Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years:

[Vox]

those articles are NOT APPLICABLE in the situation.

case closed.

 

[Billo_Really]

Wrong, but I'm not at all surprised you take their side.

They were walking around with guns to kill American troops.

They were not armed.

People taking part in hostilities, don't hang around out in the open, like they did.

 

[Billo_Really]

those articles are NOT APPLICABLE in the situation.

case closed.

Those are the laws of war, numbnuts!

You don't even have the mental chops to be in a conversation such as this, so fuck off!

 

[Billo_Really]

Again, it's not a hypothetical. It's an analogy..

Call it whatever you want, it's irrelevent to the debate.

 

[Billo_Really]

But they didn't mistake the guy's RPG for a camera.

That's one of the bits Assange edited out.

It's the same blurred image in both videos.

In fact, I posted the picture from your video and there is no way you can tell what it was.

 

[Kondor3]

"...you are trying to separate between the law and morality..."

Indeed.

Warriors have been doing that for many thousands of years.

It is called: Mercy.

"...Soldiers are not jurors or judges - they do not have the luxury of TIME very often..."

It pains me to say this, but I disagree about TIME in THIS case...

On the following version of the video...



Shoot Sequence No. 1 began at 3:15 on this video footage...

Shoot Sequence No. 2 began at 8:35 on this video footage...

That is 5:20 (5 minutes and 20 seconds)!!!!! between Shoots...

Five minutes and twenty seconds between Shoots...

With nobody shooting at them

Doing nothing but hover-orbiting the site from a distance...

Five minutes and twenty seconds !!!!!!

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, Vox, that's enough time to call Geneva and put it up to a vote in the United Nations General Assembly, so-to-speak...

They could also have gotten on the bullhorn (via gunship or Bradley or remote-patched-in from any person who could speak the language) and told them to stop what they were doing and to lay down on the ground, etc., just to give 'em a very modest and safe benefit of a doubt, and, if they failed to comply, well...

But none of that happened...

In this case, our boys DID have time to think about it, and they pushed for the Firing Solution anyway, and may have even fed false information to their Command Authority by giving the impression that the rescuers were loading wounded AND weapons...

To my way of thinking, at this point, Shoot Sequence No. 2 (the van) was NOT Righteous...

At the very best, it was Overzealousness on the part of our boys, and it was wrong, morally...

There comes a time when Mercy should be extended to the Enemy, and our boys - compassion killed by too much time in-country - blew the call, and missed that opportunity...

Or so it seems to this Army veteran and regular defender of our boys-and-girls in uniform...

I almost feel like I'm at-risk of giving aid and comfort to the enemy on this one, but I cannot act against my conscience, either, even to shield some of our own peeps, and that's killing me, I promise you.

Doesn't mean that I'm right, but that's the way I'm seeing it at present...

 

[Vox]

those articles are NOT APPLICABLE in the situation.

case closed.

Those are the laws of war, numbnuts!

You don't even have the mental chops to be in a conversation such as this, so fuck off!

dumbass, those are not applicable in the situation.

case closed.

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't see anything heinous AT ALL.

That's because you're an inhuman skumbag who thinks its okay to murder innocent Iraqis in cold blood.

 

[Billo_Really]

dumbass, those are not applicable in the situation.

case closed.

I bet you also argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes?

 

[freedombecki]

What the heck was a PFC doing with access to information of a serious nature in the first place?

Good Question.


Here's a better one. Why was a PFC who almost washed out in Basic Training trained in data handling of sensitive information with very poor supervision.

Welcome to the stoploss policy...

They're soldiers, not clairvoyants, Joe.

A lot of guys bomb out their first few years in the service. Most of them outgrow the bad stuff and become good soldiers, loyal to their country and loyal to each other and if contacted by a foreign spy would never agree to release classified reason for any reason to someone up to no good.

It's too bad Mr. Manning was too late smart.

