Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years:

[Pete7469]

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq - YouTube




here is one of many, Dullard.

That's not a "war crime". It's a fog of war incident. That Apache crew had a job to do, they didn't know who was who, they had a target to take out, and they made certain it was neutralized.

War Crimes are deliberate mass murder of civilian innocents. Our country goes through extraordinary lengths not to even damage property during combat operations.

I've "been there, done that", so please don't insult me by insisting these incidents that the little pillow biter "exposed" are the result of deliberate actions to maim and kill non-combatants without regard and malice aforethought.

Furthermore the information leaked by this little traitor were not limited to incidents such as this. There were reams of secret information, and embarrassing shit that served no purpose other than to malign our officials. As incompetent as some of them might be. He did not take any consideration of the content of the information he released. He was seeking revenge, plain and simple.

it is doctored video.

there were no "war crimes" proved by wikileaks release.

As someone who has pulled triggers in stressful situations in theater, I can attest to the fact that the military goes through extraordinary lengths to indoctrinate troops in properly following the laws of war and ROE.

I'm one of the lucky ones who's decision to shoot at the pavement in front of on coming vehicles that disregarded hand signals/ flares/ lights didn't end in a mass casualty incident. Many soldiers haven't come home for making the same choice. Just as many people haven't gone home because other soldiers lit them up under the same circumstance.

Have "war crimes" been committed by US troops? Certainly there have been some. These examples are infinitesimal compared to the savagery of our fanatical enemy. There have also been accusations leveled against troops who did not. Are war crimes tolerated by our commanders? From what I've seen, FUCK NO. They're so sensitive about accusations they've put soldiers and marines on trial for doing the right thing.

I've have seen no evidence from this wikileaks issue that rises to the level of "war crimes". Poor decisions, unfortunate incidents and collateral damage? Maybe so. That's life, it's war. I've also seen a plethora of information leaked that served no purpose other than to embarrass our country, and weaken our position. So doctored video or not, it's clear to me the motivation behind manning's actions were not some noble cause for justice or anything righteous. He's a traitor, and should currently be ambient room temperature, not demanding hormones and a name change.

He's either going to get fucked to death in prison, or be enriched in some do nothing job in a leftist establishment if he survives prison.

 

[Billo_Really]

The only troubling philosophical question that I have is...

Did Manning actually keep a higher order of faith with the American People by releasing that information into the wild? Did he obey a higher duty to The People rather than the UCMJ and his security clearance?

I don't know the answer to that question, but even I, with my fairly rigid observations about venue and systems and consequences, still believe that that question should continue to be asked and addressed as best as can be done.

Was Manning manifesting his higher duty to the American People?

Did Manning have an obligation to fulfill his oath to uphold the constitution? Were the crimes he exposed made legal after his conviction of exposing them? Is there any accountability being exacted from the crimes he exposed?

The last i checked, exposing crimes isn't against the law. And our military details allegiance is to the US constitution, not the bureaucracy of military compartmentalization on its crimes classified so that no accountability needs to take place. Which is exactly what was done. Is being done, and will continue to be done by government/military personel.

These people are not above the principles of the nation. They do not have any right to commit crimes and then secretly hide them in classified fields away from public scrutiny. This applies to all government agencies. There is no punishment fitting for Manning. Because he's not the one who should have been on trial here. The people he exposed, however, should be on trial.

Forget about philisophically. That is simply the law and common sense.

That is easily the best post in this thread!

Kudo's...

 

[Billo_Really]

What manning released wasn't limited to war crimes, if there was anything at all about war crimes anyway. manning released sensitive data without regard to it's content, who it could harm or what consequenses his actions could have. He released it to a leftist agitator who eagerly used the information to embarrass the country. He didn't do it out of a sense of justice, to right a wrong, or "expose" criminals.

He did it out of malice. He was bitter about not being allowed to announce his love for cock while in the military. They should have dragged him out of court and blown his fucking brains out.

No, shooting innocent civilians and joking around while you do it, is what embarrassed this country.

 

[Billo_Really]

All you people who think Manning should be punished, why don't you go live in Germany, where they honor those who can keep crimes against humanity a secret?

