Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years:

[TakeAStepBack]

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?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...

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.

And you're doing the same glazing job by agreeing that Manning should be punished while others get to walk. THAT is the point Im making here. There is a clear double standard of the law. Those in government are immune from being held accountable while those who expose them are held up at the fullest extents of the law (and then some...Manning was held for a lot longer than your average person before a trial was ever gotten around to being conducted).

Could Manning have used more discretion? Sure. But comparing him to stopping a bank robber and getting off on rape is almost laughably out of line. The us diplomats involved in those cables were EMBARRASSED for being exposed. No ones life was proved put in danger. But a lot of people were very fucking embarrassed and left naked in wrong doing. ANd no one was held accountable except Manning.

 

[Kondor3]

"And you're doing the same glazing job by agreeing that Manning should be punished while others get to walk. THAT is the point Im making here. There is a clear double standard of the law..."

I, for one, do not believe that Manning's punishment should be held hostage to whether or not others are punished for the actions which were revealed.

One has nothing to do with the other.

If you want to clamor for punishment for those others, then do it.

You may (or may not) have the evidence you need, to move forward.

And, if they are culpable, and you win your case, then those others should be punished as well.

But let's not cloud or glaze-over or over-complicate or bury the issue by taking the juvenile position that Person A can only be punished if Persons B, C and D are punished.

Person A committed serious crimes and infractions in his own right.

Person A was judged and sentenced in his own right.

He did not selectively and publicly release data on War Crime A or B or C.

He publicly released highly classified data on a bulk basis without regard for whether or not a given item pertained to a suspected War Crime.

And it is that large-scale and broad spraying of important and secret information, and the related breach of security protocols and the terms of his trusted-position security clearance, for which he is now to pay a heavy price.

If it was just so-called War Crimes data-release, and if there were some selectivity to it, he might just barely have squeaked-by with a Whistleblower Defense, even in dealing with the military's justice system, but it was more than that - far more than that - and it is for that which he is going to pay such a price.

As much as it pains me to say this, the venue was correct, and there is also a good chance that the verdict was correct, as well.

The legal status of persons involved in disclosed incidents is entirely non sequitur and unrelated to Manning's own culpability and guilt and eligibility for punishment.

Entirely unrelated.

One thing at a time.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?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...

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.

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.

And you're doing the same glazing job by agreeing that Manning should be punished while others get to walk. THAT is the point Im making here. There is a clear double standard of the law. Those in government are immune from being held accountable while those who expose them are held up at the fullest extents of the law (and then some...Manning was held for a lot longer than your average person before a trial was ever gotten around to being conducted).

Could Manning have used more discretion? Sure. But comparing him to stopping a bank robber and getting off on rape is almost laughably out of line. The us diplomats involved in those cables were EMBARRASSED for being exposed. No ones life was proved put in danger. But a lot of people were very fucking embarrassed and left naked in wrong doing. ANd no one was held accountable except Manning.

Could you please cite where I ever made the claim that others guilty of crimes (or even immorality/actions not incumbent of the office that they held) should get off?

Try again TASB and this time try not inferring things that are not true to besmirch my position.

 

[Vox]

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.

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.

you may as well be talking to the wall.
The libtard have their agenda against the military and "the war" and will parrot all the lies they are brainwashed with without thinking.

 

[daveman]

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?

I agree Manning had a duty to expose what he saw as wrongdoing.

However, what's missing in all this is the justification for him going to a non-state intelligence-gathering and -disseminating organization, when he had clear and established means of bringing his grievances to the chain of command, bypassing his commanders if necessary.

He could have gone to the IG. Nowhere was he authorized to go to WikiLeaks.

Can you address that, please, for the first time?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

And you're doing the same glazing job by agreeing that Manning should be punished while others get to walk. THAT is the point Im making here. There is a clear double standard of the law. Those in government are immune from being held accountable while those who expose them are held up at the fullest extents of the law (and then some...Manning was held for a lot longer than your average person before a trial was ever gotten around to being conducted).

Could Manning have used more discretion? Sure. But comparing him to stopping a bank robber and getting off on rape is almost laughably out of line. The us diplomats involved in those cables were EMBARRASSED for being exposed. No ones life was proved put in danger. But a lot of people were very fucking embarrassed and left naked in wrong doing. ANd no one was held accountable except Manning.

Could you please cite where I ever made the claim that others guilty of crimes (or even immorality/actions not incumbent of the office that they held) should get off?

Try again TASB and this time try not inferring things that are not true to besmirch my position.

