Not everyone who serves is deserving of respect.
Last April, WikiLeak.org and its owner, Julian Assange, edited and published a 2007 footage they entitled “Collateral Murder”, which purported to show an American Apache helicopter killing unarmed civilians, including news reporters, in Iraq.
While WikiLeak.org is slated to release a new video of an alleged “massacre” by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, a 22 year old Pfc Army intelligence analyst serving in Iraq was detained about a month ago, accused of being the source of the leaked “Collateral Murder” video. Charges have now been brought:
BAGHDAD — An American soldier in Iraq who was arrested on charges of leaking a video of a deadly American helicopter attack here in 2007 has also been charged with downloading more than 150,000 highly classified diplomatic cables that could, if made public, reveal the inner workings of American embassies around the world, the military here announced Tuesday.
The full contents of the cables remain unclear, but according to formal charges filed Monday, it appeared that a disgruntled soldier working at a remote base east of Baghdad had gathered some of the most guarded, if not always scandalous, secrets of American diplomacy. He disclosed at least 50 of the cables “to a person not entitled to receive them,” according to the charges.
You can see a complete list of the charges here on the Help Bradley Manning website. If you think that site is stomach-churning, check out the Facebook fanpage (another one here and here), with comments like this:
while its very easy to bash some soldiers as being cruel and callous, these soldiers were doing exactly as they were trained by the Army. The Army uses Racism, hatred, and nationalism to train their soldiers to dehumanize the people of Iraq (or Afhganistan)
Soldiers in a sense are re-programmed to feel no emotion for c…ivilians. Its a trigger mechanism that when soldiers do or see something that an average person (non military) would reel or anguish over, soldiers are taught to push through that emotion.
I think that instead of blaming soldiers for the actions that are not only sanctioned by but encouraged by the leaders of our government, we should be focusing on the system that trains these soldiers to behave that way. If we do not demand responsibility from the nations leaders then nothing will change, and soldiers will still be trained in Racism, and hatred!
So what is Manning’s beef?
With his custom-made “humanist” dog tags and distrust of authority, Bradley Manning was no conventional soldier.
Ostracized by peers in Baghdad, busted for assaulting a fellow soldier and disdainful of the military’s inattention to computer security, the 22-year-old intelligence analyst styled himself a “hactivist.”
~~~ Manning is a slight, boyish-looking son of divorced parents from Crescent, Okla., population 1,400. His Facebook page shows him smiling, with stylish, upswept hair and a stated affinity for gay-rights groups including Repeal the Ban, which seeks to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals serving in the U.S. military.
Growing up in a house he shared with his parents and older sister, Manning had a sharp intellect and an interest in science, history and computers, said Jordan Davis, a boyhood pal. He said Manning also was determined at a young age to join the Army.
“It always seemed to me that Bradley was actually was more patriotic than probably even your average person,” he said.
Chera Moore, another childhood friend, described Manning as highly intelligent and helpful. But she said he had “anger issues” and could get furious when people disagreed with him.
When Manning’s parents split up in middle school, he left Oklahoma to live with his mother in Wales, Davis said.
After Manning graduated from high school and returned to Oklahoma, he quit or lost jobs in food service and retail in Tulsa, Davis said. Settling briefly in Chicago, Manning moved in with an aunt in Potomac, a Maryland suburb of Washington, D.C., and took community college courses before joining the Army in 2007.
Davis said Manning trained in Arizona, probably at Fort Huachuca, where he trained in compiling intelligence reports. Such reports help the military determine changes in enemy capabilities, vulnerabilities and probable courses of action.
In recent months, Davis said, Manning seemed to have grown more aware of social issues, including the gay-rights movement.
There’s some speculation going on, regarding Manning’s sexual identity as motive. So is this what it’s really about and not some “conscientious objection” to our war efforts, “terrorizing Iraqi and Afghan children”?
Check out his public profile and list of pages on his Facebook.
Manning’s family members declined interview requests from The Associated Press.
According to partial chat logs Lamo shared first with Wired.com, Manning started communicating with Lamo on May 21, a couple weeks after he was reduced in rank from specialist to private first class for assaulting another soldier.
In one of many personal asides, Manning told Lamo he had been the only nonreligious person in a town that had “more pews than people,” and that he had custom-made dogtags reading “humanist.”
