If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post) NewsFlash Bradley Manning gets 35 years in the hole   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 422
    More: NewsFlash, Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, David Coombs, revelations, Quantico, Fort Leavenworth, United Nations Special Rapporteur, Arab Uprisings  
•       •       •

6521 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 10:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

422 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 05:06:08 PM  

vygramul: PunGent: freak7: make me some tea: Damn. I can't even crack a joke about that.

I can, screw the traitor.

Go re-read your Constitution.

- Thanks, the Founding Fathers.

[img360.imageshack.us image 122x91]

Some people use "traitor" in the dictionary definition of, "1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty," rather than, "2: one who commits treason"

[i179.photobucket.com image 325x214]


Silly me...I thought we were discussing U.S. jurisprudence.

You want a kangaroo trial, move somewhere else, or lobby to change the Constitutional definition.

Don't like it, take it up with the Founders...they had good reason to define treason so narrowly...and given the reactions of a lot of people I've run into over the years, it's a good thing.

"Joe Blow protested the Iraq War?  he's a TRAITOR!!!!"

Screw that shiat.
 
2013-08-21 05:09:06 PM  

Biological Ali: PunGent: Not really. Years after the fact, and the prosecution couldn't name ONE person who was even threatened, let alone actually harmed?

We're talking "abducted by aliens" levels of probability at this point.

When somebody does something reckless and it turns out with the benefit of hindsight that nobody was harmed as a result on that particular occasion, that person doesn't just a pass.


Actually, depending on the particular offense and jurisdiction, sometimes they DO get a pass.
 (Why, it's almost like I'm a lawyer or something.)


Again, no problem with the final sentencing here...I'm responding to those who think he was UNDER charged, mostly.
 
2013-08-21 05:16:08 PM  

jakomo002: vygramul: You do know he released secrets unrelated to the military but to diplomacy, right?

Yes.  EMBARASSING secrets that showed the US government was disrespectful of other countries' ambassadors and policies.  Nothing dangerous or deadly, just showing some of the arrogance and disrespect the US  diplomatic corps uses when representing the US around the world.

Again, embarrassments classified as secret because they're embarrassments, not secrets.


So, what, blunt assessments shouldn't be made or blunt assessments should be shared with those with whom we're conducting diplomacy? Neither option makes sense, even if that was what made up all 250,000 pages of material. You really have to go a long way to hand-wave away the criminal aspect of Manning's actions in order to make this entirely about embarrassing the government.
 
2013-08-21 05:17:59 PM  

PunGent: vygramul: PunGent: freak7: make me some tea: Damn. I can't even crack a joke about that.

I can, screw the traitor.

Go re-read your Constitution.

- Thanks, the Founding Fathers.

[img360.imageshack.us image 122x91]

Some people use "traitor" in the dictionary definition of, "1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty," rather than, "2: one who commits treason"

[i179.photobucket.com image 325x214]

Silly me...I thought we were discussing U.S. jurisprudence.

You want a kangaroo trial, move somewhere else, or lobby to change the Constitutional definition.

Don't like it, take it up with the Founders...they had good reason to define treason so narrowly...and given the reactions of a lot of people I've run into over the years, it's a good thing.

"Joe Blow protested the Iraq War?  he's a TRAITOR!!!!"

Screw that shiat.


I didn't realize Fark was bestowed with judicial power. Must be all the wood panelling.
 
2013-08-21 05:19:18 PM  

PunGent: Again, no problem with the final sentencing here...I'm responding to those who think he was UNDER charged, mostly.


I don't think he was under charged. I think this worked out pretty much as it should have. Maybe even a little in the upper-end of the range of what seems to me to be reasonable.
 
2013-08-21 05:25:55 PM  

vygramul: You do know he released secrets unrelated to the military but to diplomacy, right?


Further proving that there was no need for the vast majority of that to even be declared secret in the first place.

We are a democracy and are supposed to be able to hold our officials accountable for their actions.

Then among all that banality there was the State Department cable showing that the US had conspired with the President of Yemen to lie to the American people about our military attacks there and the large number of civilian casualties they caused.

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen--those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area. There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing. It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder.".

