Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty

[tyr_13]

Your argument is a deflection.

Your argument was that the nature of the killing was show through the wikileak video. His was that the nature was what was said in the first place as shown through the unedited video.

I don't see how that could be deflection. It's a straight denial of your argument that the nature was different and shown through the leak. His argument seems to be that the nature was substantively the same, and supported by the video.

 

[Travis]

Um, 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?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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 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!).

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).

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.

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.

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".

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid. I hear that the grape stuff is pretty tasty.

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

 

[Sabrina]

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.

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!

Did you not read the part of my post where I specified that Wikileaks was not the enemy?

Manning provided information to Wikileaks. That information was potentially accessed by foreign powers who ARE enemies of the US. Wikileaks is not. Manning provided the information INDIRECTLY (i.e. he had no direct contact with anyone who might have downloaded the information from Wikileaks) to those entities. THAT is how he broke the law. And again, I am quoting from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is ONLY applicable to members of the US military. The average citizen is not.

Your post is little more than fearmongering, my friend.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

prologue

Um, 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?

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.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

aiding the enemy

Did you not read the part of my post where I specified that Wikileaks was not the enemy?

Manning provided information to Wikileaks. That information was potentially accessed by foreign powers who ARE enemies of the US. Wikileaks is not. Manning provided the information INDIRECTLY (i.e. he had no direct contact with anyone who might have downloaded the information from Wikileaks) to those entities. THAT is how he broke the law. And again, I am quoting from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is ONLY applicable to members of the US military. The average citizen is not.

Your post is little more than fearmongering, my friend.

In a citation I previous gave, Professor Benkler wrote, "Most aggressive and novel among these harsher offenses is the charge that by giving classified materials to WikiLeaks Manning was guilty of 'aiding the enemy.' That’s when the judge will have to decide whether handing over classified materials to ProPublica or the New York Times, knowing that Al Qaeda can read these news outlets online, is indeed enough to constitute the capital offense of 'aiding the enemy.'" highlighting mine"

Professor Benkler also wrote, "That’s especially true when you consider that 'aiding the enemy' could be applied to civilians. Most provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice apply only to military personnel. But Section 104, the “aiding the enemy” section, applies simply to 'any person.'"

 

[The Big Dog]

Your argument is a deflection.

I wasn't aware that facts are now arguments.

If you feel the facts I cited are incorrect I'd be happy to address them.

 

[tyr_13]

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

That's a trick question right?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not sure what you mean

That's a trick question right?

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."

 

[WildCat]

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.

The LOAC is what it is, you don;t just get to make it up as you go along just because you're desperate to accuse the USA of war crimes.

I'm particularly amused by your claim a helicopter gunship can't fire on enemy combatants unless and until they are a direct threat to the helicopter crew, as if they're civilians in peace time.

When you have to go that far it's rock-solid proof that you have nothing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Wikileaks is not the core issue

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.

One, claiming that a source is slanted is opinion, not fact (contrary to your implication in message #87). It is not much different from the argument Wildcat offered in message #71). Both are refusals to examine the evidence. Two, the question is not whether someone titled or edited footage in a certain way; rather, it is whether or not we would even have the footage. From Wikipedia: "Reuters had unsuccessfully requested the footage of the airstrikes under the Freedom of Information Act in 2007." Three, the Guardian is not the only news service to discuss this incident. The Economist wrote, "The second essential point is the moment at 15:29 of the Wikileaks video, when someone, a pilot, gunner, or controller, says, 'Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.' Another voice answers, 'That's right.' No. Nothing could be more wrong. When you see children being evacuated from a van you've just destroyed, the thought running through your mind should be: What did I just shoot at? Who was in that van? Acknowledging the possibility that you have just killed a party of civilians for no good reason is, of course, terrifying."

Four, the airstrike of 12 July 2007 is possibly the most famous item to come out, but it is not the only thing. I provided a citation from The Economist earlier this morning that gave some other examples. Five, focusing on real or imagined biases of Wikileaks is narrowing the discussion in what is at best a most unhelpful way. Professor Benkler wrote, "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.'" Benkler continued, "If leaking classified materials to a public media outlet can lead to prosecution for aiding the enemy, then it has to be under a rule that judges can apply evenhandedly to the New York Times or the Guardian no less than to ProPublica, the Daily Beast, or WikiLeaks."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

flawed logic; flawed presumption

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.

Your argument is: truthers and creationists use a wall of text; therefore, any large amount of text covering multiple items is equivalent to truther/creationist arguments. That is a logically flawed argument.

Your presumption is incorrect. I chose it because it is high in profile. Link.