 

[Vox]

"...you are trying to separate between the law and morality..."

Indeed.

Warriors have been doing that for many thousands of years.

It is called: Mercy.

"...Soldiers are not jurors or judges - they do not have the luxury of TIME very often..."

It pains me to say this, but I disagree about TIME in THIS case...

On the following version of the video...


Shoot Sequence No. 1 began at 3:15 on this video footage...

Shoot Sequence No. 2 began at 8:35 on this video footage...

That is 5:20 (5 minutes and 20 seconds)!!!!! between Shoots...

Five minutes and twenty seconds between Shoots...

With nobody shooting at them

that is what you DO NOT KNOW.you do not know what is cut when it is thrown away. and not everything might be caught on tape which is caught by an EYE
Doing nothing but hover-orbiting the site from a distance...

Five minutes and twenty seconds !!!!!!

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, Vox, that's enough time to call Geneva and put it up to a vote in the United Nations General Assembly, so-to-speak...

They could also have gotten on the bullhorn (via gunship or Bradley or remote-patched-in from any person who could speak the language) and told them to stop what they were doing and to lay down on the ground, etc., just to give 'em a very modest and safe benefit of a doubt, and, if they failed to comply, well...

But none of that happened...

In this case, our boys DID have time to think about it, and they pushed for the Firing Solution anyway, and may have even fed false information to their Command Authority by giving the impression that the rescuers were loading wounded AND weapons...

At the very best, it was Overzealousness on the part of our boys, and it was wrong, morally...

There comes a time when Mercy should be extended to the Enemy, and our boys - compassion killed by too much time in-country - blew the call, and missed that opportunity...

Or so it seems to this Army veteran and regular defender of our boys-and-girls in uniform...

I almost feel like I'm at-risk of giving aid and comfort to the enemy on this one, but I cannot act against my conscience, either, even to shield some of our own peeps, and that's killing me...

I do not agree with you. I understand what you are saying but as Geneva articles are not applicable in this situation so is your reasoning.
maybe it was morally wrong form the look back, from the comfort of home and from the comfort of age and experience.

But it was not illegal and I, personally, do not see it as morally wrong for the 20-something to make decisions which may cost him and his friends life to save the lives of his enemies. I am glad they saved their own. I am honestly glad they did not hesitate and were not shot down as a result.
I can bet their families share my feelings.

I simply do not see it as you do.

5 minutes 20 seconds is NOTHING at the time of stress, when you have to take into account million pieces of information, process it correctly to make a diagnosis and decide on a treatment - and then - do it!

Nothing.

or AGES.

depending on the type of stress.

You should know that.
I also know that ( though from the different end of the combination).

=============

anyway, there were no "war crimes" disclosed by wikileaks, as I have stated 10 pages before.

 

[freedombecki]

I don't see anything heinous AT ALL.

That's because you're an inhuman skumbag who thinks its okay to murder innocent Iraqis in cold blood.

Innocent Iraqis don't carry around hand-held rocket launchers and target a heliocopter of forces there to remove the world's worst mass murderer from power and stick around long enough to see to it the new country doesn't fall into the same rut Saddam Hussein was in.

Vox made his case with reference to international law that is correct. There is nothing inhuman about his argument.

In this war, if you do not counter someone who threatens to take out a helicopter that is preventing armed terrorists from murdering other Iraqis, you'd be the weak link responsible for your soldiers getting killed by them, and they'd continue their work of woe on killing other Iraqis, which is why our troops were in there in the first place--to stop them from doing more ethnic cleansings.

Manning and his friends went to a lot of trouble to frame innocent American troops doing their job by omitting the footage of the hand-held rocket launcher pointed in the general direction of the helicopter, and the "helpers" being seen in the same vehicle they "helped" load their clandestine killers in, most likely to prevent identification and questioning survivors as they healed in an American hospital.

 

[Kondor3]

Vox...

