get us into war involved the situation in Iraq, not Afghanistan, so your last statement is superfluous in the extreme.

Too far OT for the thread to get into this.

In addition, any sane individual would realize that there are certain aspects of our military capabilities, armament, and tactics, techniques, and procedures that must BY NECESSITY remain secret from the general public in order to maintain the safety and security of the soldiers involved in the conflict. [ snipped]

... And that is my take on the matter.

And you are welcome to it. I don't see the world that way.

 

[tsig]

Some extenuating circumstance could pop out of the woodwork, sure. It hasn't yet though and it's been a good long time.

The GCs clearly state it's not okay to blow away civilian Good Samaritans, and the video shows clearly that the civilian Good Samaritans did nothing whatsoever to indicate that they were illegal combatants except to assist wounded people, and that activity is quite expressly protected by the GCs.

When you get to the point when you're ignoring the evidence of your own eyes and the black and white text of the relevant law, and arguing desperately that your lying eyes must be wrong, because you haven't seen some third party do a thing you think it might, your position isn't in a very good state.

Plus, of course, I'm quite okay with the possibility that I've spotted a nuance someone else has missed. That happens when you do your homework sometimes. Maybe it's never happened to you, but it happens to me every now and again.



That should be really easy for you to establish. Your claim, your burden of proof. Just quote a lawyer from one of those "several organizations that have never been what I would call of a favorable bent towards the war in Iraq" stating that firing on civilians assisting the wounded isn't a war crime under the GCs.

Careful now, though. I'm warning you in advance that if you present an ambiguous quote that could be referring to the initial shooting and not the second shooting of civilian Good Samaritans it's not going to fly around here.



I think you're projecting here.

There is no rule in the GCs that I can see that says there is a magical state of "being a battlefield" and that if a place is "being a battlefield" it's legal to shoot civilian Good Samaritans who are assisting wounded people.

You keep ignoring this and (intentionally?) not understanding it.

Nor is there anything saying that this magical "being a battlefield" state persists after all shooting has stopped and all belligerents on one side are dead or incapacitated, just because some other troops are on their way or someone's hovering a couple of kilometres away in a helicopter.

You keep ignoring this and (intentionally?) not understanding it.

Plus while you have zero quotes from relevant authorities to support your claim that shooting civilian Good Samaritans who are assisting the wounded is not a war crime, whereas we have already quoted a relevant authority to support the claim this is a war crime (barring some extenuating circumstance which nobody knows about).

So what have you got? Nothing, as far as I can see, except a weak argument from incredulity.

And you have an argument from superiority?

 

[The Big Dog]

And yet he's been treated like America's worst enemy after Bin Laden.

That is ridiculous.

 

[Sabrina]

It's been a couple years. Don't you think then, that we'd know by now what these devastating effects have been?

I wasn't referring specifically to Manning in my original post; my statement was pointed at any individual who decides to take the responsibility for releasing classified information out of the hands of the persons certified to do it. Manning just happens to be the subject of this thread, but my statement is just as easily pointed at Aldrich Ames, Ana Belen Montes, SPC Ryan Anderson, etc. Again, we got lucky with Manning; thus far the information appears to be largely harmless. It could very easily have been different.

And yet he's been treated like America's worst enemy after Bin Laden.

Really. Wow. The cognitive dissonance in this statement is astounding. There is no comparison to bin Laden, because bin Laden did not steal classified information and without even bothering to really review it release it to the general public. Manning is fed, clothed, and housed all on the government's dime; any mistreatment that can be actually proven has long since been halted and will be accounted for in his eventual sentence. The fact that many people view him as a traitor is due solely to his own actions, not anything the government has done.

What makes you think the point of releasing the video was to blame the soldiers? From what I see the point was to show the government was covering this stuff up, lying to the citizens of the country.

If people are to have an effective democracy, the government can't be keeping more secrets than are truly necessary. Downplaying civilian deaths so your citizens won't object to the actions you are taking is not about national security, it's about lying for political expedience.

Incorrect. The government was not covering anything up. The video was more than likely classified because several systems on the helicopter are classified and their use can be inferred from the video. As Sam.I.Am explained upthread, entire systems can be classified forever simply because of one piece of the system that is classified, despite the fact that the rest of the system's specs are easily found online or in technical manuals.

I worked on a system that was classified because of several smaller pieces of equipment involved in the workings; the PATRIOT system, while I was on active duty, and as a result was pretty much unable to discuss the workings of the system with anyone who did not have the necessary security clearance or need to know, and any data produced from the system was similarly classified. The video in question came from a system that carried an overall classification of Secret, and therefore any data pulled from the system must therefore be classified similarly. It had nothing to do with the actions of the soldiers on the film and everything to do with the overall classification of the equipment. I can assure you that any other videos from that helicopter were similarly classified simply because of the overall classification of the system. By your logic, the classification occurred because of the soldiers' actions, so then how would you explain the fact that any other videos from that system would be similarly classified if they didn't show soldiers firing on civilians or engaged in similar "atrocities", to use your hyperbole?

And you are welcome to it. I don't see the world that way.

Ah, idealism. So that's your issue.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Ah, idealism. So that's your issue.

Ah, boil the opposing opinion down to a slogan, that's a common tactic.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ah, boil the opposing opinion down to a slogan, that's a common tactic.

lolz, this from the person labeling anyone who disagrees with her "neo-con rightwingers."

