Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty

[uke2se]

Mr. Ellsburg 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.

Ellsberg.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Mr. Ellsburg 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.

That one incident is focused upon because it's where Mr. Assange blatantly tipped his hand as to what Wikileaks actual intentions behind releasing the documents were really about, and it wasn't the whistle blowing that he was\is claiming.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

quick thoughts

/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.

One question is whether or not a war crime was committed, which has been suggested by more than one commentator. I am not willing to offer an opinion on that question at this time. A second issue is whether or not a sufficient number of like incidents (even if not war crimes) would change the public's mind about the wisdom of our policies.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Reuters tried and failed to obtain the video

That one incident is focused upon because it's where Mr. Assange blatantly tipped his hand as to what Wikileaks actual intentions behind releasing the documents were really about, and it wasn't the whistle blowing that he was\is claiming.

Mr. Ellsberg said, "The Apache video was wrongly withheld from Reuters, which tried for two years to get it in order to shed light on why their two employees, unarmed journalists, were shot in Iraq. They tried to get the video under the Freedom of Information Act and it was refused. I haven't seen any investigation of who it was that refused the request, or what their supposed basis was for doing so." Even if I were to concede your point, it would not change what the prosecutor's acknowledged, that Manning would still have been prosecuted even if he had leaked to some traditional media outlet. And even if I were to concede your point, it would not change the existence of other incidents, as I discussed upthread.

 

[uke2se]

One question is whether or not a war crime was committed, which has been suggested by more than one commentator. I am not willing to offer an opinion on that question at this time. A second issue is whether or not a sufficient number of like incidents (even if not war crimes) would change the public's mind about the wisdom of our policies.

No war crime was committed. At least not based on the video evidence presented by Wikileaks. That's easy enough to figure out if you're not blinded by ideology.

People would be persuaded into coming out against the war by being shown cilivians being killed? Well, maybe stupid people would be thus persuaded. Anyone reasonably intelligent realized civilians would be killed before the war even started. It's sort of the nature of war.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not so fast

No war crime was committed. At least not based on the video evidence presented by Wikileaks. That's easy enough to figure out if you're not blinded by ideology.

People would be persuaded into coming out against the war by being shown cilivians being killed? Well, maybe stupid people would be thus persuaded. Anyone reasonably intelligent realized civilians would be killed before the war even started. It's sort of the nature of war.

Daniel Ellsberg said, "It would be interesting to have someone speculate or tell us exactly what context would lead to justifying the killing that we see on the screen. As the killing goes on, you obviously would see the killing of men who are lying on the ground in an operation where ground troops are approaching and perfectly capable of taking those people captive, but meanwhile you’re murdering before the troops arrive. That’s a violation of the laws of war and of course what the mainstream media have omitted from their stories is this context." See also references 100 and 101 in the Wikipedia article.
And,
"When interviewed by Wired, [Ethan] McCord [the soldier carrying the injured boy] stated that he supported Wikileaks in releasing the video, with some qualifications..."

BTW, the issue is not whether or not civilians would be killed, but one issue is how many.

There are cites that could be offered to support your position...

 

[uke2se]

Daniel Ellsberg said, "It would be interesting to have someone speculate or tell us exactly what context would lead to justifying the killing that we see on the screen. As the killing goes on, you obviously would see the killing of men who are lying on the ground in an operation where ground troops are approaching and perfectly capable of taking those people captive, but meanwhile you’re murdering before the troops arrive. That’s a violation of the laws of war and of course what the mainstream media have omitted from their stories is this context."

Daniel Ellsberg is wrong. It's not a violation of the laws of war to kill people lying on the ground. Said people can - unless dead - kill your own soldiers. It is therefor prudent - and completely legal - to use whatever firepower necessary to kill those people.

What would be illegal is keeping up the fire if these people had thrown down their weapons and surrendered. The US military comment about the impossibility of surrendering to an aerial vehicle doesn't seem right at all.

See also references 100 and 101 in the Wikipedia article.
And,
"When interviewed by Wired, [Ethan] McCord [the soldier carrying the injured boy] stated that he supported Wikileaks in releasing the video, with some qualifications..."

So? A soldier supports Wikileaks, therefore....

... what?

There are cites that could be offered to support your position...

There's the actual laws of war, yes.

ETA:

BTW, the issue is not whether or not civilians would be killed, but one issue how many.

Does the video show how many civilians were killed during the Iraq war?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

From Reference 100

Daniel Ellsberg is wrong. It's not a violation of the laws of war to kill people lying on the ground. Said people can - unless dead - kill your own soldiers. It is therefor prudent - and completely legal - to use whatever firepower necessary to kill those people.

What would be illegal is keeping up the fire if these people had thrown down their weapons and surrendered. The US military comment about the impossibility of surrendering to an aerial vehicle doesn't seem right at all.

