Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty

[PhantomWolf]

Human Rights Watch wrote in their World Report for 2011: "In October Wikileaks released thousands of documents, mostly authored by low-ranking US officers in the field between 2004 and 2009, revealing many previously unreported instances in which US soldiers killed civilians, and the torture of detainees by their Iraqi captors."

And your point is?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Words versus inferences

And your point is?

Upthread the argument was offered that since HRW and like organizations had not put forward a claim that the Baghdad airstrike was a war crime, that this was evidence that the incident wasn't a war crime. It is better than the argument also put forward here that because the US Government had investigated it and not charged anyone with a war crime, that this was evidence that the incident was not a war crime (but that is very faint praise indeed). I thought it would be helpful to see what they actually had said, and it was. Whether or not the Baghdad airstrike was a war crime is an interesting question, but it does not encompass all (or even most) of the information about the wars that was uncovered.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Upthread the argument was offered that since HRW and like organizations had not put forward a claim that the Baghdad airstrike was a war crime, that it was not a war crime. It is better than the argument also put forward here that because the US Government had investigated it and not charged anyone with a war crime, that it was not a war crime (but that is very faint praise indeed). I thought it would be helpful to see what they actually had said, and it was. Whether or not the Baghdad airstrike was a war crime is an interesting question, but it does not encompass all (or even most) of the information about the wars that was uncovered.

Killing civilians isn't necesssarily a war crime though, depending on exactly what happened.

It's important, relevant information about what was and is actually happening in Iraq as opposed to the spin-doctored version intended for US domestic consumption, and I tend to think it's a good thing that it is available, but it's not a watertight inference that it's information about war crimes as such.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Upthread the argument was offered that since HRW and like organizations had not put forward a claim that the Baghdad airstrike was a war crime, that it was not a war crime.

And has anyone that has investigated it, or had the chance to do so and the authority to do so, called it a war crime? The article you posts certainly didn't.

It is better than the argument also put forward here that because the US Government had investigated it and not charged anyone with a war crime, that it was not a war crime (but that is very faint praise indeed). I thought it would be helpful to see what they actually had said, and it was. Whether or not the Baghdad airstrike was a war crime is an interesting question, but it does not encompass all (or even most) of the information about the wars that was uncovered.

Most of the information was pretty mundane for wars. Civillians unfortunately get killed in wars, especially when the enemy is breaking the rules and hiding in the population by wearing civillian clothing. It's not a big deal that the Military didn't report every single death to the media, they have no complusion or requirement to do so. As to the Iraqi torture.... Are you advocating that the US and its allies should be telling the Iraqis how they are to run their own country? If so, what give them the right to do so?

 

[WildCat]

Democracy Now covered the case in depth today:

Bradley Manning Speaks: In Leaked Court Recording, Army Whistleblower Tells His Story for First Time

By what definition of "whistleblower" does Manning qualify?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

As to the Iraqi torture.... Are you advocating that the US and its allies should be telling the Iraqis how they are to run their own country? If so, what give them the right to do so?

The doublethink here is both frightening and bizarre.

Invade and conquer a sovereign nation in blatant defiance of international law? No problem.

Torture people in blatant defiance of domestic law and specific treaty obligations? No problem.

Imprison people indefinitely on the basis of secret evidence in an offshore prison? No problem.

Tell the puppet government you installed in the conquered nation that it can't torture people? OH MY GOD YOU MONSTER, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT? YOU CAN'T TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO!

 

[WildCat]

AMY GOODMAN: Bradley Manning also discovered video of another deadly U.S. air strike on civilians, this time in Afghanistan. Around 100 Afghan civilians were reportedly killed in May 2009 when U.S. warplanes bombed the village of Garani. WikiLeaks apparently has the video but still hasn’t released it. Manning said the Garani bombing was even more disturbing than that July 12, 2007, incident in Iraq that killed 12, including the two Reuters employees. Manning began by recounting that the air strike occurred in the Garani village in the Farah province of northwestern Afghanistan.

BRADLEY MANNING: The air strike occurred in the Garani village in the Farah province, northwestern Afghanistan. It received worldwide press and got worldwide press coverage during the time, as it was reported that up to 100 to 150 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children, were accidentally killed during the air strike.

Lol, some great revelation there by Manning.

My challenge for anyone to produce anything revealed/broken by Manning goes unanswered.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The doublethink here is both frightening and bizarre.

Invade and conquer a sovereign nation in blatant defiance of international law? No problem.

Torture people in blatant defiance of domestic law and specific treaty obligations? No problem.

Imprison people indefinitely on the basis of secret evidence in an offshore prison? No problem.