 

[The Rabbi]

Who thought it was a good idea to let fags in the military?

 

[Billo_Really]

Who thought it was a good idea to let fags in the military?

Umm.........Richard Simmons?

Yes? No? Did I win?

 

[The Rabbi]

Who thought it was a good idea to let fags in the military?

Umm.........Richard Simmons?

Yes? No? Did I win?

You lose. Not necessarily because you're wrong here. But because you are a loser.

 

[Billo_Really]

You lose. Not necessarily because you're wrong here. But because you are a loser.

That was harsh!

 

[clevergirl]

where the heck did i said anything about that?

Are you really stupid or too lazy to read back?
I simply said there were no war crimes proofs by the released material - and there is none - and tasb posted this doctored video as a proof, that there are "war crimes"

the doctored video is not and can not be a proof of "war crimes" - which there are none.

the video was doctored by assange himself.

why the heck are you dragging manning into this, or it is too hard for you to understand?

So i explained it above

go watch the full version and read the documents provided. I posted that version because it pulled up first. Had i known i posted the infomercial version, i would have dug deeper. Regardless, that is one example of war crimes. It doesn't really matter though, does it? As long as you're on the side that's "winning".

Blow them all the fuck up. Who cares...

i watched both in 2011 and i read commentaries on both.

the undoctored video does not prove to be the proof of any "war crime" - there are too many gaps, lapses and indistinguishable details to claim that.

and that is the reason it was made up - to fit assange's lying agenda.

there are no "war crimes" in released materials by wikileaks.

this!

 

[clevergirl]

Then how do you explain Libby?

I mean, if Bush could manipulate everything the was you say...Libby wouldn't have been indicted, much less convicted.

You can't have it both ways.

It looked just as bad on Bush that Libby was convicted as it would if he HAD leaked the Plame identity.

Use some critical thinking skills instead of believing the crap that is spoon fed to you by the leftwing propaganda machine.

Libby was a sacrificial bone Bush threw at the media. If the DOJ hadn't of been politicized, Fitzgerald would've gone after Cheney.

Just because you disagree with me, it has nothing to do with my "critical thinking skills".

Bush had nothing to do with Fitzgerald USING a BS controversy (Plame was NEVER in any danger) to go after the White House. Fitz KNEW from almost the beginning that Armitage was the fucking leaker...and THAT should piss you off.

 

[francoHFW]

7 more years, with good behavior. I'd say about right. STUPID WAR.

 

[dblack]

7 more years, with good behavior. I'd say about right. STUPID WAR.

You forgot to mention dupes.

 

[American_Jihad]

Progressive/liberal "Chelsea" Manning wants the taxpayer to pay for her new pussy...

I hope liberal/dupes like franco end up paying for her new pussy...​

...

 

[FA_Q2]

And yet no accountability for the exposed war crimes. We simply shot the messenger and went back to business as usual. I think that really says it all.

there were NO EXPOSED WAR CRIMES. duh

Yes, there were, duh. Another one too busy waiting to get his licks on the messenger to bother seeing the crimes exposed.

The video in question however is not one of them. I would like to see some actual proof of the war crime claims as the main focus here has been on this one video and it is not a case of war crimes. Pete outlines this rather well.

That's not a "war crime". It's a fog of war incident. That Apache crew had a job to do, they didn't know who was who, they had a target to take out, and they made certain it was neutralized.

War Crimes are deliberate mass murder of civilian innocents. Our country goes through extraordinary lengths not to even damage property during combat operations.

I've "been there, done that", so please don't insult me by insisting these incidents that the little pillow biter "exposed" are the result of deliberate actions to maim and kill non-combatants without regard and malice aforethought.

Furthermore the information leaked by this little traitor were not limited to incidents such as this. There were reams of secret information, and embarrassing shit that served no purpose other than to malign our officials. As incompetent as some of them might be. He did not take any consideration of the content of the information he released. He was seeking revenge, plain and simple.

it is doctored video.

there were no "war crimes" proved by wikileaks release.

As someone who has pulled triggers in stressful situations in theater, I can attest to the fact that the military goes through extraordinary lengths to indoctrinate troops in properly following the laws of war and ROE.