"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)

 

[uke2se]

"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)

I would ask the person who wrote that how he expects an Apache gunner to be able to tell if a person is too injured to pose a threat to the soldiers moving in or not. An injured soldier who has not surrendered could still fire his weapon. In a war, wounded combatants are still combatants. Only when they surrender are they given special protection.

 

[tyr_13]

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.

So?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

judgment

So?

You had previously written, "Wikileaks disagrees." My point is that Mr. Ellsberg thought that Mr. Assange had shown better judgment than the individuals who refused Reuter's request. It's all in the interview to which I linked...

 

[Babbylonian]

I would ask the person who wrote that how he expects an Apache gunner to be able to tell if a person is too injured to pose a threat to the soldiers moving in or not. An injured soldier who has not surrendered could still fire his weapon. In a war, wounded combatants are still combatants. Only when they surrender are they given special protection.

And surrendering to air power is problematic on a good day when a gunship would have to loiter until ground troops could take custody; and impossible on other days like during a strike mission where the only military present would be pilots and gunners who, even if they landed, would not be in any way equipped to hold prisoners (two guys and two Berettas - or whatever air crews carry these days - wouldn't cut it).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more from the Wikipedia article

I would ask the person who wrote that how he expects an Apache gunner to be able to tell if a person is too injured to pose a threat to the soldiers moving in or not. An injured soldier who has not surrendered could still fire his weapon. In a war, wounded combatants are still combatants. Only when they surrender are they given special protection.

"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]"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

that dog won't hunt

That one incident is focused upon because it's where Mr. Assange blatantly tipped his hand as to what Wikileaks actual intentions behind releasing the documents were really about, and it wasn't the whistle blowing that he was\is claiming.

"At a news conference at the National Press Club, WikiLeaks said it had acquired the video from whistle-blowers in the military and viewed it after breaking the encryption code. WikiLeaks released the full 38-minute video as well as a 17-minute edited version." NYT. (highlighting mine)

 

[tyr_13]

You had previously written, "Wikileaks disagrees." My point is that Mr. Ellsberg thought that Mr. Assange had shown better judgment than the individuals who refused Reuter's request. It's all in the interview to which I linked...

Again, so?

What does that have to do with what Travis said and Wkileaks leaking diplomatic minutia?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

asked and answered, or so I thought

Again, so?

What does that have to do with what Travis said and Wkileaks leaking diplomatic minutia?

tyr_13,

I thought I answered that already, when I said that I was comfortable with some secrets and that I was philosophically in about the same place at Geoffrey Stone. Your comments today have been so elliptical that I really don't see what you are driving at. I give up.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

"At a news conference at the National Press Club, WikiLeaks said it had acquired the video from whistle-blowers in the military and viewed it after breaking the encryption code. WikiLeaks released the full 38-minute video as well as a 17-minute edited version." NYT. (highlighting mine)

Did you read your entire link? It discusses how Reuters was allowed to see the video 2 weeks after the incident. Their issue was over the military not releasing it for widespread dissemination. That the military allowed them to see it indicates to me that they were not trying to hide anything from the press. That is not surprising as the US military don't usually release war porn.

I also take interest in how you seem to be placing more weight on the edited version of events rather than the unedited one. The edited version of events intentionally removed any indication that the people on the ground were responsible for the actions that ended their lives. That's 21 minutes that they took out. IIRC the editors also rearranged footage to make the progression of events seem different than they actually were.

Your link also talks about how the gunners DID NOT shoot at people on the ground unless they appeared to have their hands on a weapon or their hands were obscured and in an area where weapons may reasonably be expected to be located.

It also discusses the situation prior to when the aircraft arrived (hence why there is no video of it) and why the aircraft was called in in the first place. It even discusses how the reporters were actually involved in something else and came over because there was an ongoing firefight that they wanted to cover.

That particular action was reviewed afterwards and the American individuals involved were found to have stayed within the rules of engagement which in turn are within the established rules of war. The people on the ground however did not which is why they ended up dead in the manner that they did.

 

[tyr_13]

tyr_13,

I thought I answered that already, when I said that I was comfortable with some secrets and that I was philosophically in about the same place at Geoffrey Stone. Your comments today have been so elliptical that I really don't see what you are driving at. I give up.

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.

 

[WildCat]

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?

Yep, sill weaseling out.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Wait, the fact that Julian Assange intentionally misnamed and deceptively edited that tape is not a fact now, despite that fact the mutt admitted it? lolz

(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.

Say! That is nice, gish gallop, what with your gish gallop and your hand waving away that your six or seven COMPLETELY irrelevant points thereafter were a gish and a gallop.

Gish. Pointing out that self absorbed knucklehead Julian Assange intentionally lied in his fraudulent video "collateral murder" is OFF TANGENT.

I'm going to write that down, sport. lolz