Manning said he was pending discharge for an “adjustment disorder,” according to the chat logs, but Army spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Bloom said Manning wasn’t facing discharge when he was detained May 29.
The chats reveal Manning’s frustration at being “regularly ignored” at work.
“I’ve been isolated so long,” he wrote. “I just wanted to be nice, and live a normal life … but events kept forcing me to figure out ways to survive … smart enough to know what’s going on, but helpless to do anything.”
According to the chat logs, Manning’s turning point came when he watched Iraqi police detain 15 people for printing anti-Iraqi literature that turned out to be a scholarly critique of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
“After that … I saw things differently,” he wrote. “I was actively involved in something that I was completely against.”
Manning wrote he had copied onto compact discs “possibly the largest data spillage in American history” while listening and lip-synching to Lady Gaga’s “Telephone.” He wrote that he exploited “a perfect storm” of military computer vulnerability: “weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counterintelligence, inattentive signal analysis.”
His motive, according to the chat logs: “I want people to see the truth … because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” Manning wrote that he hoped to provoke worldwide discussion, debates and reform, according to the chat logs.
Lamo told the AP he grew concerned “when it became apparent that he was leaking classified information to a foreign national” — Wikileaks’ Australian founder Julian Assange. Early in their online conversations, Manning told Lamo that he had sent 260,000 State Department diplomatic cables to Wikileaks.
Lamo said he turned the chat logs over to Army criminal investigators after consulting with a friend who had worked in Army counterintelligence.
“It was a combination of an act of conscience and an act spurred by my understanding of the law,” Lamo said. “I did this because I thought what he was doing was very dangerous.”
Ellsberg said he considers Manning and Assange heroes for publicizing information the government wanted suppressed. He said Manning’s alleged leak was possibly more significant than his own, which exposed the secret expansion of the Vietnam War.
“He is the first person in 39 years to do something comparable to what I did — and really better than what I did, because it’s current,” Ellsberg said.
Both Ellsberg and Gabriel Schoenfeld, an author who supports cracking down on leakers, said that the Obama administration has gone further than the Bush White House in pursuing alleged whistleblowers.
The charges against Manning follow April’s indictment of former National Security Agency worker Thomas Drake for allegedly lying and obstructing justice in an investigation of classified information leaks to The Baltimore Sun.
The Army’s decision to charge Manning also followed a federal grand jury’s reissuance in April of a subpoena seeking the names of some sources for journalist James Risen’s book, “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.”
Schoenfeld, author of “Necessary Secrets” and a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, said leaks of military information during wartime run counter to America’s interests.
“We’re serious about trying to win, and it’s extremely damaging to the morale of our troops,” he said. “It inflames the local opinion, where we have a real battle for hearts and minds.”
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
@ See_the_light, Reported to whom, Wikileaks media whores? How about the corrupt UN jokers that profited from the Oil For Food Scam? The Iraqi Forces do not answer to the US on their conduct as they answer to the sovereign Iraqi Government alone.
Excusing Manning for his conduct is not acceptable. He could not offer sworn testimony on events or actions that he did not in FACT witness. Nice try but his testimony would not stand in any Court so he released information to media whores that had no way of vetting the information.
Manning is just in violation of the UCMJ and must answer for HIS Actions, which may I add, were within the conditions of His Employment. He could not Report anything that he had not witnessed.
You are not using a logical or legal perspective here. Manning is no hero. He may be a disgruntled Soldier but he volunteered and was not conscripted. He will be held responsible for His actions alone.
Geneva conventions do not apply to terrorists.
Manning is no hero by his own admission. He did not do it out of some humanitarian cause. Call him a hero all you want, it just shows you are the one who believes whatever you are told. Now go back to DUNG, Puffho, or the KOSlim land. This site is for adults.
The thread came to life again!
And just a few days after Wikileaks dumped another huge cache of Significant Action Reports sent up the chain of command (but not very far up) about the Iraq War.
Here’s the deal, same deal since my war …
If the war sucks, if the USA never should have waged it in the first place, there are inevitably going to be military personnel — from E-3 to O-5, with some warrants thrown in — who will blow the whistle on how our side is screwing the pooch, and lying about it, and covering it up to the American public.
And they won’t care if you call them traitors.
And they know they risk court martial when they send the documents to the free press.
Some American wars, nothing like this ever happened, not a single person in military service thought it was a necessary response to a bad, out-of-control “liars and scoundrels war” (as Congressman Abraham Lincoln called James K. Polk’s Mexican War).