Can you say lying to the public about War Crimes?
 
2013-08-21 05:34:11 PM  

PunGent: Biological Ali: PunGent: Not really. Years after the fact, and the prosecution couldn't name ONE person who was even threatened, let alone actually harmed?

We're talking "abducted by aliens" levels of probability at this point.

When somebody does something reckless and it turns out with the benefit of hindsight that nobody was harmed as a result on that particular occasion, that person doesn't just a pass.

Actually, depending on the particular offense and jurisdiction, sometimes they DO get a pass.
 (Why, it's almost like I'm a lawyer or something.)


Again, no problem with the final sentencing here...I'm responding to those who think he was UNDER charged, mostly.


Sure, but we're not even talking about charging and sentencing. You were, apparently, taking issue with somebody who stated that:

Yeah, as much as I love a good whistle blower, who knows it's conceivable that people's lives could have been put in danger.  At BEST it's reckless and irresponsible.

That person was absolutely correct. Sensible people simply don't judge recklessness and irresponsibility by looking at outcomes with the benefit of hindsight - if somebody indiscriminately reveals information related to informants, that action doesn't magically become not reckless or irresponsible if none of those informants are harmed within some arbitrary time frame.
 
2013-08-21 05:40:34 PM  

Carth: dervish16108: Carth: IlGreven: 35 years for a man who caused fewer deaths than George Zimmerman.

The difference being there is proof Manning broke the law. There is no proof Zimmerman did.

There is proof General James Clapper broke the law when he was under oath and lied to US Congress about surveillance. Where's his indictment? Oh wait, he got promoted to chair the NSA oversight committee!

How much money should be spent prosecuting someone who would instantly be pardoned if found guilty?


Well, we'll find out when Obama pardons Bradley Manning, won't we?

/Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.
 
2013-08-21 05:45:13 PM  

vygramul: So, what, blunt assessments shouldn't be made or blunt assessments should be shared with those with whom we're conducting diplomacy? Neither option makes sense, even if that was what made up all 250,000 pages of material. You really have to go a long way to hand-wave away the criminal aspect of Manning's actions in order to make this entirely about embarrassing the government.


ONE MORE TIME.

These were classified secret because they're embarrassments.  From military atrocities to actions in contravention of international law and basic morals.  Showing what the USA actually does, not what they say they do.  Full stop.
 
2013-08-21 05:48:19 PM  
If you're asking is it a crime to expose crimes, Obama says Hells Yeah.

So would any good wiseguy high up in the mob...
 
2013-08-21 05:51:50 PM  

vygramul: PunGent: JohnAnnArbor: It's longer than the American Taliban.  He got 20.

Now THERE was a chickenshiat case.  He got charged for aiding the Taliban?  fine...lock him up AFTER you lock up every congressman who gave the Taliban money for years.


There's a difference between hoping you can bribe someone into not attacking you and giving money to someone who is.


We didn't give the Taliban money in the '80s. We gave the Pakistani intelligence service money, and THEY partially funded the Taliban (with a lot of private money coming from Saudi Arabia). Our direct contributions were to the anti-Taliban mujahedeen who later became the northern Alliance and kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan in 2001.
 
2013-08-21 05:58:30 PM  

jakomo002: vygramul: So, what, blunt assessments shouldn't be made or blunt assessments should be shared with those with whom we're conducting diplomacy? Neither option makes sense, even if that was what made up all 250,000 pages of material. You really have to go a long way to hand-wave away the criminal aspect of Manning's actions in order to make this entirely about embarrassing the government.

ONE MORE TIME.

These were classified secret because they're embarrassments.  From military atrocities to actions in contravention of international law and basic morals.  Showing what the USA actually does, not what they say they do.  Full stop.


To claim they're mere embarrassments is to pretend that there's no valid reason for blunt assessments. Carter used to publicly state the Shah was a good man while, in private, telling him to stop torturing people. Would the release of Carter saying that the Shah tortures people be embarrassing? Of course. But to pretend that alone is the value of keeping those private is misleading AT BEST.

And I'm not interested in re-litigating the military aspect.
 