Looks like we end-up Agreeing To Disagree on this one, but the exchange was Righteous, no doubt.

Thanks.

 

[Kondor3]

I can't stand alongside you guys with regard to Shoot No. 2, Becki, as much as it bothers-the-hell-outta me, but I hear what you're saying, and respect it.

 

[Vox]

Vox...

Looks like we end-up Agreeing To Disagree on this one, but the exchange was Righteous, no doubt.

Thanks.

Thank you.

It was a pleasure.

 

[freedombecki]

I can't stand alongside you guys with regard to Shoot No. 2, Becki, as much as it bothers-the-hell-outta me, but I hear what you're saying, and respect it.

I posted a video in some thread that was the one the service had that hadn't been doctored up by Manning or Wikileaks that conveniently omitted the guy who had the rocket launcher, and it wasn't the guy with the camera sachel, either. Even I knew what it was when he was rounding a corner (alone, to get a better shot at the helicopter) when the helicopter did an evasive move and came back to get rid of the threat that group was to truly innocent Iraqis. Them putting a couple of their women in harm's way was beneath the pale, and that is against international law, which states that those who use human shields are culpable in any harm done them in combat.

I cannot stand by and allow people who missed the footage that shows the truth but was omitted pretend it is irrelevant, because a rocket launcher operator trying to get a better shot at a helicopter was the smoking gun that showed any condemnation of our troops was unwarranted.

They did what they had to do to clean up terrorists off the streets so everyday people can someday walk unafraid of people so brainwashed to murder them they're not safe in that country.

We have people here who persist in the myths their minds have already accepted since it suits their political outlook.

I'm completely unable to help with such prejudice before the fact, since the video I found showed our troops had a case and were responding to complaints in the area of loitering gunmen killing specific ethnic groups they were hell bent on killing on account of religion or the family they were born into.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not exactly. Positive identification IS a requirement for targeting individuals. TASB posted a very relevant section of the Geneva code.

Geneva code is not applicable since identification is made impossible by one of the sides in the conflict - on purpose.

Unfortunately for this argument, that assertion is FALSE. The Geneva conventions are applicable in all war even when one side ignores them. It sucks for the ones that are trying to uphold the laws but it is fact.

We are not allowed to ignore the conventions even when others do. Just because your enemy is a dirt bag does not mean that you get to be one as well.

that is the article 3 of geneva convention:

The wounded and the sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.

No distinctions were nowhere in sight.

as I said before - the van did not have a red cross or red crescent on it and was not driven by real nuns.
the insurgents are not wearing uniforms or any distinctive pieces of clothing - therefore making civilian population combatant population.

Geneva articles do not apply.

Because this particular part of the law covers the fact that those vehicles so marked are protected. That does NOT mean that those protections are EXCLUSIVE to vehicles so marked. It is an easy and international way to mark a vehicle and ensure that such rescue operations are given the best chance for not being accidentally shot at. Had that vehicle has those markings, it is likely that such an incident would have been averted. That does not change the facts of the cited code earlier though – EVEN CIVILIANS that are responding to wounded are afforded protections. In such times, the vehicles will never be marked by their very definition but they STILL get protections.

that is the article 3 of geneva convention:

The wounded and the sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.

No distinctions were nowhere in sight.

as I said before - the van did not have a red cross or red crescent on it and was not driven by real nuns.
the insurgents are not wearing uniforms or any distinctive pieces of clothing - therefore making civilian population combatant population.

Geneva articles do not apply.

Of course the problem with that revolves around the ambiguous nature of 'the battlefield' when it comes to the GWOT nonsense. By that framing, the battlefield is anywhere terrorists might be (i.e. everywhere).

there is no ambiguity where the wounded are supposed to be and which vehicles are untouched for that matter.

loading a wounded person to undistinguished vehicle does not make it untouchable.

and yes, with the terrorists being undistinguished from the general population, the battlefield IS everywhere.