AMERICAN soldiers aren’t robots. We obey MOST orders. We take our educational backgrounds and our civilian experiences, and our “Sunday School” training, and smell and sniff the others, and if they stink too bad, if they shame America and its military — we don’t obey them, or we blow the whistle on them.
I like Wikileaks, I think it’s doing the public work these whack wars require.
Americans can, if they wish, keep waging these wars.
But now, Wikileaks has shown us some raw truth about the wars we’ve been paying for and suffering from. Now we know what we’re signing on to, now we know what we’ve bought.
The latest Wikileaks release has been Page 1 / Top Network Story for two days. The top tier of the journalism profession thinks the leaks are Big, Important News. They’re routinely described as the most significant “leaked news.” in its potential to influence policy in the American democracy, since The Pentagon Papers.
And a DoD analysis just concluded that no one, American, Afghan, died or was endangered by the Afghan War Wikileaks.
Do we have the right to see the wars we’re buying? To look under the hood, to read the fine print, to know what the field grade and general grade officers, and most enlisted personnel, know about it?
Or is every American war a war which only the authorized Pentagon version is the version our civilians are allowed to get?
“And a DoD analysis just concluded that no one, American, Afghan, died or was endangered by the Afghan War Wikileaks.”
Not yet. That could quickly change thanks to the leaks.
You imply you are a vet, but you sound more like a liberal. Then again this is the internet. You could be anyone pretending to be a vet. You may like Wikileaks, but all they are doing is showing that the leaks are generally much ado about nothing and hardly undermines the reasons we were and are fighting these wars.
Wikilieaks/assange are not heroes. They are scum who want to hurt America any way they can and this is their attempt to do just that. BTW, there are some things that we don’t need to know about the wars we wage for security reasons. The fact you think otherwise makes me wonder about your veteran status claim.
If I am wrong then I apologize.
Oh forgot to mention that Wikileaks edited the video “Colateral Murder” in an attempt to frame the helicopter pilots. So you think that is a good thing too?
@ Bob Merkin, Your War? Against whom and when?
I have been to Three of them, several of them were Peacekeeping Missions and depending on who you interview there are about a million different versions and sources for info.
Just how much is the scope of your need to know and in what capacity?
Do you believe everything you read or what you have personally witnessed?
Can Wikileaks vet the info that they publish?
Cite your source.
wiki leaks is just another symptom of a weak liberal society
we should never go to war
we should simply obliterate our enemies and leave a vast desert
with naught but a sign
warning of our return if we should feel harassed or bothered again
OT, don’t be surprised if it never comes back. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a sock of the first idiot.
@ Hard Right, FA has become a ‘sock’ magnet as the election gets closer. Should we take that as a compliment?
I thought that most of these juveniles spent their time on an X-Box instead of offering their childish views here. Granted, we do see a lot of cases of arrested intellectual development posting here but folks masquerading as ‘subject matter experts’ or fans of Traitors masquerading as Patriots?
Nothing surprises me anymore. 😯
The lefties are lashing out as the election slaughter nears. Since we are a visible Conservative site we get the swoop and poop from the X-box playing, dope smoking idiots afraid they’ll have to work for a living.
I hear you about not being surprised anymore. As it is two of our regular liberal posters actually think they aren’t liberals.
🙄
What can I tell you? They knew I was a lefty when they drafted me, but they drafted me anyway … and gave me a couple of spiffy medals, and a thank-you letter from my Commander-in-Chief for my honorable service.
Don’t be shocked: The woods are filled with honorable military vets who are liberals, lefties, even pacifists. The active-duty military’s filled with servicemen and women who voted Obama and will do so in 2012. (That’s the cool thing about the secret ballot,)
Hard Right, I could be anyone, but I’m a Vietnam-era vet, I went where they sent me and carried out my orders. Thanks for serving; hope you wish me the same.