2013-08-21 06:09:06 PM  

vygramul: To claim they're mere embarrassments is to pretend that there's no valid reason for blunt assessments. Carter used to publicly state the Shah was a good man while, in private, telling him to stop torturing people. Would the release of Carter saying that the Shah tortures people be embarrassing? Of course. But to pretend that alone is the value of keeping those private is misleading AT BEST.

And I'm not interested in re-litigating the military aspect.


Um, this wasn't just blunt assessments.  This was US diplomats showing in some cases open disdain for their counterparts.  YOUR representatives.  Representing you.

Since they were embarrassingly candid they got classified secret.  How exactly can you judge how a government employee is performing if when they fark up the government just buries it?


NO accountability without transparency.
 
2013-08-21 06:14:22 PM  

jakomo002: vygramul: To claim they're mere embarrassments is to pretend that there's no valid reason for blunt assessments. Carter used to publicly state the Shah was a good man while, in private, telling him to stop torturing people. Would the release of Carter saying that the Shah tortures people be embarrassing? Of course. But to pretend that alone is the value of keeping those private is misleading AT BEST.

And I'm not interested in re-litigating the military aspect.

Um, this wasn't just blunt assessments.  This was US diplomats showing in some cases open disdain for their counterparts.  YOUR representatives.  Representing you.

Since they were embarrassingly candid they got classified secret.  How exactly can you judge how a government employee is performing if when they fark up the government just buries it?


NO accountability without transparency.


So, what, we let the other country know how our diplomats talked about them? That's nonsense. You wouldn't do that in any other context.

"Two managers were fired today for inappropriate behavior. By the way, Tanya, they said you were a slut and Bob is gay."

Yeah - not.
 
2013-08-21 06:27:05 PM  

vygramul: So, what, we let the other country know how our diplomats talked about them? That's nonsense. You wouldn't do that in any other context.

"Two managers were fired today for inappropriate behavior. By the way, Tanya, they said you were a slut and Bob is gay."

Yeah - not.


So NOBODY should EVER know?  The diplomat should never pay any price for being terrible at their job.  This is not Walmart, this is the government that reflects YOUR values and attitude across the world.

If the government is doing bad, illegal , irresponsible things, nobody needs to know,huh?

I have no response to that other than : Move to an actual repressive regime ASAP.  Your sheep DNA cries out for it.
 
2013-08-21 06:31:36 PM  

jakomo002: If the government is doing bad, illegal , irresponsible things, nobody needs to know,huh?


Are you suggesting people should be held responsible for their actions when they are NOT blowing the whistle on those in power???
 
2013-08-21 06:32:15 PM  
"In no case shall information be classified... in order to: conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency... or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security."

-Executive Order 13526, Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations

"Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is this awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."

-Robert Gates, Unites States Secretary of Defense


"The "Iraq War Logs" published by WikiLeaks revealed that thousands of reports of prisoner abuse and torture had been filed against the Iraqi Security Forces. Medical evidence detailed how prisoners had been whipped with heavy cables across the feet, hung from ceiling hooks, suffered holes being bored into their legs with electric drills, urinated upon, and sexually assaulted. These logs also revealed the existence of "Frago 242," an order implemented in 2004 not to investigate allegations of abuse against the Iraqi government. This order is a direct violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by the United States in 1994. The Convention prohibits the Armed Forces from transferring a detainee to other countries "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." According to the State Department's own reports, the U.S. government was already aware that the Iraqi Security Forces engaged in torture (1).


http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/21/what-bradley-manning-revealed /
 
2013-08-21 06:33:59 PM  

jakomo002: So NOBODY should EVER know? The diplomat should never pay any price for being terrible at their job. This is not Walmart, this is the government that reflects YOUR values and attitude across the world.


I don't think everybody would agree with your suggestion that confidential statements made by diplomats, recorded for strictly internal viewing, somehow have the kind of bearing on the quality of their diplomatic work that you seem to be implying.
 
2013-08-21 06:49:08 PM  
<b>Biological Ali</b>:<i> I don't think everybody would agree with your suggestion that confidential statements made by diplomats, recorded for strictly internal viewing, somehow have the kind of bearing on the quality of their diplomatic work that you seem to be implying.</i>

Because that was the LEAST of it.

