121–130 of 484 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes If he was uncovering war crimes, did he first try to report them through his chain of command? If not, then I really don't think this is a defence.
If the guy committing the war crimes is your boss, do you go running to him to report him?
This is a disgrace. They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.
And what penalty did his superiors receive? Nothing. Privates should never have access to secret information without supervision. If he did someone else should be responsible and take the penalty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes If he was uncovering war crimes, did he first try to report them through his chain of command? If not, then I really don't think this is a defence.
If the guy committing the war crimes is your boss, do you go running to him to report him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…
The charges are propped up to make the sentence seem soft. 35 is still a lifetime. He may not live long enough to be free.
>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terror…
No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>>and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. Oh really? http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-ma... "The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday." "Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downlo…
Yes, really. No one has died and I have never heard of anyone of those being in danger. Michael Kozak, whom you quote, works for the State Department.
This is a disgrace. They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.
>>>and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. Oh really? http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-ma... "The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday." "Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downlo…
The State Department itself has said that the cables were "not damaging."
"...State Department officials concluded late last year that the publication of leaked United States diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks 'was embarrassing but not damaging.'
Robert Gates, Defense Secretary at the time: "Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/u-s-officials-re...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have zero knowledge as far as sentence's go. So with that said, how is being required to only server 1/3 of a sentence brutal? What am i missing?
Well, for one, he's transsexual, which may or may not indicate he's less of a threat to society. If he's not a threat to society, and won't do what he did again, then it seems like the motive is to make an example of him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, if you actually read up on the helicopter video, you'll see that Assange plays a game of "hide the ball" with what really happens in the video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike . Specifically: 1) The company had been under fire all morning and the Apaches were called in by a soldier on the ground under attack at the location where the journalists were; 2) Among the group of men the two…
Yes, especially when they saw the rescuers come and try to save the injured, they just had to kill those as well. How dare rescuers try to save lives! This is war, which clearly means shooting anything that moves is the best policy.
This is not a "shoot anything that moves situation." It's a "if you're called in to the middle of a firefight you resolve doubts in favor of whatever protects other U.S. soldiers."
""" Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute said of the airstrike:.
It is precisely the presence of weapons, including RPGs, that goes a long distance toward explaining why cameramen for Reuters—pointing television cameras around corners in a battle zone—were readily mistaken by our gunships for insurgents. The video makes plain that in this incident, as in almost all military encounters in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are up against forces that do not wear uniforms—a violation of international law precisely because it places innocent civilians in jeopardy. """
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's never appropriate to second-guess a soldier's conduct in war. But "war crimes" are purposefully malicious actions in the absence of a threat. Not bad judgment calls in response to what you can make out from hundreds of meters away in the middle of a firefight.
This is a war crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre.
>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terror…
No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…
Maybe that makes sense if the only relevant is between the Armed Forces and Manning. But here's the thing: civilians are the ones paying for the military.