@Old Trooper 2
“the corrupt UN jokers that profited from the Oil For Food Scam?”, seriously, why do you think America is in Iraq, I’m not the first to highlight that Iraq’s got a hundred years worth of oil to drill and now the US has military control. Anyway, saying that Manning “could not offer sworn testimony on events or actions that he did not in FACT witness” is entirely true, but he can swear testimony to the fact that these files were created by military personnel on the back of what US soldiers on the ground reported. This also answers your statement as to wikileaks can’t verify every last piece of data, you’re right they can’t, but they did come from the DoD. So even though it is not a complete picture of what occurred, it has been written and edited by a government I thought you trusted. Your statement that “Manning is just in violation of the UCMJ and the conditions of his employment” is correct. He is in violation of the codes of military justice. However the Geneva Convention supersedes any UCMJ law, this means that you CAN break the uniform code of military justice IF it is following the code of the Geneva Convention. Thus Manning’s leaked documents highlighting human rights abuses constitute this.
@Hard Right
your comment that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists is wrong. They apply to absolutely everyone, it is at the very heart at what it stands for and written into the constitution. It was created after the dehumanisation of the Jews during the holocaust with the Nazi’s removing any rights they had. The Geneva Convention was put in place to protect everyone, a terrorist still constitutes a human and are thus protected.
Secondly, seeing as you raised the video, why are you focused on what it is called? If it was called file 123 would that really change the fact that two Reuters journalists were killed, and unarmed civilian trying to give aid, and his two children seriously injured. They opened fire onto a civilian vehicle. By the sounds of it many on this site have served at some point, are you telling me that anyone of you would open fire onto a civilian giving aid? Is this debateable? There’s a video, we can see what occurred. There weren’t any extenuating circumstances. I like someone to give their definition of murder during a war. Or does anything go? In case you’re thinking the civilians weren’t so innocent, a US spokesperson quoted “we regret the loss of innocent life”, link: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6344FW20100406.
Thirdly, your statement that “there are some things that we don’t need to know about the wars we wage for security reasons”, sounds straight out of speech by President Bush. These files compiled BY the US military, highlighted an extra 15,000 civilian deaths, put another way, five 9/11’s worth of causalities, completely ignored and not reported, even though they knew the true figures. I agree that soldier’s names should not be released, but what else. Have you looked into these files? They report the incidents that occurred, not strategic plans of their next attack. If we believe that the war is over and the troops are coming home, then surely you all see this as a history record which could not harm any US troops.
Maybe see it in a different way for a second. If these documents released highlight that some soldiers have been conducting murder or conducting missions that recklessly endanger civilians and subsequently brought to justice, this would show democracy within the US military. It would show that they stand for justice and treat civilians with some respect. This may in turn reduce the number of ‘terrorists’ because you’re giving them less reason to fight because you haven’t just killed their family and loved ones. Wouldn’t THIS reduce the number of military deaths.
@See_the_light:
Wow!
You are painfully and woefully out of your element here.
The GCs have very specific guidelines regarding protection as well as very specific guidelines regarding exclusion.
For example: Terrorists or “unlawful combatants” (members of al Qaeda and the Taliban, et al) are specifically excluded from protections because 1) they are not signatories to the GCs, 2) they do not fight in uniform, 3) they hide among, as well as target, civilian populations.
There are other exclusionary areas which apply to specifically to unlawful combatants as well.
Again, those who fall into the categories laid out above are specifically excluded from GC protections. The only rights they are guaranteed is the right to a battlefield trial and punishment up to, and including, execution.
@ Aye Chihuahua
I see you’ve done a little reading but unfortunately only within the realms of what America wants, not actually the law. I should have been clearer which I will do so now. Article 3 of the GC applies to everyone including ‘terrorists’ (See below). You are right that article 4 does not cover terrorists but you missed a vital point, the GC states that it protects the uncharged terrorist, noting that anyone who has been captured is entitled to protection until “their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
So for example Guantanamo where all these terrorists are apparently kept, only 3 have actually been charged. Since October 7, 2001, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, most have been released without charge or transferred to facilities in their home countries. As of July 2010, 176 detainees remain at Guantanamo. Please provide me a list of all the names of the people who have been found by a tribunal to be deemed a terrorist, it won’t take you very long, and then I will send you back the names of the few individuals who aren’t covered by every section of the Genève convention. I apologise for not making myself clearer. Because the term terrorist is seemed to be used for anyone against the US nowadays it appears to get used out of context.
Someone who does agree with you is Barack Obama’s selected Attorney General, Eric Holder. Who believes that terrorists are not uniformed combatants and subsequently not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
“It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.”
The important part of this statement though is the first four words “it seems to me”, his opinion does not constitute the GC. I know America loves to believe this is the case but their word is not the law.
Reference to Article 3:
‘Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory’s territory (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3’s protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.’