Tell the puppet government you installed in the conquered nation that it can't torture people? OH MY GOD YOU MONSTER, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT? YOU CAN'T TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO!

You're making a lot of assumptions there.

 

[balrog666]

Out of curiosity, who does decide whether given piece of classified information should not be classified any more? I've read that there are documents dating to WWII which are still classified -- is there a legitimate reason for it? I find much easier to believe that they are still classified simply because nobody in position to declassify them ever got around to do so. (Not like they have infinite amount of time.)

There is always a designated person (or persons) with classification authority (delegated from the president) who oversees all classification decisions within their designated purview, usually a specific program or subject matter.

Classifications can exceed the usual time limits, especially where they involve human-gathered intelligence info and the people involved may reasonably be presumed to still be alive.

 

[Mark6]

Most classified material has a shelf life where upon that "Expiration date" it is either automatically downgraded or is subject to review (usually) by a board of people who are knowledgeable on the matter(s) at hand.

Sometimes the subject matter may never be declassified simply because it may reveal something tangentially related that is still ongoing. For example, lets say that a certain type of torpedo tube is no longer in service anywhere. The technical manual for that tube is still classified because in it the maximum operating depth of the tube (and the boat that it is attached to) is mentioned in that manual. Meanwhile the actual operating depth of that class of boat is still classified because it can give a hint what current boats may be capable of. Thus that technical manual will never be declassified even though the equipment is well outdated.

Another example is ships movements. The date and destination is usually classified until it returns at which point there is no reason for it to remain classified. However there are cases where the movement details may remain classified forever. For example if a submarine is going off to do surveillance then it may not be wise to say where or when that surveillance was done not only because it can reveal what they possibly discovered but also because they might want to go back at a later date so they don't want to make it easy for the people being observed to know where to look. This has the effect of forcing the people being observed to spread themselves out thinner and longer than they may be able to effectively do.

Even things that may seem unrelated can be stitched together to give an overall picture of what a ships intentions are. I've mentioned this here before but I'll repeat it here. The ships "Grocery bill" is classified because how much food you have on board is directly related to how long you plan on being gone. How long you will be gone can be used to infer where you may be going. If you're planning on doing something that you want to keep secret then you would want to know who might be out there and when (and for how long). Having knowledge of the one limiting factor of those who you want to avoid could be invaluable. Hence the grocery bill (food is really the most limiting factor in todays submarines that can make their own unlimited power, water and air) is a good hint at what to possibly expect.

Thank you Sam!

Your torpedo tube example is pretty much what I was thinking -- details of outdated technology may allow extrapolation to current technology, -- but I had not thought about ship movements. Although that one is probably more subject to technological obsolescence: a modern sub, which need not surface for air periodically, would have a very different trip pattern than a WWII sub, even if the mission objective were similar.

 

[Mark6]

Classifications can exceed the usual time limits, especially where they involve human-gathered intelligence info and the people involved may reasonably be presumed to still be alive.

That's why I mentioned WWII. Pretty much everyone involved is dead by now.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Thank you Sam!

Your torpedo tube example is pretty much what I was thinking -- details of outdated technology may allow extrapolation to current technology, -- but I had not thought about ship movements. Although that one is probably more subject to technological obsolescence: a modern sub, which need not surface for air periodically, would have a very different trip pattern than a WWII sub, even if the mission objective were similar.

Actually the original log book of boats during WWII have been declassified and are available for viewing (by appointment only and only for people with valid research needs) at the Submarine Force Library and Museum in Groton Ct. They have detailed information on ships movements and a lot more. The reason for limiting access is to help preserve the books from mishandling although they may have digitized them by now and might have made those copies more accessible to the general public.

But yeah, the old saying "Loose Lips Sink Ships" is based upon what I said earlier. What I was trying to get across was that sometimes things get classified even though at first glance one might think that it's a silly thing to want to keep a secret. Usually there is a good reason behind the decision however it may not be obvious right off of the bat.

 

[Sabrina]

Sabrina,

Neither I (message 174) nor from what I can gather Professor Benkler ever said otherwise with respect to 104. In fact I would say that if you read Benkler's article, you will see that he is focused on the legal ramifications for the person doing the leak. BTW if you are having trouble with your caps lock key sticking, PM me, and I will offer you a suggestion.

However, you may have conflated two issues because I did also discuss the proposed SHIELD act, which is a different kettle of fish altogether. At Wired Ryan Singel wrote, "The so-called SHIELD Act (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) would expand the little used Espionage Act, which dates to World War I.