You didn't directly make such a claim. What everyone seems to lack interest in, is no accountability from the other end. It's a lopsided, and daft conversation based on that point.

Yes, Manning should be held responsible for his "crimes". But apparently, that's where this story ends. In the media, in conversation and in debate. The only focus being placed is on how much punishment Manning should receive. The rest is all just water under the bridge.

Well. We've done it then. It's a done deal and case closed, right? Manning was punished because THAT is the important part of the story. Everything else was just after thoughts surrounding the punishment. Ive even heard people say he should have been shot for his actions. Meanwhile those he exposed are apparently of no consequence.

This is telling. Whatever romantic notions people hold of corrupt geopolitical actions and military adventurism, seems to far outweigh any of the realities/legalities of such actions. We, as a nation, want to punish someone like Manning, and hold others at an entirely different standard based on such romantic notions. It's as though Manning was one the killing civilians or covering up such deaths. Or the host of other things that were exposed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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?

I agree Manning had a duty to expose what he saw as wrongdoing.

However, what's missing in all this is the justification for him going to a non-state intelligence-gathering and -disseminating organization, when he had clear and established means of bringing his grievances to the chain of command, bypassing his commanders if necessary.

He could have gone to the IG. Nowhere was he authorized to go to WikiLeaks.

Can you address that, please, for the first time?

Being that most of what he leaked was information that was deliberately covered up and ONLY addressed AFTER it was exposed (some just completely ignored), do you really think he would have gotten this information out and any accountability taking place? Please. There is no accountability now. At the very least, Manning SHOWED the american people what was going on. Those who paid attention should have been waiting for that accountability, but it never came. Frankly, Manning should be a lesson to anyone else who thinks they might be doing their country a service. That is, dont bother. Politicians and govt. personnel are above the law. Meanwhile, anyone who exposes them will get kicked under the freight train.

Manning should have just left them to it and said fuck the people. Because the people dont care.

 

[Pete7469]

Could you please cite where I ever made the claim that others guilty of crimes (or even immorality/actions not incumbent of the office that they held) should get off?

Try again TASB and this time try not inferring things that are not true to besmirch my position.

I understand TASB's concern about people higher up than manning being given a pass. It happened in Abu Ghraib. The low level enlisted who's command either failed to monitor them, or may have even encouraged them got off without prison time.

However the most "egregious crimes" of embarrassing prisoners didn't warrant prison. These soldiers may have been stupid, but most of them didn't deserve to have their lives ruined. The command that allowed these things to happen should have faced the music.

However, manning's commanders weren't guilty of anything. The information manning revealed to the entire world has not exposed evidence of a crime that even the most liberal , anti-military, anti-war hack would try and prosecute. It's ALL out there, if there was anything in there that could be used in court, someone would have done it.

Perhaps if had used the chain of command at all, even if he also leaked it to wikishit, he could be called a "whistleblower".

Righting a wrong or wrongs committed by the military against innocent civilians wasn't part of his motivation.

Getting revenge over his "oppressed" desire to suck cock and tell everyone was his motivation.

Letting open gays into the military doesn't bother me. If they can shoot move and communicate, fine. They just better be able to suppress their urges to make unwanted sexual advanced like men do with the few decent looking women in uniform.

The military failed to screen a bed wetter, and I don't mean it in the way I describe liberals in general. It has been reported that manning was a notorious bed wetter in basic training. The security screening as well as medical screening seeks to filter out bed wetters because they're exhibiting signs of psychological disorders.

That's why I refer to liberals as bed wetters, because they're clearly demonstrating psychological disorders.

 

[Vox]

You didn't directly make such a claim. What everyone seems to lack interest in, is no accountability from the other end. It's a lopsided, and daft conversation based on that point.

Yes, Manning should be held responsible for his "crimes". But apparently, that's where this story ends. In the media, in conversation and in debate. The only focus being placed is on how much punishment Manning should receive. The rest is all just water under the bridge.

Well. We've done it then. It's a done deal and case closed, right? Manning was punished because THAT is the important part of the story. Everything else was just after thoughts surrounding the punishment. Ive even heard people say he should have been shot for his actions. Meanwhile those he exposed are apparently of no consequence.

This is telling. Whatever romantic notions people hold of corrupt geopolitical actions and military adventurism, seems to far outweigh any of the realities/legalities of such actions. We, as a nation, want to punish someone like Manning, and hold others at an entirely different standard based on such romantic notions. It's as though Manning was one the killing civilians or covering up such deaths. Or the host of other things that were exposed.

nobody was" killing civilians and covering up such deaths".
as I have said before - the material released by manning contained no proof of the "war crimes". get out of your fantasy land.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The fact that our army has "soldiers" like Manning does not bode well for this country.