@See_the_light:
I swore off commenting on FA, but I can’t let your comment go unanswered. What the Geneva Convention has to do with this is beyond me, and by the way, also beyond the JAG. What Pfc. Manning did was not whistle blowing. Whistle blowing would have been Manning reporting his suspicions to his superiors, or the MP’s, (which I am guessing were in country in abundance at the time.) Pfc. Manning instead leaked classified documents during a time of war to civilian press and possibly enemy combatants. This placed his comrades in danger even if no casualties can be directly attributed to his actions. Pfc. Manning is now Prisoner Manning, as he deserves to be. When the Court Marshall decides his fate, It will be what he deserves.
@ Flyovercountry, you are correct. The UCMJ applies to Manning and the Geneva Conventions do not. An Article 32 investigation is in progress on charges for Manning, the Military equivalent of a Grand Jury to determine the charges.
Flyovercountry: Hi, I hope that It’s not something I said, for you to swear off, FA
commenting, I don’t recall having done so, but I recall reading your very intelligent comments,
and we miss it now: SO don’t stay away from the group anymore, would you?
bye SR
@Flyovercountry
“Manning did was not whistle blowing. Whistle blowing would have been Manning reporting his suspicions to his superiors, or the MP’s” – Really, is that so, I’m so glad you’re so well informed. By any chance have you ever heard of Daniel Ellsberg, known to lots as the biggest whistleblower in history. Do you know what he did with those Pentagon papers? He handed them to The New York Times, a newspaper. What did Manning do, he leaked to Wikileaks who subsequently passed it straight onto The New York Times and The Guardian as well as a few other newspapers. So if you don’t count Manning as a whistleblower then you can’t count Daniel Ellsberg as one, and if this is the case I think you really need to look into him and be better informed. You can watch Daniel Ellsberg here: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/10420425 talking about Manning as a ‘fellow whistleblower’ if you want.
What has all this got to do with the Geneva Convention, in case you missed the entire point, was that the leak brought to light human rights atrocities that the US and Iraq military were involved in, and that the government was aware of. So yes, Manning will be charged under the UCMJ, you are right. But the focus of all this should be on what he found, military personnel that should be held accountable for their actions. You all hate and despise this monster who stole files from a computer, but have no feelings for the 109,032 civilians who have died in this war, an incredibly large number of which died unlawfully and unnecessarily. But you know you’re right lets hang Manning for his computer crimes, forget the rest, forget say the attack on Fallujah in 2004 where they’ve admitted to using white phosphorus that burnt the faces off civilians, you’re right, let’s just not mention that bit. Even though how they used it is illegal (if you want the reference just ask). All fair’s in love and war I guess, even if its killing unarmed civilians.
@ See_the_light, Manning will be charged under the UCMJ because he is subject to the UCMJ.
Manning cannot offer sworn testimony on incidents that He did not personally witness. That would be perjury. That is also a UCMJ offense.
As the information that he released to Wikileaks was Classified Information sent by both Individual Commands and Embassies it was subject to review by Military Commands and the US State Department the reports were ‘reported’ to higher authorities. That is the bottom line. The information was reports that were ‘reported’. The release of Classified Info to unauthorized recipients is a Crime. Period.
The burden here lies with the Department of Defense and the State Department that are under the Command of NCA, National Command Authority, IE, the CiC, Obama. Further, any information that originated in Afghanistan is under NATO jurisdiction as well so there is NATO review involved.
For PFC Manning to take it upon himself to release the information for publication without Authorization by NCA is the issue here. Alleged Offenses committed by Iraqi Forces/Police fall under the jurisdiction of the Iraqi Government to investigate or try offenders in Court. As Iraq is not a Geneva Convention signatory the GCs are not relevant.
Things are not so clear cut as you attempt to make them. Do you want to charge Obama, the US Secretary of State, NATO, the Iraqi Government, Who???
The real problem that you have here is establishing who knew what and when. Good luck on that. Things are a lot more complex than you can imagine but Manning was not a messenger.
He was a Soldier that committed UCMJ Offenses.
Ah yes, the true thrust of your hate comes out. The evil America must be punished.
The 100k dead was alllll America’s fault. The terrorists had nothing to do with their deaths what-so-ever. They were better off under Saddam, blah, blah, blah.