I'm one of the lucky ones who's decision to shoot at the pavement in front of on coming vehicles that disregarded hand signals/ flares/ lights didn't end in a mass casualty incident. Many soldiers haven't come home for making the same choice. Just as many people haven't gone home because other soldiers lit them up under the same circumstance.

Have "war crimes" been committed by US troops? Certainly there have been some. These examples are infinitesimal compared to the savagery of our fanatical enemy. There have also been accusations leveled against troops who did not. Are war crimes tolerated by our commanders? From what I've seen, FUCK NO. They're so sensitive about accusations they've put soldiers and marines on trial for doing the right thing.

I've have seen no evidence from this wikileaks issue that rises to the level of "war crimes". Poor decisions, unfortunate incidents and collateral damage? Maybe so. That's life, it's war. I've also seen a plethora of information leaked that served no purpose other than to embarrass our country, and weaken our position. So doctored video or not, it's clear to me the motivation behind manning's actions were not some noble cause for justice or anything righteous. He's a traitor, and should currently be ambient room temperature, not demanding hormones and a name change.

He's either going to get fucked to death in prison, or be enriched in some do nothing job in a leftist establishment if he survives prison.

This.

In all reality, this is an ugly situation that sucks but those on the ground are in a shitty place. Civilians are going to die – that is a simple fact of war. A result that we must try and minimize but it is going to happen. The problem we have is that the American people do not seem to understand exactly how ugly war truly is. I can chalk that up to the simple fact that the vast majority of them have never been even remotely connected to anything resembling a war. We are FAR too quick to get into this shit and then far too quick to want to get out as soon as we start seeing the results.

We look at those videos and then demand that they should have known what they could not. They are in a COMBAT situation where, inherently by the very simple fact that it is a combat situation, all the variables are not knowable. Those decisions to engage or not are simple calls when you are there and your life hangs in the balance. Further, we then have idiotic critiques of the language that they use in the act as though they need to be acting like they are on TV the entire time. For those that don’t seem to understand why they are so nonchalant about killing, you have no idea how stressful and terrible that situation is. Those guys just SHOT children. Do you realize that all the rationalization that they go through over that video does nothing to take away the nightmares? Do you really not understand why we have so many soldiers that go through PTSD when they return? These are defense mechanisms so that those asked to do terrible things can live with them.

What manning released wasn't limited to war crimes, if there was anything at all about war crimes anyway. manning released sensitive data without regard to it's content, who it could harm or what consequenses his actions could have. He released it to a leftist agitator who eagerly used the information to embarrass the country. He didn't do it out of a sense of justice, to right a wrong, or "expose" criminals.

He did it out of malice. He was bitter about not being allowed to announce his love for cock while in the military. They should have dragged him out of court and blown his fucking brains out.

No, shooting innocent civilians and joking around while you do it, is what embarrassed this country.

You have no concept of what is really going on or what it is like to be out there as one of those soldiers.

 

[daveman]

All you people who think Manning should be punished, why don't you go live in Germany, where they honor those who can keep crimes against humanity a secret?

I've asked you before, and you never answered:

Why do you think Manning had a duty to reveal classified information to a non-state intelligence-gathering and -disseminating organization instead of going through established channels, in violation of the non-disclosure agreements he signed?

 

[Billo_Really]

I've asked you before, and you never answered:

Why do you think Manning had a duty to reveal classified information to a non-state intelligence-gathering and -disseminating organization instead of going through established channels, in violation of the non-disclosure agreements he signed?

Have you ever heard of the "Nuremburg Principles"? Which, BTW, we happened to have "co-authored".

...the Nuremberg principles, a set of guidelines created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations after World War II to determine what constitutes a war crime. The principles make political leaders, commanders and combatants responsible for war crimes, even if domestic or internal laws allow such actions. The Nuremberg principles are designed to protect those, like Manning, who expose these crimes. Orders do not, under the Nuremberg principles, offer an excuse for committing war crimes. And the Nuremberg laws would clearly condemn the pilots in the “Collateral Murder” video and their commanders and exonerate Manning. But this is an argument we will not be allowed to hear in the Manning trial.