 

[Vox]

I understand TASB's concern about people higher up than manning being given a pass. It happened in Abu Ghraib. The low level enlisted who's command either failed to monitor them, or may have even encouraged them got off without prison time.

However the most "egregious crimes" of embarrassing prisoners didn't warrant prison. These soldiers may have been stupid, but most of them didn't deserve to have their lives ruined. The command that allowed these things to happen should have faced the music.

However, manning's commanders weren't guilty of anything. The information manning revealed to the entire world has not exposed evidence of a crime that even the most liberal , anti-military, anti-war hack would try and prosecute. It's ALL out there, if there was anything in there that could be used in court, someone would have done it.

Perhaps if had used the chain of command at all, even if he also leaked it to wikishit, he could be called a "whistleblower".

Righting a wrong or wrongs committed by the military against innocent civilians wasn't part of his motivation.

Getting revenge over his "oppressed" desire to suck cock and tell everyone was his motivation.

Letting open gays into the military doesn't bother me. If they can shoot move and communicate, fine. They just better be able to suppress their urges to make unwanted sexual advanced like men do with the few decent looking women in uniform.

The military failed to screen a bed wetter, and I don't mean it in the way I describe liberals in general. It has been reported that manning was a notorious bed wetter in basic training. The security screening as well as medical screening seeks to filter out bed wetters because they're exhibiting signs of psychological disorders.

That's why I refer to liberals as bed wetters, because they're clearly demonstrating psychological disorders.

THIS!

 

[FA_Q2]

And you're doing the same glazing job by agreeing that Manning should be punished while others get to walk. THAT is the point Im making here. There is a clear double standard of the law. Those in government are immune from being held accountable while those who expose them are held up at the fullest extents of the law (and then some...Manning was held for a lot longer than your average person before a trial was ever gotten around to being conducted).

Could Manning have used more discretion? Sure. But comparing him to stopping a bank robber and getting off on rape is almost laughably out of line. The us diplomats involved in those cables were EMBARRASSED for being exposed. No ones life was proved put in danger. But a lot of people were very fucking embarrassed and left naked in wrong doing. ANd no one was held accountable except Manning.

Could you please cite where I ever made the claim that others guilty of crimes (or even immorality/actions not incumbent of the office that they held) should get off?

Try again TASB and this time try not inferring things that are not true to besmirch my position.

You didn't directly make such a claim. What everyone seems to lack interest in, is no accountability from the other end. It's a lopsided, and daft conversation based on that point.

Yes, Manning should be held responsible for his "crimes". But apparently, that's where this story ends. In the media, in conversation and in debate. The only focus being placed is on how much punishment Manning should receive. The rest is all just water under the bridge.

Well. We've done it then. It's a done deal and case closed, right? Manning was punished because THAT is the important part of the story. Everything else was just after thoughts surrounding the punishment. Ive even heard people say he should have been shot for his actions. Meanwhile those he exposed are apparently of no consequence.

This is telling. Whatever romantic notions people hold of corrupt geopolitical actions and military adventurism, seems to far outweigh any of the realities/legalities of such actions. We, as a nation, want to punish someone like Manning, and hold others at an entirely different standard based on such romantic notions. It's as though Manning was one the killing civilians or covering up such deaths. Or the host of other things that were exposed.

That is where the story ends in this specific thread because that is what the OP’s assertion was. If the thread was about the other people involved then I would discuss that. I see that you are fairly passionate about the crimes committed but I think you are taking the lack of discussion about the others in the wrong manner entirely (at least from the likes of ME) because the topic of the thread is not on those other people. I don’t feel the need to derail this topic over to Manning’s targets. Those people are worthy of a thread all their own and each rather specific to each person as the crimes are varied and the evidence as well.

THIS thread, however, was based solely on the new story about Manning’s conviction, sentence, its unusual length and whether or not he should have been sentenced.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Could you please cite where I ever made the claim that others guilty of crimes (or even immorality/actions not incumbent of the office that they held) should get off?

Try again TASB and this time try not inferring things that are not true to besmirch my position.

I understand TASB's concern about people higher up than manning being given a pass. It happened in Abu Ghraib. The low level enlisted who's command either failed to monitor them, or may have even encouraged them got off without prison time.