BTW, IIRC we weren’t signatories to the part of the GC that you claim applies to terrorists. Fortunately for us it does not anyway. Now go back to KOS, DUNG, or huffpo because your BS doesn’t fly here.
@See_the_light:
Ellsberg faced charges of espionage. He sat in prison for a full two years on those charges until a Federal Judge ordered the charges dropped in June of 1973. The charges were ordered dropped due to Liddy’s illegal wiretapping of government and nongovernment offices in connection with the case. In short, Ellsberg did not get off due to his innocence or being right in what he did. He got off due to a procedural technicality in civillian court. While this may seem like the same thing to you, and that the Ellsberg case should stand as some sort of perverted precedent, the differences are important. Had G. Gordon Liddy not been willing to break the law himself in order to collect evidence, Ellsberg would have been shot as a convicted spy.
What this trial will be about will be what the JAG charges Manning with. If there were atrocities, he should have reported them to those people clearly spelled out to him and every soldier according to his unit’s operations manual. That means his commanding officer or the Military Police.
I see you are still using this already discredited number for civilian deaths. That number is outrageous and balogna. Even if it were true, better them than American Troops. In case you didn’t know, wars are won by a)killing the enemy, b)destroying the enemy’s infrastructure,
c)breaking his will to fight. The idea of a surgical war is politically correct nonsense designed to get our guys killed.
Interseting that you mention Fellujah. My nephew died there. He was not burning anybody’s face off. He was serving his country. I bet if he actually had White Phospherous or Napalm at his dispossal, I would still have him around today. The interesting thing about all of your nonsensical catterwalling about war crimes and attrocities, is that the very people who you claim to care about support our liberation of their country. Even as we speak, the vast majority of them are engaged in begging the Zero to not pull out. While I respect your right to say what you want, I don’t respect your exageration of supposed war crimes as a means to convince people to do what is nescessary to win a war. Most especially since we sent them there to do it. If you have actual evidence of wrong doing, present it to the proper authorities.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
You are truly one of the nicest people on any web forum. It comes down to resources of time, and nothing more. I still read the site regularly. Take care, and keep the faith.
I notice Bob Merkin has still not cited any sources on this Pentagon statement that was supposedly released.
Flyovercountry, thank you SR and good health to you.
I read the GC years ago when the controversy broke out about whether or not it covered terrorists. There were multiple versions, all of which we did not sign onto. After reading the ones where we did, it’s clear terrorists were not protected by it.
To America haters like Light, America is the primary source of evil in the world and we must be stopped. That is how he comes to the insane conclusion that we are to blame for ALL civilian (even if they weren’t civilians) deaths. Any and all torture that the Iraqis committed is our fault and that we invaded illegally, even tho we didn’t. Facts don’t matter to it’s kind. All that matters is stopping America.
I’m thinking of going to rehab to stop posting on Flipping Aces, but I need to say this.
At first I expected a hurricane of abuse for expressing approval for Manning and Wikileaks.
But to my surprise and delight, Americans — mostly or all vets is my guess — have advocated for things that make me proud to be an American vet.
* Humane treatment of enemy prisoners, and support for the Geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, regardless of legalistic refusals to honor Geneva in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
* Transparency of our government’s war actions overseas to the American people via our free press.
Our benchmark and gold standard for waging war should be our unconditional victories in World War II. When it was over, the world saw the horrors our enemies had perpetrated on POWs and civilians alike.
And the world saw how the American citizen-soldier behaved, with honor, generosity, restraint, humanity.
Trying to fight an American war while forgetting that greatest moment in our history — What does America possibly have to gain by shaming the uniforms of the men and women who fought and won World War II?
PS. Just my personal prediction, but if a court martial convicts Manning, he’ll be sentenced to no more than 5 years, and will be released sooner than that. The more unpopular these liars and scoundrels’ wars become with the American people, the less appetite the military will have for making a martyr of Manning and others who expose the truth about these wars.
@ Bob Merkin, Thanks for your Service. A General Indictment of the US, the Military and the current CiC, as it is now His War, other ‘crimes’ real or imagined is not in your scope of employment. Go to rehab and good luck.
PFC Manning’s Article 32 investigation is ongoing and he is subject to the UCMJ for his actions. The problem here is that certain Laws were broken and the Classified info that he furnished to Wikilealks was not within the Legal Scope of his Duty. It was Diplomatic Cables which fall under the purview of the Us State Department. Lets indict Hillary Clinton for failure to report this info to Congress under sworn testimony while you are at it with the finger pointing. How about them apples, Bob?