That allows Manning to report war crimes, which were as follows:

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions - which prohibits the targeting of civilians
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions - which requires that wounded be treated
Article 17 of the First Protocol - which permits civilians to rescue and care for wounded without being harmed.​

BTW, that last one, I've asked you to comment on before, which you've never answered.

Or, if you prefer, answer why you think it's okay for the soldiers in the Apache to be joking around while they were committing all this violence?

 

[FA_Q2]

I've asked you before, and you never answered:

Why do you think Manning had a duty to reveal classified information to a non-state intelligence-gathering and -disseminating organization instead of going through established channels, in violation of the non-disclosure agreements he signed?

Have you ever heard of the "Nuremburg Principles"? Which, BTW, we happened to have "co-authored".

...the Nuremberg principles, a set of guidelines created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations after World War II to determine what constitutes a war crime. The principles make political leaders, commanders and combatants responsible for war crimes, even if domestic or internal laws allow such actions. The Nuremberg principles are designed to protect those, like Manning, who expose these crimes. Orders do not, under the Nuremberg principles, offer an excuse for committing war crimes. And the Nuremberg laws would clearly condemn the pilots in the “Collateral Murder” video and their commanders and exonerate Manning. But this is an argument we will not be allowed to hear in the Manning trial.

That allows Manning to report war crimes, which were as follows:

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions - which prohibits the targeting of civilians
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions - which requires that wounded be treated
Article 17 of the First Protocol - which permits civilians to rescue and care for wounded without being harmed.​

BTW, that last one, I've asked you to comment on before, which you've never answered.

Or, if you prefer, answer why you think it's okay for the soldiers in the Apache to be joking around while they were committing all this violence?

And manning released MORE than ‘war crimes.’ Even if he released war crimes and those incidents were totally removed from the items that he released there are still mountains of classified memos that he released. Those alone warrant prosecution for his crimes.

That has been the point of many here or do you believe that a good action allows you to commit another illegal one?

 

[Billo_Really]

And manning released MORE than ‘war crimes.’ Even if he released war crimes and those incidents were totally removed from the items that he released there are still mountains of classified memos that he released. Those alone warrant prosecution for his crimes.

You mean like the embassy cables that showed the new head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, was really a US puppet, put in there to help sell the war on Iran?

As Mohamed ElBaradei's term as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headed towards a close last year, Washington looked forward to the new era under Yukiya Amano with relish. In a [Bradley Manning released] cable in July, the American chargé, Geoffrey Pyatt, wrote:

The IAEA transition that will come as DG [director general] ElBaradei's term ends November 30
provides a once-a-decade opportunity to overcome bureaucratic inertia, modernize Agency operations,
and position the new director general for strong leadership from the DG's office.​

In a later [Bradley Manning released] cable in October, the US mission in Vienna goes as far as describing Amano as "DG of all states, but in agreement with us".

Are you saying he should be prosecuted for releasing diplomatic cables that may have resulted in preventing a war with Iran?

Or are you referring to other documents that show us murdering over 140 innocent civilians in Afghanistan?

Other documents Manning allegedly provided to WikiLeaks showed the 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan, in which as many as 140 civilians, including women and children, were killed in a U.S. attack. The Australian reported that the airstrike resulted in “one of the highest civilian death tolls from Western military action since foreign forces invaded Afghanistan in 2001.” The Afghan government has said that around 140 civilians were killed, of which 93 were children – the youngest 8 days old – 25 were women and 22 were adult males. The U.S. military had said that 20-30 civilians were killed along with 60-65 insurgents.

That's another war crime! Can't prosecute him for reporting that?

Let's not stop now, we've got to look at more of the released documents to see WTF you are talking about! In the interests of time, let me give you the short list of what Manning released to the media and what they show...