<i>The State Department authorized the theft of the UN Secretary General's DNA.

According to the "National Humint Collection Directive," a secret document that was signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and published by WikiLeaks, US diplomats were authorized to collect "biometric" and other sensitive information from top UN officials as well as UN representatives from other nations. The leaked documents show that "biometric data" specifically included samples of the officials' DNA, among other forms of personally identifying information. They also ordered diplomats to collect credit card information and secure passwords. These activities contravene the 1946 UN Convention (9).</i>

And no, I don't believe every single internal diplomatic memo should be public nor does it always reflect the quality of the person's work.  Like I said, small potatoes though.

BullBearMS: Are you suggesting people should be held responsible for their actions when they are NOT blowing the whistle on those in power???

? I don't follow you.  And my pc is having an HTML meltdown.  brb
 
2013-08-21 06:56:15 PM  

jakomo002: BullBearMS: Are you suggesting people should be held responsible for their actions when they are NOT blowing the whistle on those in power???

? I don't follow you.


I'm being sarcastic, because people in power should be held responsible for their actions.
 
2013-08-21 07:01:55 PM  

BullBearMS: I'm being sarcastic, because people in power should be held responsible for their actions.


A big AMEN to that.

After the Manning verdict I am curious to see something :  that US Army guy (Bales?) who massacred those 19 Afghanis awhile back is being sentenced very soon.  I wonder how long he'll get put away for.

My guess is a lot less than 35 years but we'll see.
 
2013-08-21 07:18:15 PM  

jakomo002: And no, I don't believe every single internal diplomatic memo should be public nor does it always reflect the quality of the person's work. Like I said, small potatoes though.


Just to clarify, before we move on to a separate topic - your earlier comment seemed to suggest that you were defending the leaking of these diplomatic cables because they somehow contained evidence that the diplomats were "terrible at their jobs". Are you not actually making that claim?
 
2013-08-21 07:19:18 PM  

jakomo002: vygramul: So, what, we let the other country know how our diplomats talked about them? That's nonsense. You wouldn't do that in any other context.

"Two managers were fired today for inappropriate behavior. By the way, Tanya, they said you were a slut and Bob is gay."

Yeah - not.

So NOBODY should EVER know?  The diplomat should never pay any price for being terrible at their job.  This is not Walmart, this is the government that reflects YOUR values and attitude across the world.

If the government is doing bad, illegal , irresponsible things, nobody needs to know,huh?

I have no response to that other than : Move to an actual repressive regime ASAP.  Your sheep DNA cries out for it.


That's why we have a president and secretary of state. Just like stockholders don't get to find that out about the company they own, but expect their board to exert control.

And nice ad hominem about the sheep. I'm not the one blindly believing what I'm told just because some random guy I don't know whose expertise I'm not qualified to judge told me a fairy tale about monsters that confirmed my beliefs.

Any other calumnies you wish to throw out there while you're at it?
 
2013-08-21 07:27:44 PM  

jakomo002: BullBearMS: I'm being sarcastic, because people in power should be held responsible for their actions.

A big AMEN to that.

After the Manning verdict I am curious to see something :  that US Army guy (Bales?) who massacred those 19 Afghanis awhile back is being sentenced very soon.  I wonder how long he'll get put away for.

My guess is a lot less than 35 years but we'll see.


Given that the guy in charge of torture in Iraq got a disciplinary hearing and a fine, but no trial, it's almost shocking that anyone got a trial.

When Obama tried to extend the Iraq war past the negotiated date for total withdrawal, the Iraqis main reason for not allowing it was the huge number of their citizens murdered with nobody held responsible.
 
2013-08-21 08:02:17 PM  

vygramul: d23: Gee.. what are the odds that the people that throw around the term "statism" are the same people already crying "not enough" about the Bradly Manning sentence?

I would have been happy with 20-25. But I can't feel too bad about 35 either.

bdub77: I can't help but feel a little sad about the whole thing. Our government is doing a lot of shady sh*t and these guys are exposing them for it, and this is what they get for it.

There isn't even a way to expose the government now for all this secret sh*t without being labeled a terrorist or traitor.