There is a Chain of Command and a Chain of Responsibility. Did that fit into your scheme of things?
Bob Merkin: hi, you don’t need rehab for sure compare to some other who come,
YOU can teach them rehab instead, take care and stick around at FA, with the fine group we have,
BRIGHT and well educated like you. bye
Bob, I also have to ask if you saw the Wikileaks version of “Collateral Murder.” If not I sugggest you do so, then view the unedited version.
Perhaps then you would not be so supportive of Wikileaks after watching both.
BTW, if you think WWII was “morally pure” or “fought cleanly”, I have a WWII vet relative who could tell you otherwise.
@See_the_light:
Copying/pasting portions of Facebook posts or select segments of Wiki entries will get you into trouble every time.
You see, what happens is the people who create those posts don’t necessarily understand the topics upon which they are expounding, thus you perpetuate their errors making yourself look like a fool in the process.
The GCs are very specific. You should read them sometime.
Now, let’s get to the meat of your post:
Well, that’s not exactly what it says. That’s the last part of the sentence that you chose to snip.
Here’s the whole thing:
That completely changes the meaning now doesn’t it?
If there is doubt as to whether a person falls into the categories of Article 4 then, and only then, is a tribunal necessary.
What are the categories in Article 4 you ask?
Well thanks for asking. Here they are:
Participants/captives must meet multiple conditions in order to qualify for protections under the GCs.
If the captives do not fit into those categories then they are classified as unlawful combatants.
The GCs have no “innocent until proven guilty” provisions.
Furthermore:
Additionally, Protocol I states the following:
This issue has been specifically addressed and the ICRC disagrees with you:
::snip::
::snip::
anticsrocks: come to weekly open thread for the you know what,soon.
@Hard Right: #133 The full video is at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/apache-helicopters-kill-iraqi-civilians
Be warned that the video contains THE TRUTH! Liberals will have to remove their truth deflecting vest and helmet or they will only see what you want to see and the rest of the time watching the video will be wasted. Listen to the report of a black vehicle at the 00:38 mark. It dropped off some people.
Reporters are required to wear blue vests and helmets so we and the enemy know who they are. The two reporters didn’t have such vests or helmets. Why?
There had been a battle going on just a short distance from where the enemy was. One of the last pictures in the camera of the dead photographer was of a US Humvee a short distance away, so we know they were getting ready to attack our guys. Remember, there had been a firefight in the area a short time before. The pilot mistook the photographer’s telephoto lens for an RPG. Could you have been able to tell the difference? Remember, he was supposed to have on a blue vest and blue helmet showing that he is a reporter.
In the early part of the video the “civilian” van was seen dropping off people in the area. These were some of the same people who were later shot carrying weapons. They were getting ready to attack the US forces a short distance away. What father would take their kids into a known combat area? The instant our forces found out there were kids in the van they stopped shooting at it. Would the enemy have stopped shooting at us if they saw our kids in the area? No.
@ilovebees – Thanks, but I missed. Started back to work Monday and so my internet time is limited.
The little leftist POS should be executed. Putting him in prison to enjoy a lifetime of getting ass rammed would be a reward for this little sociopath.
I think the problem is, we’re made “War” TOO CIVILIZED!!! You can sit in an Air Conditioned Command post, and plaster the target with Laser guided munitions, with pinpoint precision, reduce Collateral Damage to a minimum, and we slap ourselves on the back for it. We’ve taken the Brutal, Bloody HORROR out of war!! War is SUPPOSED to be Ugly, and horrendous! THAT encourages people NOT to engage in it frivolously, like seems to happen NOW!
If forced to use swords and battle axes… who in his right mind would do it today?
Look at the idiotic conflicts we have now… Korea… Middle East….Africa…. “Modern Warfare seems to ENCOURAGE “war”, because it’s SO EASY TO DO now!!!!! Push a button, waste a guy far away….
Technology isn’t always so wonderful……..IMHO…. yours may vary…..
Manning and Assange are the 21st century’s Heroes of Humanity.
@ Hankster58, #139:
I think perhaps what’s changed is that the American public has been largely insulated from war’s horrific reality. The horror is still there, but the media reflection of war has been purposefully narrowed, controlled, and sanitized.
