Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years:

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years

Pity Snowden isn’t going with him.

Unlike Snowden, at least Manning had the courage to apologize for the crimes he committed against his country.

 

[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...

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.​

If true (and that sounds believable, quite honestly), then...

"Ach soooooooo..."

 

[dblack]

Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years

Pity Snowden isn’t going with him.

Unlike Snowden, at least Manning had the courage to apologize for the crimes he committed against his country.

And look what it got him. Our leaders don't want courage. Period.

 

[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.

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.

I guess I'm massively displaying willful ignorance. The difference between myself and people who point to such "evidence" as proof if criminal activity is that I've been there, I've had to make snap decisions that people's lives depended on. Simply riding in a turret while on patrol, several times I brought the muzzle down, more than once I would have been completely right under the ROE to light up the vehicle or persons breaching certain parameters. I chose not to wipe out on coming vehicles, my decision not too could have gotten us all killed.

Thank God, because I don't have to carry the weight of knowing someone didn't come home because I mistook their actions for an attempted attack, but for all I know it was an active attack that was thwarted when haji shit himself because the pavement was blowing up right in front of him.

It's real easy for people to judge the actions of players in a game they've never played. On a field they've never stood on. In a land they've never been in. In a circumstance they wouldn't put themselves in.

I won't deny some egregious mistakes have been made. Even some horrific crimes. However there have been unfounded accusations with people put on show trials, and people thrown in prison and had their lives ruined in order to make an example out of them. Sometimes the military structure protects fuck ups, even criminally negligent fuck ups. Sometimes the structure sacrifices people out of political pressure, which is not any better.

That's why we have a UCMJ. Politics and bullshit are not supposed to have an influence. Soldiers are supposed to be judged by soldiers, that is, people who've "been there, done that". Obviously politics and bullshit have penetrated the military like a rapist's diseased cock. I'm a little sick of it.

 

[Pete7469]

Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years

Pity Snowden isn’t going with him.

Unlike Snowden, at least Manning had the courage to apologize for the crimes he committed against his country.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAKG-kbKeIo]Never Go Full Retard - YouTube[/ame]

Excuse me bed wetter? manning acted out of malice, disseminated a massive amount of information. So much that he couldn't possibly have examined exactly what he was releasing, but he didn't give a fuck.

Snowden made sure what he was releasing at least pertained to his case that the gov't was acting with nefarious intent. I don't like the manner in which he did it, and I hope he goes on trial after Eric Holder is out of the DOJ so there's hope for a fair one.

The two people are so far removed in their motivation and consequence only the most insipid bed wetter could compare them.

 

[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.

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.

That's true, but those soldiers shouldn't have faced a harsher punishment than any of the brass. She's probably got a decent job and will get a decent pension. The rest of those idiots will be lucky to die under a bridge.

 

[Vox]

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.​

yep. that is EXACTLY what was revealed after the initial material release by Wikileaks - not only was the video doctored ( cut off the crucial parts) but the journalists were involved in the incident actively taking the part of the insurgents which were firing the RPGs at the helicopter.

 

[Vox]

Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years

Pity Snowden isn’t going with him.

Unlike Snowden, at least Manning had the courage to apologize for the crimes he committed against his country.

Unlike manning, who is a traitor, Snowden is a hero.

 

[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.​

yep. that is EXACTLY what was revealed after the initial material release by Wikileaks - not only was the video doctored ( cut off the crucial parts) but the journalists were involved in the incident actively taking the part of the insurgents which were firing the RPGs at the helicopter.

There are people here...Billo_Really most notably...who refuse to believe that the shoot was righteous. I've shown him several times that the "journalist" was carrying weapons.

He would rather believe the terrorists than his own eyes.

 

[Billo_Really]

There are people here...Billo_Really most notably...who refuse to believe that the shoot was righteous. I've shown him several times that the "journalist" was carrying weapons.

He would rather believe the terrorists than his own eyes.

I am believing my own eyes. I'm saying what I'm seeing. You're the disgusting piece of shit trying to say something different.

If that "shoot" was so righteous, why were the soldiers in the Apache joking around while they were murdering these people in cold blood?

If that "shoot" was so righteous, why did they shoot people trying to help the wounded?

 

[Billo_Really]

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?

He did go to the IG. He went to his superiors several times and they did nothing about it. They told him to get back to work. So he went public with the information, because we have a right to know that shit!

Now are you going to comment on the soldiers in the Apache joking around while they were pulling the trigger?

 

[dblack]

Bottom line for both the Snowden and the Manning revelations: Our government is supposed to be better than that. If it's not, then I have no interest in defending it.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Now are you going to comment on the soldiers in the Apache joking around while they were pulling the trigger?"

Have you ever been tasked to kill a bunch of people?

I, for one, have not.

But I can understand the faux bravado and comedic chatter while that's underway.

Trying to share the experience and to shake-off the willies while you're in the middle of killing folk by remote control, from a distance.

It's called Gallows Humor, and it doesn't signify, insofar as I can discern, at first glance.