Had he simply released stuff that concerned him, I could have written it off as misguided at worst. Dumping 250k documents without knowing the contents thereof is not exposing shady shiat. It's showing depraved indifference.


Depraved indifference is what Bush did going into Iraq. Where's his prison sentence?
 
2013-08-21 08:38:09 PM  
Sad.  This guy was a gay Klinger, and punched an officer in the face.

You invite a homeless man in your home, he punches your wife in the nose, shows up to dinner in your daughters panties and so you.... give him a key to the house and access to your finances?   I don't think the insurance company would help cover your losses.

He should not do even one day, and he should be paid a million dollars per year he was wrongly incarcerated.

Get real - you treat people like shiat and they get you back, duh.  Look at 9/11!
 
2013-08-21 08:45:31 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: vygramul: d23: Gee.. what are the odds that the people that throw around the term "statism" are the same people already crying "not enough" about the Bradly Manning sentence?

I would have been happy with 20-25. But I can't feel too bad about 35 either.

bdub77: I can't help but feel a little sad about the whole thing. Our government is doing a lot of shady sh*t and these guys are exposing them for it, and this is what they get for it.

There isn't even a way to expose the government now for all this secret sh*t without being labeled a terrorist or traitor.

Had he simply released stuff that concerned him, I could have written it off as misguided at worst. Dumping 250k documents without knowing the contents thereof is not exposing shady shiat. It's showing depraved indifference.

Depraved indifference is what Bush did going into Iraq. Where's his prison sentence?



Depraved indifference is what they showed him by keeping him imprisoned in their organization.  He was shat on by his own country and he shat back.   He was basically a prisoner of war, so it was his DUTY to fight back in whatever way he could find.   Case dismissed.
 
2013-08-21 08:48:10 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: vygramul: d23: Gee.. what are the odds that the people that throw around the term "statism" are the same people already crying "not enough" about the Bradly Manning sentence?

I would have been happy with 20-25. But I can't feel too bad about 35 either.

bdub77: I can't help but feel a little sad about the whole thing. Our government is doing a lot of shady sh*t and these guys are exposing them for it, and this is what they get for it.

There isn't even a way to expose the government now for all this secret sh*t without being labeled a terrorist or traitor.

Had he simply released stuff that concerned him, I could have written it off as misguided at worst. Dumping 250k documents without knowing the contents thereof is not exposing shady shiat. It's showing depraved indifference.

Depraved indifference is what Bush did going into Iraq. Where's his prison sentence?


Hey - I wanted him held accountable, too. But just because he didn't get sent to prison doesn't mean we fling all the prison doors open because, hey, none of them made decisions that killed six-figure numbers of people. We still convict them, and we still send them to prison. Just like Manning.
 
2013-08-21 08:53:56 PM  

from my blood: Depraved indifference is what they showed him by keeping him imprisoned in their organization.  He was shat on by his own country and he shat back.   He was basically a prisoner of war, so it was his DUTY to fight back in whatever way he could find.   Case dismissed.


HAHAHAHAHA!

He threw a homosexual temper tantrum and they caught him and sentenced him.  He's lucky he wasn't executed.
 
2013-08-21 08:58:28 PM  
http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/a-nation-unhinged-the-grim-realitie s -of-the-real-american-war

"...interesting finds is an official army investigation of the "Torture of Prisoners of War by US Officers," which concluded that such torture was "standard practice" among US troops. And the study Defense Secretary William McNamara commissioned in 1969 that found more "than 96 percent of Marine Corps second lieutenants [...] surveyed [...] indicated that they would resort to torture to obtain information." "

"We will almost certainly never see an outpouring of truth-telling about Vietnam approaching that of the Second World War era for the simple reason that "we" were not on the side of the angels in Vietnam."

"...as a graduate student researching post-traumatic stress disorder among Vietnam veterans, he happened upon the records of the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group. This was "a secret Pentagon task force that had," he writes, "been assembled after the My Lai massacre to ensure that the army would never again be caught off-guard by a major war crimes scandal." The papers "documented a nightmare war that is essentially missing from our understanding of the Vietnam conflict.""
 
2013-08-21 08:59:49 PM  

Lsherm: He's lucky he wasn't executed.