However the most "egregious crimes" of embarrassing prisoners didn't warrant prison. These soldiers may have been stupid, but most of them didn't deserve to have their lives ruined. The command that allowed these things to happen should have faced the music.

However, manning's commanders weren't guilty of anything. The information manning revealed to the entire world has not exposed evidence of a crime that even the most liberal , anti-military, anti-war hack would try and prosecute. It's ALL out there, if there was anything in there that could be used in court, someone would have done it.

Perhaps if had used the chain of command at all, even if he also leaked it to wikishit, he could be called a "whistleblower".

Righting a wrong or wrongs committed by the military against innocent civilians wasn't part of his motivation.

Getting revenge over his "oppressed" desire to suck cock and tell everyone was his motivation.

Letting open gays into the military doesn't bother me. If they can shoot move and communicate, fine. They just better be able to suppress their urges to make unwanted sexual advanced like men do with the few decent looking women in uniform.

The military failed to screen a bed wetter, and I don't mean it in the way I describe liberals in general. It has been reported that manning was a notorious bed wetter in basic training. The security screening as well as medical screening seeks to filter out bed wetters because they're exhibiting signs of psychological disorders.

That's why I refer to liberals as bed wetters, because they're clearly demonstrating psychological disorders.

In this very thread, it's been shown this not to be true. There are rules to war internationally that the US helped author, and we have been ignoring those rules with immunity. Covering up killing civilians, the video that was labeled "doctored", clearly show those soldiers shooting at people that came to the aid of the initial targets. That's a crime. And it doesn't end there. But it's not really relevant anymore. After that videos exposure, the military "investigated" the incident and found that no one was behaving "outside the rules of engagement". Even though they clearly fired upon unarmed aids to those wounded. Including children.

It takes a massive fuckin' display of willful ignorance in order to not deal that in violation of international law.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. We have our man, and that's all that counts.

Besides, any official who may have been exposed, can simply claim umbrella against the USoA, and not take any direct responsibility for their actions. Such as the Bush admin getting a pardon for their crimes under this same fashion via Obama.

SO, if we can admit that the government and military top officials have not only the ability, but the apparent right to be immune from the law, then at least we have that. We have honesty. Which might be the first step to any recovery.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Could you please cite where I ever made the claim that others guilty of crimes (or even immorality/actions not incumbent of the office that they held) should get off?

Try again TASB and this time try not inferring things that are not true to besmirch my position.

You didn't directly make such a claim. What everyone seems to lack interest in, is no accountability from the other end. It's a lopsided, and daft conversation based on that point.

Yes, Manning should be held responsible for his "crimes". But apparently, that's where this story ends. In the media, in conversation and in debate. The only focus being placed is on how much punishment Manning should receive. The rest is all just water under the bridge.

Well. We've done it then. It's a done deal and case closed, right? Manning was punished because THAT is the important part of the story. Everything else was just after thoughts surrounding the punishment. Ive even heard people say he should have been shot for his actions. Meanwhile those he exposed are apparently of no consequence.

This is telling. Whatever romantic notions people hold of corrupt geopolitical actions and military adventurism, seems to far outweigh any of the realities/legalities of such actions. We, as a nation, want to punish someone like Manning, and hold others at an entirely different standard based on such romantic notions. It's as though Manning was one the killing civilians or covering up such deaths. Or the host of other things that were exposed.

That is where the story ends in this specific thread because that is what the OP’s assertion was. If the thread was about the other people involved then I would discuss that. I see that you are fairly passionate about the crimes committed but I think you are taking the lack of discussion about the others in the wrong manner entirely (at least from the likes of ME) because the topic of the thread is not on those other people. I don’t feel the need to derail this topic over to Manning’s targets. Those people are worthy of a thread all their own and each rather specific to each person as the crimes are varied and the evidence as well.

THIS thread, however, was based solely on the new story about Manning’s conviction, sentence, its unusual length and whether or not he should have been sentenced.

You're right. For that you have my apologies. But I've never seen any such thread and doubt it would get the same play as this one. Because to most people, this is the story. My only main objection is in a double standard in the way the law is applied. I find it disgusting.

 

[FA_Q2]

Could you please cite where I ever made the claim that others guilty of crimes (or even immorality/actions not incumbent of the office that they held) should get off?

Try again TASB and this time try not inferring things that are not true to besmirch my position.

I understand TASB's concern about people higher up than manning being given a pass. It happened in Abu Ghraib. The low level enlisted who's command either failed to monitor them, or may have even encouraged them got off without prison time.