Troops do that all the time... helps 'em to hang onto their sanity, while they're doing it.

The only difference here is that the Gallows Humor was caught on tape, and then misused by people who don't understand what they were looking-at and listening-to, in that context.

Happens all the time... and always has... since time immemorial... and as far into the future as your imagination can carry you...

And it doesn't mean a damned thing...

Or so it seems to this US Army veteran, and observer here...

 

[Billo_Really]

Have you ever been tasked to kill a bunch of people?

I, for one, have not.

But I can understand the faux bravado and comedic chatter while that's underway.

Trying to share the experience and to shake-off the willies while you're in the middle of killing folk by remote control, from a distance.

It's called Gallows Humor, and it doesn't signify, insofar as I can discern, at first glance.

Troops do that all the time... helps 'em to hang onto their sanity, while they're doing it.

The only difference here is that the Gallows Humor was caught on tape, and then misused by people who don't understand what they were looking-at and listening-to, in that context.

Happens all the time... and always has... since time immemorial... and as far into the future as your imagination can carry you...

And it doesn't mean a damned thing...

Or so it seems to this US Army veteran, and observer here...

"...c'mon man, just pick up the weapon."

"Just pick it up!"

As he had his finger on the trigger.

That shows he wanted to shoot the guy!

And shooting the wounded, is a war crime.

 

[Billo_Really]

Bottom line for both the Snowden and the Manning revelations: Our government is supposed to be better than that. If it's not, then I have no interest in defending it.

Absolutely!


In addition, the majority of our troops are better than that, as well.

 

[Kondor3]

Have you ever been tasked to kill a bunch of people?

I, for one, have not.

But I can understand the faux bravado and comedic chatter while that's underway.

Trying to share the experience and to shake-off the willies while you're in the middle of killing folk by remote control, from a distance.

It's called Gallows Humor, and it doesn't signify, insofar as I can discern, at first glance.

Troops do that all the time... helps 'em to hang onto their sanity, while they're doing it.

The only difference here is that the Gallows Humor was caught on tape, and then misused by people who don't understand what they were looking-at and listening-to, in that context.

Happens all the time... and always has... since time immemorial... and as far into the future as your imagination can carry you...

And it doesn't mean a damned thing...

Or so it seems to this US Army veteran, and observer here...

"...c'mon man, just pick up the weapon."

"Just pick it up!"

As he had his finger on the trigger.

That shows he wanted to shoot the guy!

And shooting the wounded, is a war crime.

I thought we were talking about the laughing while they were shooting...

That 'Just pick it up' business is another matter...

But I'll consciously permit myself to be sidetracked for the moment, just to clear this off the plate, and to get back to the Gallows Humor bit...

DID the guy 'pick it up'?

If he did, it was probably a 'righteous shoot' after all...

To be accorded the protection of 'wounded' status, you must disarm, or otherwise not be responsible for the arms in your possession (unconscious, etc.)...

Consciously pick up a weapon, and you throw any such protection right out the window...

WANTING to shoot the guy and looking for and finding an excuse to do so, is a different matter than actually shooting the guy without an excuse.

Of course our people WANT to kill the enemy... it's what they're trained for... and the more they kill, each time an opportunity presents itself, the fewer will be alive to shoot at them on another day.

It's an understandable mentality.

Have you served in combat (or simply trained extensively in any of the combat arms) in the military?

Translation: Do you have any related credentials that might be of use to you in correctly interpreting what you are seeing and hearing, in-context?

Having such credentials is not necessary to understanding but it sure-as-hell helps.

So, DO you have such credentials?

 

[daveman]

There are people here...Billo_Really most notably...who refuse to believe that the shoot was righteous. I've shown him several times that the "journalist" was carrying weapons.

He would rather believe the terrorists than his own eyes.

I am believing my own eyes. I'm saying what I'm seeing. You're the disgusting piece of shit trying to say something different.

If that "shoot" was so righteous, why were the soldiers in the Apache joking around while they were murdering these people in cold blood?

If that "shoot" was so righteous, why did they shoot people trying to help the wounded?

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[daveman]

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?

He did go to the IG. He went to his superiors several times and they did nothing about it. They told him to get back to work. So he went public with the information, because we have a right to know that shit!

Now are you going to comment on the soldiers in the Apache joking around while they were pulling the trigger?

Show me where Manning went to the IG.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Show me where Manning went to the IG."

Yes, I would be quite interested in seeing that, myself.

Because any soldier with two or more functional brain-cells, who has been in the Army more than 30 minutes, understands that you can go to the Inspector General about anything, and that the IG's office will shield you from reprisals, or undertake your defense and advocacy, if a local-commander gets feisty and tries to sanction or apply repisals to one of his whistle-blowers.

The fact that Manning chose to bypass the IG's office (if that is what truly happened) speaks volumes about his self-appointed intention to publicly disclose, rather than seeking an investigation through the military's own whistle-blower's haven (the IG's office).

 

[Billo_Really]

Thanks for proving my point!

Just answer the fucking questions, you cock-sucking coward!