On what charge?
 
2013-08-21 09:31:11 PM  

vygramul: Serious Post on Serious Thread: vygramul: d23: Gee.. what are the odds that the people that throw around the term "statism" are the same people already crying "not enough" about the Bradly Manning sentence?

I would have been happy with 20-25. But I can't feel too bad about 35 either.

bdub77: I can't help but feel a little sad about the whole thing. Our government is doing a lot of shady sh*t and these guys are exposing them for it, and this is what they get for it.

There isn't even a way to expose the government now for all this secret sh*t without being labeled a terrorist or traitor.

Had he simply released stuff that concerned him, I could have written it off as misguided at worst. Dumping 250k documents without knowing the contents thereof is not exposing shady shiat. It's showing depraved indifference.

Depraved indifference is what Bush did going into Iraq. Where's his prison sentence?

Hey - I wanted him held accountable, too. But just because he didn't get sent to prison doesn't mean we fling all the prison doors open because, hey, none of them made decisions that killed six-figure numbers of people. We still convict them, and we still send them to prison. Just like Manning.


Your viewpoint is rigid. And therefore flawed. Morality and ethics are situational and fluid. And messy and complex. You have a formula. It lacks nuance and therefore validity.

In light of circumstances, Manning is a farking hero. A beacon of light. A siren call to those that are victims of abuse of power to do something. Even if that something isn't perfect.

If I knew right now that my own sister died in a terrorist IED attack DIRECTLY because of Manning's actions, I would want him dead. By court order or otherwise. I know that about myself. But it still would not change the fact that at the end of the day I also know it's only through the actions of Mannings that thousands of sisters/brothers/loved ones will be saved.

We've grown up with the BS talk of the 'awful price of war'. It's time to stop paying the 'awful price' of lies to justify war. Maybe by any means necessary.
 
2013-08-21 09:51:38 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: If I knew right now that my own sister died in a terrorist IED attack DIRECTLY because of Manning's actions, I would want him dead. By court order or otherwise. I know that about myself. But it still would not change the fact that at the end of the day I also know it's only through the actions of Mannings that thousands of sisters/brothers/loved ones will be saved.


How exactly are the actions of people like Manning supposed to save "thousands" of people?

Difficulty: Manning himself doesn't seem to know the answer to the question. Nor, as far as I can tell, did he even put forward the argument that he was trying to save lives - he was just a deeply troubled man who, in the midst of career-related frustrations piled on top of whatever mental illnesses he was (unsuccessfully) dealing with, somehow got the idea that leaking piles of random classified documents would spark some kind of national debate on the war.
 
2013-08-21 09:55:29 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your viewpoint is rigid. And therefore flawed. Morality and ethics are situational and fluid. And messy and complex. You have a formula. It lacks nuance and therefore validity.


Morality may be fluid, but like molasses, not like quicksilver. You don't get to declare something ok just because you like it. Otherwise, morality and ethics are meaningless. In fact, if it always matches your liking, it's probably anything but morality and ethics.

In light of circumstances, Manning is a farking hero. A beacon of light. A siren call to those that are victims of abuse of power to do something. Even if that something isn't perfect.

I see, imperfection is only ok if you're betraying a trust, but not ok in any other circumstance. Got it.

If I knew right now that my own sister died in a terrorist IED attack DIRECTLY because of Manning's actions, I would want him dead. By court order or otherwise. I know that about myself. But it still would not change the fact that at the end of the day I also know it's only through the actions of Mannings that thousands of sisters/brothers/loved ones will be saved.

Yeah - I'm sure that some of the same people in this thread who can't find any way how Manning's release of secret information could possibly harm someone would rush to subscribe that things have changed and that thousands of lives were saved by Manning's actions. Right.

We've grown up with the BS talk of the 'awful price of war'. It's time to stop paying the 'awful price' of lies to justify war. Maybe by any means necessary.

That horrible cost should have prevented the vote for that war. I have less respect for people like Rockefeller, who said he didn't understand the justification and voted for it anyway, than politicians who were convinced it was the right thing to do.
 