However the most "egregious crimes" of embarrassing prisoners didn't warrant prison. These soldiers may have been stupid, but most of them didn't deserve to have their lives ruined. The command that allowed these things to happen should have faced the music.

However, manning's commanders weren't guilty of anything. The information manning revealed to the entire world has not exposed evidence of a crime that even the most liberal , anti-military, anti-war hack would try and prosecute. It's ALL out there, if there was anything in there that could be used in court, someone would have done it.

Perhaps if had used the chain of command at all, even if he also leaked it to wikishit, he could be called a "whistleblower".

Righting a wrong or wrongs committed by the military against innocent civilians wasn't part of his motivation.

Getting revenge over his "oppressed" desire to suck cock and tell everyone was his motivation.

Letting open gays into the military doesn't bother me. If they can shoot move and communicate, fine. They just better be able to suppress their urges to make unwanted sexual advanced like men do with the few decent looking women in uniform.

The military failed to screen a bed wetter, and I don't mean it in the way I describe liberals in general. It has been reported that manning was a notorious bed wetter in basic training. The security screening as well as medical screening seeks to filter out bed wetters because they're exhibiting signs of psychological disorders.

That's why I refer to liberals as bed wetters, because they're clearly demonstrating psychological disorders.

In this very thread, it's been shown this not to be true. There are rules to war internationally that the US helped author, and we have been ignoring those rules with immunity. Covering up killing civilians, the video that was labeled "doctored", clearly show those soldiers shooting at people that came to the aid of the initial targets. That's a crime. And it doesn't end there. But it's not really relevant anymore. After that videos exposure, the military "investigated" the incident and found that no one was behaving "outside the rules of engagement". Even though they clearly fired upon unarmed aids to those wounded. Including children.

It takes a massive fuckin' display of willful ignorance in order to not deal that in violation of international law.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. We have our man, and that's all that counts.

Besides, any official who may have been exposed, can simply claim umbrella against the USoA, and not take any direct responsibility for their actions. Such as the Bush admin getting a pardon for their crimes under this same fashion via Obama.

SO, if we can admit that the government and military top officials have not only the ability, but the apparent right to be immune from the law, then at least we have that. We have honesty. Which might be the first step to any recovery.

That bolded part is still not sitting well with me. I know the Geneva conventions and LOAC and it is drilled into us extensively. I watched that entire video twice (I don’t really see the ‘doctoring’ by the way) and I don’t think anything they did up until that point would be a war crime but I am thoroughly confused as to how the firing on that vehicle was authorized when it was clearly getting the wounded individual. The individual was unarmed as the video continually pointed out (through the soldier’s comm).


The helicopter is not the guilty party here – they asked for permission and they received it. The scary part is that it was established that they were following the ROE. How that was allowed under the ROE is confusing me. It is not sitting well….

 

[Kondor3]

I have some considerable doubt about that particular shooting myself, although I've read that some of the fellows comprising that 10-11 person 'crowd' were armed with RPGs, and that the media correspondents merely had the bad luck to have 'embedded' themselves by choice alongside some Bad Guys, mixed-in with Innocent Civilians. I would also think, at first glance, that distinguishing amongst such fine-points is rather difficult from even a modest altitude, when you're hover-moving in orbit around a prospective target, and when you've spotted at least some munitions being carried by some of the group, and when you've spotted firing coming recently from one of the buildings that members of that crowd are going in and out of. Not certain if I have those qualifying factors correct, but that's the soft-and-fuzzy impression I was left with, when I first saw that video, quite some time ago. And, I find myself wondering whether some of these particulars are best left to some War Crimes thread or another rather than the Manning thread, but, that's not up to me, either...

 

[FA_Q2]

For TASB and others interested in the other side of this debate.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/309537-the-other-crimes-in-the-manning-case.html#post7732905

 

[daveman]

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

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?

I agree Manning had a duty to expose what he saw as wrongdoing.

However, what's missing in all this is the justification for him going to a non-state intelligence-gathering and -disseminating organization, when he had clear and established means of bringing his grievances to the chain of command, bypassing his commanders if necessary.

He could have gone to the IG. Nowhere was he authorized to go to WikiLeaks.

Can you address that, please, for the first time?

Being that most of what he leaked was information that was deliberately covered up and ONLY addressed AFTER it was exposed (some just completely ignored), do you really think he would have gotten this information out and any accountability taking place? Please. There is no accountability now. At the very least, Manning SHOWED the american people what was going on. Those who paid attention should have been waiting for that accountability, but it never came. Frankly, Manning should be a lesson to anyone else who thinks they might be doing their country a service. That is, dont bother. Politicians and govt. personnel are above the law. Meanwhile, anyone who exposes them will get kicked under the freight train.