I can’t for a moment condone Manning’s actions. I feel some sympathy for his motives.
Damn, I may actually have to AGREE with Greg here…. whoa! LOL… but I think it’s somewhat larger, a LOT of people in a lot of countries have been “insulated”.. where war is more recent an occurence, on THEIR soil… they get it all too well….. others, too old or have forgotten.. or too YOUNG to remember/know…. and TV and games have desensitized us… fantasy from reality…
@J. D. Hunter: #140
It depends on who’s side you are on. John Kerry was North Vietnam’s hero. They have pictures of him in their war memorial. I can only guess who your other heroes are.
That brings up another subject: Where are today’s TV and movie heroes? I miss them. It reminds me of the Statler Brothers song “Whatever Happened To Randolph Scott?” Did anybody ever figure out what happened to him?
SMORGASBORD: YES WHAT HAPPEN TO RANDOLF SCOTT?
HE WAS A VERY GOOD ACTOR. BYE
I have to weigh in on Mr Manning and his fate. As a former member of the intelligence community I find his actions appalling and of such weight that there is only one penalty suitable… not only as a punishment but as a deterence as well… FIRING SQUAD
@Donald Bly:
As a citizen of the United States of America, I find his actions appalling and of such weight that there is only one penalty suitable… not only as a punishment but as a deterence as well… FIRING SQUAD
What this person did was of such a horrible nature, it is a shame that we will only be able to execute him once. Putting aside all of the idiotic rationalizations, his treachery put the lives of hundreds of thousands of fine individuals at risk. All of those people were innocent of the crime of causing his temper tantrum. They were however our Sons, Daughters and Neighbors. We need to do the same to his accomplices also.
BOB MERKIN, HI, i came back and read again your comments, and I must say, NO I dont agree with your stand to okay the release by wikie, for the MEDIA to pick up on it’s suggestive way of the troups not being professionals, in implimenting such difficult ROE IN THIS WAR,
we all must stand behind the troups and give them the support they need to mentaly feel that they are fighting for all freedom, but if you hurt them by challenging the behavior of act of war it is treason of the outmost despicable way, deserving punishment you give only to TRAITORS,
if it’s call transparant ,it surely is not other than wrong.
Enlightenment to humanity is treason to nations. Got it.
BOB MERKIN, AS I reread your comments where you agree on releasing the wikie on the name of tranparent, I COME BACK TO DISAGREE ON YOUR STAND AND THIS IS GOING AGAINST THE WAY THE MILITARY ARE FIGHTING THIS WAR, WITH A RESTRAINING ROE,THA ONLY PROLONG THIS WAR, WILLINGLY BY THE TOP COMMANDER IN CHIEF, AND THAT IS WHERE YOU MUST WANT THAT TRANSPARANT KNOWLEDGE AT THE GOVERNMENT STAGE,
at war they are doing very dangerous move to protect the civiliens and that put the military in great life threath, so they need the support of AMERICANS TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING AGAINST THE WILL OF THEIR FELLOW COUNTRYMAN .
Honest men have no secrets. Treason has a legal definition and exposing truth isn’t it.
@ilovebeeswarzone: In the Statler Brothers song “Whatever happened to Randolph Scott,” it refers to the fact that there aren’t any “Good Guy” heroes any more. I don’t have cable, and I haven’t gone to a movie theater for years, so I don’t know what kind of heroes the kids have today except for the advertising they have, and I wouldn’t want my kids seeing today’s movies or entertainers. They are grown up and have kids of their own, so I don’t have to worry about that.
J. D. Hunter: hoow sure is that truth until it’s determine by a judge, and he could have gone to his commander, not a public non secure place non reliable and completly disconnect with
the war tactics making them ingnorant to the case and guilty by relasing those papers
from MANNING AN STRANGE UNSECURE EMOTIONAL DISTURB MENTAL STATE RENDERING HIM AND HIS WORDS NOT TRUTFULLY RIGHT IN OTHER WORDS THE WIKIE SHOULD HAVE JUST DISCARD IT FOR BAD SOURCE.
SMORGASBORD, HI, RANDOLF SCOTT WAS BEFORE GARY COOPER, AND HE WAS GOOD ACTING BUT DID NOT MAKE MANY MOVIES FROM WHAT I SAW. BYE
@ilovebeeswarzone: #153
Maybe that is why the song, “Whatever Happened To Randolph Scott?” was written.