 

[The Big Dog]

One, claiming that a source is slanted is opinion, not fact (contrary to your implication in message #87). It is not much different from the argument Wildcat offered in message #71). Both are refusals to examine the evidence. Two, the question is not whether someone titled or edited footage in a certain way; rather, it is whether or not we would even have the footage. From Wikipedia: "Reuters had unsuccessfully requested the footage of the airstrikes under the Freedom of Information Act in 2007." Three, the Guardian is not the only news service to discuss this incident. The Economist wrote, "The second essential point is the moment at 15:29 of the Wikileaks video, when someone, a pilot, gunner, or controller, says, 'Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.' Another voice answers, 'That's right.' No. Nothing could be more wrong. When you see children being evacuated from a van you've just destroyed, the thought running through your mind should be: What did I just shoot at? Who was in that van? Acknowledging the possibility that you have just killed a party of civilians for no good reason is, of course, terrifying."

Four, the airstrike of 12 July 2007 is possibly the most famous item to come out, but it is not the only thing. I provided a citation from The Economist earlier this morning that gave some other examples. Five, focusing on real or imagined biases of Wikileaks is narrowing the discussion in what is at best a most unhelpful way. Professor Benkler wrote, "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.'" Benkler continued, "If leaking classified materials to a public media outlet can lead to prosecution for aiding the enemy, then it has to be under a rule that judges can apply evenhandedly to the New York Times or the Guardian no less than to ProPublica, the Daily Beast, or WikiLeaks."

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.

 

[WildCat]

The battlefield was not still active,

Bwahahahahahaha!

Man, when you're entire post hinges on nonsense you've lost.

 

[TjW]

One, claiming that a source is slanted is opinion, not fact

If slanted sources exist, then it must be true that some labeling of sources as slanted are fact, not opinion.
Since Assange has already bragged that it was edited for maximum political effect, it would be foolish of you to argue that the video is an objective review of the facts.

 

[WildCat]

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.”

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?

 

[Sabrina]

In a citation I previous gave, Professor Benkler wrote, "Most aggressive and novel among these harsher offenses is the charge that by giving classified materials to WikiLeaks Manning was guilty of 'aiding the enemy.' That’s when the judge will have to decide whether handing over classified materials to ProPublica or the New York Times, knowing that Al Qaeda can read these news outlets online, is indeed enough to constitute the capital offense of 'aiding the enemy.'" highlighting mine"

Professor Benkler also wrote, "That’s especially true when you consider that 'aiding the enemy' could be applied to civilians. Most provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice apply only to military personnel. But Section 104, the “aiding the enemy” section, applies simply to 'any person.'"

No, Article 104 does NOT apply to "any person". Hence the reason it is called the Uniform Code of MILITARY Justice; per USC Title 10, Chapter 47, Subchapter 1, Article 2, the following persons are subject to the UCMJ:

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.
(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10) In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(13) Individuals belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316), who violate the law of war.
(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and a change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who—
(1) submitted voluntarily to military authority;
(2) met the mental competency and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority;
(3) received military pay or allowances; and
(4) performed military duties;
is subject to this chapter until such person’s active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.
(d)
(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntarily for the purpose of—
(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
(C) nonjudicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).
(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was—
(A) on active duty; or
(B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President.
(4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces.
(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not—
(A) be sentenced to confinement; or
(B) be required to serve a punishment consisting of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).

Only civilians who meet the criteria outlined above are subject to the UCMJ; otherwise, persons who engage in the sort of activity that Bradley Manning engaged in are charged under USC Title 18. And as I stated before, entities such as Wikileaks or the NYT are not considered to be "the enemy" or to have been "aiding the enemy" because they did not have access to the information until someone PROVIDED IT TO THEM. THOSE individuals, on the other hand, CAN be considered to be "aiding the enemy", even if only indirectly, because allowing such information to be released into the general public can have devastating effects under certain circumstances.

Your source is wrong and is engaging in the same sort of fearmongering that Roger Ramjets was guilty of earlier in this thread.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fact-free

I wasn't aware that facts are now arguments.

If you feel the facts I cited are incorrect I'd be happy to address them.

Nothing in the post to which I responded (#73) was fact; it was evaluation. Do you have any citations to facts or at least to informed opinion? If not, this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am taking your words right out of my mouth

If slanted sources exist, then it must be true that some labeling of sources as slanted are fact, not opinion.
Since Assange has already bragged that it was edited for maximum political effect, it would be foolish of you to argue that the video is an objective review of the facts.

I never made that argument.
EDT
Even if I were to concede for the sake of argument that a particular source (The Guardian) or individual (Assange) were slanted, I have now provided links to The Economist's coverage, which is hardly The Daily Kos (to put it one way).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

already answered

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?

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.