Manning should have just left them to it and said fuck the people. Because the people dont care.

I guess we'll never know, since Manning chose to ignore the legal action -- going to the IG -- and chose instead to break the law.

I signed the same non-disclosure agreements he did. They make it quite clear that revealing classified information is a crime and the punishment can be harsh.

No one should act shocked and surprised that he's being punished -- especially him.

 

[daveman]

Could you please cite where I ever made the claim that others guilty of crimes (or even immorality/actions not incumbent of the office that they held) should get off?

Try again TASB and this time try not inferring things that are not true to besmirch my position.

I understand TASB's concern about people higher up than manning being given a pass. It happened in Abu Ghraib. The low level enlisted who's command either failed to monitor them, or may have even encouraged them got off without prison time.

However the most "egregious crimes" of embarrassing prisoners didn't warrant prison. These soldiers may have been stupid, but most of them didn't deserve to have their lives ruined. The command that allowed these things to happen should have faced the music.

However, manning's commanders weren't guilty of anything. The information manning revealed to the entire world has not exposed evidence of a crime that even the most liberal , anti-military, anti-war hack would try and prosecute. It's ALL out there, if there was anything in there that could be used in court, someone would have done it.

Perhaps if had used the chain of command at all, even if he also leaked it to wikishit, he could be called a "whistleblower".

Righting a wrong or wrongs committed by the military against innocent civilians wasn't part of his motivation.

Getting revenge over his "oppressed" desire to suck cock and tell everyone was his motivation.

Letting open gays into the military doesn't bother me. If they can shoot move and communicate, fine. They just better be able to suppress their urges to make unwanted sexual advanced like men do with the few decent looking women in uniform.

The military failed to screen a bed wetter, and I don't mean it in the way I describe liberals in general. It has been reported that manning was a notorious bed wetter in basic training. The security screening as well as medical screening seeks to filter out bed wetters because they're exhibiting signs of psychological disorders.

That's why I refer to liberals as bed wetters, because they're clearly demonstrating psychological disorders.

Ummm...BG Janis Karpinski commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade, which operated Abu Ghraib, among other prisons.

Following the investigation, she was relieved of command of the 800th and demoted.

So she wasn't given a free pass.

 

[daveman]

I have some considerable doubt about that particular shooting myself, although I've read that some of the fellows comprising that 10-11 person 'crowd' were armed with RPGs, and that the media correspondents merely had the bad luck to have 'embedded' themselves by choice alongside some Bad Guys, mixed-in with Innocent Civilians. I would also think, at first glance, that distinguishing amongst such fine-points is rather difficult from even a modest altitude, when you're hover-moving in orbit around a prospective target, and when you've spotted at least some munitions being carried by some of the group, and when you've spotted firing coming recently from one of the buildings that members of that crowd are going in and out of. Not certain if I have those qualifying factors correct, but that's the soft-and-fuzzy impression I was left with, when I first saw that video, quite some time ago. And, I find myself wondering whether some of these particulars are best left to some War Crimes thread or another rather than the Manning thread, but, that's not up to me, either...

I've heard that "journalists" embedded with the insurgents would take pictures of Coalition troops and then show them to the insurgents so they could better target them.

Collateral Murder - The WikiLeaks Deception | Telling the Whole Story

I just showed my husband this footage. He was there and had a role in reviewing the investigation on this case. His response below might clarify some things.

This footage shows the final engagement of the Reuters field reporters in New Baghdad. Missing is the overwatch video and earlier AH64 footage showing the development of the situation where the two reporters and armed men supported by a van and cars were shadowing a Coalition patrol. These reporters accompanied the armed men who were tracking a Coalition patrol about a city block away. The camera man would peek around corners to shoot a few digital frames of the patrol and then show the pictures to the armed men. If you have all the video footage, you will see this activity happened repeatedly. The operational suspicion was that this was enemy TTP (tactic, technic, or procedure) to help prepare for an attack; the digital photos would be used to quickly evaluate the target — to judge what it looked like, its shape, distance, terrain in between, where to aim, etc. This way, the RPG operator would select the right warhead, he’d preset the mechanical sights (elevation), and fix in his mind a visual picture of the target so he would limit his exposure time when stepping out in the street to fire. The recovered camera showed how the cameral man was aiding the enemy.​