Yes, it DOES as long as that vehicle has not made itself a threat by having ANY weapons or nay active engagement. If they had shot at them, shown arme or shown threat in any other way they become a legal target. As long as they do not, they are not a legal target.

It seems to me that you simply do not understand how this is supposed to work or what a legal target consists of.

It's killing me to say this, but I don't see how Shoot Sequence No. 2 could be called Righteous by any reasonable benchmark, without abandoning ALL obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of War...

It shouldn’t. There is no reason that we should hesitate to identify where we are wrong. I can guarantee that there were a LOT more illegal actions taken in this war than that one – many have even been prosecuted. It comes with the territory. Bad shit happens when you go in and kill people. Nothing less is to be expected even if we do shoot for perfection and the highest moral standards even if the goal is not entirely possible.

 

[daveman]

[


You're kidding, right? You're upset American troops shot at people who were going to shoot at American troops?

You do know what war is all about, don't you? Kill the other guy and break his stuff.

Uh, there was no indication that they were going to shoot at the troops. in fact, this helicopter circled these guys several times and not one raised his weapon.

Has it occurred to you that after killing so many of the other guys and breaking so much of their stuff (again, Limbaugh and his anal cyst say the same thing), we are no closer to winning the war than we were in 2001?

Wow. Just...wow.

The reason none of the bad guys (who were blocks away from a firefight, and so were NOT just innocently strolling about, as you ludicrously suggest) fired at the choppers was the choppers were so far away.

Wait...you really think they were flying just a few yards away?

Yes, you've made it quite clear whose side your on.

 

[JoeB131]

[


You're kidding, right? You're upset American troops shot at people who were going to shoot at American troops?

You do know what war is all about, don't you? Kill the other guy and break his stuff.

Uh, there was no indication that they were going to shoot at the troops. in fact, this helicopter circled these guys several times and not one raised his weapon.

Has it occurred to you that after killing so many of the other guys and breaking so much of their stuff (again, Limbaugh and his anal cyst say the same thing), we are no closer to winning the war than we were in 2001?

Wow. Just...wow.

The reason none of the bad guys (who were blocks away from a firefight, and so were NOT just innocently strolling about, as you ludicrously suggest) fired at the choppers was the choppers were so far away.

Wait...you really think they were flying just a few yards away?

Yes, you've made it quite clear whose side your on.

Yeah, it's not the side of the Zionists and the Oil Companies, the only people who benefitted from this clusterfuck in Iraq.

Iraq was a complete clusterfuck. It was the worst thing we ever did as a country. You do get that, right?

 

[daveman]

Except they weren't terrorists. They were citizens in their own country enjoying their right to bear arms.

They are doing EXACTLY what you gun whacks say Americans should do. Walk around with guns to show how tough they are.

Wrong, but I'm not at all surprised you take their side.

They were walking around with guns to kill American troops.

No wonder you like them.

My side is the one where we don't take poor kids and send them halfway round the world to die for nothing.

Your side is all over that, apparently.

It was their country. They were doing the exact same thing you say you'd do if someone invaded THIS country.

And again, you keep avoiding this- if the Army was on the up and up about this, why did they classify and hide the tape?

Dunno. You'll have to ask the Original Classifying Authority. But at a guess, it's because we didn't want the bad guys to learn something of our tactics.

Predictably, you will disagree, and claim it's because the Army knew they did something wrong...completely forgetting the fact that the Army could have made the tape disappear if it wanted.

So they didn't want the enemy to know that we have this tactic of "Let's shoot up newsmen doing their jobs because we can't verify what we are shootnig at!"

Hey, you got a point. Most incompetant people want to hide their incompetence...

The dead terrorists thank you for your blind support, but regret to inform you they're dead because they were illegal combatants in a combat zone.

Dood. You couldn't be any more blatant if you just came out and said, "I fully support terrorists killing US troops".