WikiLeaks documents including the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs and the diplomatic cables show:

- That U.S. troops kill civilians without cause or concern and then cover it up (more examples of hiding civilian killings here, here and here) including killing reporters;

- The CIA is fighting an undeclared and unauthorized war in Pakistan with Blackwater mercenaries;

- The President of Afghanistan is not trustworthy, that Afghanistan is rife with corruption and drug dealing;

- The Pakistan military and intelligence agencies aid Al Qaeda and the Taliban;

- The U.S. looks the other way when governments it puts in power torture;

- The diplomatic cables also show that beyond the war fronts that Hillary Clinton has turned State Department Foreign Service officers into a nest of spies who violate laws to spy on diplomats all with marching orders drawn up by the CIA;

- That Israel, with U.S. knowledge is preparing for a widespread war in the Middle East, keeping the Gaza economy at the brink of collapse and show widespread corruption at border checkpoints.​

What those documents showed, was that we are not the country we claim to be. Nor are we the great nation we once were. What they show, is that we are not much different than nazi Germany. Although, we may be bigger hypocrites than them.

That has been the point of many here or do you believe that a good action allows you to commit another illegal one?

The way I look at it, if our government is doing things that are illegal, I want to know about it, I want it stopped and I want those responsible held accountable.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I heard braddy manning was a pussy and a fag? What a weird person.

 

[FA_Q2]

And manning released MORE than ‘war crimes.’ Even if he released war crimes and those incidents were totally removed from the items that he released there are still mountains of classified memos that he released. Those alone warrant prosecution for his crimes.

You mean like the embassy cables that showed the new head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, was really a US puppet, put in there to help sell the war on Iran?

As Mohamed ElBaradei's term as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headed towards a close last year, Washington looked forward to the new era under Yukiya Amano with relish. In a [Bradley Manning released] cable in July, the American chargé, Geoffrey Pyatt, wrote:

The IAEA transition that will come as DG [director general] ElBaradei's term ends November 30
provides a once-a-decade opportunity to overcome bureaucratic inertia, modernize Agency operations,
and position the new director general for strong leadership from the DG's office.​

In a later [Bradley Manning released] cable in October, the US mission in Vienna goes as far as describing Amano as "DG of all states, but in agreement with us".

Are you saying he should be prosecuted for releasing diplomatic cables that may have resulted in preventing a war with Iran?

Or are you referring to other documents that show us murdering over 140 innocent civilians in Afghanistan?

That's another war crime! Can't prosecute him for reporting that?

Let's not stop now, we've got to look at more of the released documents to see WTF you are talking about! In the interests of time, let me give you the short list of what Manning released to the media and what they show...

WikiLeaks documents including the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs and the diplomatic cables show:

- That U.S. troops kill civilians without cause or concern and then cover it up (more examples of hiding civilian killings here, here and here) including killing reporters;

- The CIA is fighting an undeclared and unauthorized war in Pakistan with Blackwater mercenaries;

- The President of Afghanistan is not trustworthy, that Afghanistan is rife with corruption and drug dealing;

- The Pakistan military and intelligence agencies aid Al Qaeda and the Taliban;

- The U.S. looks the other way when governments it puts in power torture;

- The diplomatic cables also show that beyond the war fronts that Hillary Clinton has turned State Department Foreign Service officers into a nest of spies who violate laws to spy on diplomats all with marching orders drawn up by the CIA;

- That Israel, with U.S. knowledge is preparing for a widespread war in the Middle East, keeping the Gaza economy at the brink of collapse and show widespread corruption at border checkpoints.​

What those documents showed, was that we are not the country we claim to be. Nor are we the great nation we once were. What they show, is that we are not much different than nazi Germany. Although, we may be bigger hypocrites than them.

That has been the point of many here or do you believe that a good action allows you to commit another illegal one?

The way I look at it, if our government is doing things that are illegal, I want to know about it, I want it stopped and I want those responsible held accountable.

Nice job glazing over the fact that he released classified information that was not an example of war crimes.

The way you see it (apparently) if he releases information that indicts the US of a crime then he has a free hand to release whatever other classified material that he want even when it is not an example of a war crime.

That is not only asinine – it is fucking crazy. I want anything that is illegal or wrong released but that does not give one a pass for releasing other items. Are you under the impression that EVERYTHING that manning released was a war crime?

What you are essentially doing is saying that because someone stops a bank robber they should be excused for the rape that they committed later that day. That is not how this works nor should it work that way. Had he ONLY released information that pertained to war crimes then I might agree with you. He did not.