Fantastic.

 

[Sabrina]

I find it even more ridiculous when we consider the fact that she's rather fired up over a single incident where civilians were mistakenly killed, when groups like the Taliban are often responsible for far more civilian deaths, and they tend to do it deliberately.

In 2011, the Taliban were responsible for 77.19% of all civilian deaths. Overall since 2006-2011, anti-Afghan Goverment forces have been responsible for fully 66.9% of all civilian deaths in country; that includes the Taliban, Haqqani, Hezb-i Islami, and other smaller insurgencies. The remaining 33.1% can't even all be blamed on Coalition forces, since out of the total 12,793 civilians killed since 2006-2011, only 3,120 could be laid at the feet of Coalition or pro-government forces; 1,115 were killed by means other than insurgents or Coalition forces. Source. If I have time later I'll seek out information back to 2001, but this is sufficient to show the difference for now I'd think.

Please don't misunderstand; civilian deaths or casualties, especially when the responsibility for them belongs to Coalition or pro-government forces, are absolutely tragic and should be avoided at all costs, something that we make every effort to ensure, unlike the insurgencies. But we are not perfect; some civilian deaths or casualties, tragic as they are, are expected in war and have been since wars were first fought. We at least are making our best efforts to not target them as much as possible.

The video which Bradley Manning downloaded was not classified because of the actions of the soldiers on it, and the government is not trying to hide the civilian deaths and casualties we've caused; UNAMA has been tracking it and releases a yearly report on it which also details the civilian deaths and casualties caused by insurgent elements, which vastly outnumbers those caused by us. Where is your outrage over those deaths, Skeptic Ginger? Why are you so focused on the "atrocities", to again use your hyperbole, of a group that makes every effort to avoid such death and injury, and not on the actions of the group that makes little or no effort to distinguish between citizens of their own damn country and Coalition forces? Are you aware that a typical insurgent TTP (tactic, technique, and procedure) is that, if they are unable to reach their ultimate target, they will often detonate their suicide vests and IEDs in areas that will cause the most devastation and therefore the most casualties? Did you even bother to compare the two groups to find out who bears the most responsibility for civilian deaths and injuries? From what I can tell, you didn't, because you're so focused on your own self-righteous BS that you fail to see the big picture and point your anger in a more deserving direction. This is why I called you idealistic; you seem to assume that mistakes can't be made and therefore any civilian casualties caused by Coalition forces happened because of a deliberate action on their parts, when the truth is that we do not actively seek out and target civilians. Is it tragic when it happens; yes, absolutely! I find it horrible when any civilian is killed or injured by any operation conducted by Coalition forces, but I'm also pragmatic enough to recognize that mistakes are made, and unlike the insurgencies, the Coalition will make every effort to make reparation of some sort to the families of those killed or injured.

This is why Bradley Manning is no patriot and is definitely not a whistleblower; he failed to understand the realities of war. You are making the same mistake, from what I can tell.

 

[smartcooky]

I find it even more ridiculous when we consider the fact that she's rather fired up over a single incident where civilians were mistakenly killed, when groups like the Taliban are often responsible for far more civilian deaths, and they tend to do it deliberately.

<snip>

This is why Bradley Manning is no patriot and is definitely not a whistleblower; he failed to understand the realities of war. You are making the same mistake, from what I can tell.

 

[WildCat]

By what definition of "whistleblower" does Manning qualify?

<crickets>

 

[Chris_Halkides]

which criterion

Cool, but Manning didn't uncover any coverups.

Elsewhere you said atrocity. It would be helpful if you defined terms and stuck to one criterion.

 

[WildCat]

Elsewhere you said atrocity. It would be helpful if you defined terms and stuck to one criterion.

What illegal activities were revealed by Manning? That's what whistleblowers do, expose illegal activities by their government or employer. Manning has done no such thing, in fact he didn't even vet 99% of what he released.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What illegal activities were revealed by Manning? That's what whistleblowers do, expose illegal activities by their government or employer.

Where are you getting this peculiarly specific definition?

The sources I've looked at specify illegal, or dishonest, or unacceptable, not limiting the definition of whistleblowing just to reporting things which are illegal.

It looks like you might be trying to move some goalposts here.

 

[WildCat]

Where are you getting this peculiarly specific definition?

The sources I've looked at specify illegal, or dishonest, or unacceptable, not limiting the definition of whistleblowing just to reporting things which are illegal.

It looks like you might be trying to move some goalposts here.

You're the one stretching the definition.

I particularly like how you use "unacceptable", thus encompassing just about anything someone doesn't like. By doing that you make the term meaningless.

 

[applecorped]

Can a whistleblower expose legal activity?

 

[WildCat]

Can a whistleblower expose legal activity?

They won't get any protection from the whistleblower law if they do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Was Ellsberg also a criminal? If not, why is Manning so much worse?

 

[The Big Dog]

Was Ellsberg also a criminal? If not, why is Manning so much worse?

False dilemma fallacy.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You're the one stretching the definition.

I particularly like how you use "unacceptable", thus encompassing just about anything someone doesn't like. By doing that you make the term meaningless.

I'm not the one whose argument hinges on a very specific definition such that if the reported behaviour isn't illegal, it can't be whistleblowing to reveal it.

Your definition, your burden of proof. I haven't seen any sources yet that support your definition, and complaining that some other source's definition is too broad doesn't magically make your super-narrow definition the right one.