The bill (H.R. 6506) would likely face a constitutional challenge on First Amendment grounds, and could criminalize news reporting, such as the New York Times report from last year that the CIA regularly pays Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghanistan’s president who is suspected of being deeply involved in corruption and the opium drug trade."

Funny, that's not what you claim he said in this post:

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.'"

I like the condescending tone though; really makes me want to come over to your side of the fence.

Bottom line is this; if a person, military or not, provides information to any outlet, media or otherwise, that can potentially have a devastating effect on national security, then I am all for them being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. USC 18 and USC 10 provide for such prosecution. Please note that I am not advocating that the media outlets themselves be prosecuted, although I would be fully comfortable with a gag order imposed, but rather I am advocating that the person who for no good reason believes that they are more capable than the classifying authority to decide what should and shouldn't be released to the public should be tried and punished to the fullest extent of the law, especially when the information released does not show any wrongdoing by the government except in the mind of the person who released it. Now I suggest you get over yourself, because you're not doing yourself any favors by acting as though everyone in this thread who does not automatically agree with you is either stupid or misinformed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's no point in my arguing with the NeoCon rightwingers in this thread. I don't believe the government can do do wrong and we need people to speak up when the government secrecy gets so out of control you end up with tragedies like the Iraq and Vietnam Wars. History will exonerate Manning just as it has Ellsberg. It will also condemn GWBush just as it already is.

The position I took on Bush Jr and the Iraq war is well documented in this forum. History is beginning to reveal, that position was indeed the correct one. Manning is not a traitor, his actions were not selfish. Right or wrong, for better or worse, his motives were noble and he took a courageous stand against what he saw and what looks like an awful lot of covered up injustice.

 

[smartcooky]

This issue I have with Manning is that his actions may have caused, directly or indirectly, the deaths of his fellow soldiers.

Now, if his release of information pertained to actions being carried out by his government against its own people, I would have considerable sympathy for the position he was in. For example what if someone in Manning's position within ATF had discovered previously unseen secret video of ATF agents setting the fire that killed the people in the Waco Seige? I would be entirely sympathetic to someone in that position getting that video released to the public. IMO, the public have a right to know something like that.

However, the public have no right to know the details of how their Governments are fighting a war on foreign soil, when that information puts their operations at risk. If he had that information, he should keep it under his hat until the war is over. Then embarrass the hell out of the perpetrators.

Upthread the argument was offered that since HRW and like organizations had not put forward a claim that the Baghdad airstrike was a war crime, that this was evidence that the incident wasn't a war crime. It is better than the argument also put forward here that because the US Government had investigated it and not charged anyone with a war crime, that this was evidence that the incident was not a war crime (but that is very faint praise indeed). I thought it would be helpful to see what they actually had said, and it was. Whether or not the Baghdad airstrike was a war crime is an interesting question, but it does not encompass all (or even most) of the information about the wars that was uncovered.

Good Heavens!! If killing civilians is a war crime then every bombing mission carried out during World War 2 was a war crime.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Bottom line is this; if a person, military or not, provides information to any outlet, media or otherwise, that can potentially have a devastating effect on national security, then I am all for them being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. ...

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?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Good Heavens!! If killing civilians is a war crime then every bombing mission carried out during World War 2 was a war crime.

As collateral damage in a battle, maybe you'd have a point. How about when it wasn't collateral damage like the My Lai massacre? Or when after the 'accidental' killings occur, the government covers the deaths up, not to protect the soldiers, but because the deaths of civillians is unacceptable to the American public and would threaten to create political pressure to end the war?

 

[WildCat]

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

We're talking about Manning, who revealed not a single atrocity.

 

[ZouPrime]

Tell me again what devastation Manning caused?

He revealed confidential information. Wars (including WWII) have been won and lost over information - this is why nations take these kind of release very seriously. This is why spies are prosecuted. Potentially, it could have been devastating. That this potentiality has come true or not is beside the point. Soviet spies were prosecuted whether the documents they stole were actually used by the Soviets or not.

I thought the Arab Spring was a good thing?

I guess so. How is this relevant?

And aren't you blaming the messenger?

Of course we're blaming the messenger - he's the problem. He shouldn't have done any messaging.

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

Every wars have atrocities, Iraq included. There's no revelation here. Everybody knew the US had killed plenty of civilians. Same thing for spying on other countries, or liking or not other government officials. How is this a surprise? Did you really just woke up about the reality of international relations?

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?

What evidence released by Bradley were "lies directed toward US citizens for political reasons"?

 

[Mark6]

Good Heavens!! If killing civilians is a war crime then every bombing mission carried out during World War 2 was a war crime.

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.