2013-08-21 10:18:38 PM  

Biological Ali: Serious Post on Serious Thread: If I knew right now that my own sister died in a terrorist IED attack DIRECTLY because of Manning's actions, I would want him dead. By court order or otherwise. I know that about myself. But it still would not change the fact that at the end of the day I also know it's only through the actions of Mannings that thousands of sisters/brothers/loved ones will be saved.

How exactly are the actions of people like Manning supposed to save "thousands" of people?

Difficulty: Manning himself doesn't seem to know the answer to the question. Nor, as far as I can tell, did he even put forward the argument that he was trying to save lives - he was just a deeply troubled man who, in the midst of career-related frustrations piled on top of whatever mental illnesses he was (unsuccessfully) dealing with, somehow got the idea that leaking piles of random classified documents would spark some kind of national debate on the war.


Jebus, I'll just swipe at the low hanging fruit here. Have you seen Collateral Murder (a Manning video release)? Quite possibly not, wasn't a really covered. Now, have you seen the Vietnam war pictures of the girl in Vietnam running down the road with her skin on fire from Napalm? Or the Vietnamese officer point blank executing another man? Or hell even pictures of WWII vets hanging on barbed wire?

War is being whitewashed for profit. More so than ever. Before the 60s it was tough to get the truth out about what lies really did. But post the 70s the gov't learned it's lesson: lie, cover up, and kill with impunity.

This is information bucko. And the only reason to hide it is to cover up crimes and collusion to commit crimes. And teh farking press aint doing it's job. So people like manning have to.
 
2013-08-21 10:26:42 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Have you seen Collateral Murder (a Manning video release)?


I've seen "Collateral Murder" (one of the shiattiest titles possible; whoever came up with that bit of shameless editorializing should be ashamed). It shows a door gunner going about his job as normal doing absolutely nothing wrong.

You know who I can tell hasn't seen it? Most of the pro-Wikileaks people claiming that it shows some kind of war crime taking place. The ones who have seen it at generally have the sense not to make stupid claims like that - they instead focus on other irrelevant details like how one of the guys laughs at some point.
 
2013-08-21 10:29:21 PM  
vygramul: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your viewpoint is rigid. And therefore flawed. Morality and ethics are situational and fluid. And messy and complex. You have a formula. It lacks nuance and therefore validity.

Morality may be fluid, but like molasses, not like quicksilver. You don't get to declare something ok just because you like it. Otherwise, morality and ethics are meaningless. In fact, if it always matches your liking, it's probably anything but morality and ethics.

I don't like it. It's necessary. And your argument is recursive and therefore null.

In light of circumstances, Manning is a farking hero. A beacon of light. A siren call to those that are victims of abuse of power to do something. Even if that something isn't perfect.

I see, imperfection is only ok if you're betraying a trust, but not ok in any other circumstance. Got it.

Wut? No, srsly, wut?

If I knew right now that my own sister died in a terrorist IED attack DIRECTLY because of Manning's actions, I would want him dead. By court order or otherwise. I know that about myself. But it still would not change the fact that at the end of the day I also know it's only through the actions of Mannings that thousands of sisters/brothers/loved ones will be saved.

Yeah - I'm sure that some of the same people in this thread who can't find any way how Manning's release of secret information could possibly harm someone would rush to subscribe that things have changed and that thousands of lives were saved by Manning's actions. Right.

See my point above. Subversion of governments is only possible in a democracy when the the objective of that gov't is deception. He's opened a door and shed some light. And like I said above, the whitewashing of war has grown to great to ignore; it's causes, it's effects, it's lying fark politicians who support it for corporate greed. Just rolling over and taking by saying one man's act wasn't good enough for you is cowardice at it's worst.

We've grown up with the BS talk of the 'awful price of war'. It's time to stop paying the 'awful price' of lies to justify war. Maybe by any means necessary.

That horrible cost should have prevented the vote for that war. I have less respect for people like Rockefeller, who said he didn't understand the justification and voted for it anyway, than politicians who were convinced it was the right thing to do.

Um. OK. So I guess the answer is what? Hire smart politicians who will be tough enough to stop all the corporate greed and institutionalized lies? I'm all for it! Til then, leak til they bleed the truth for all to see.
 
2013-08-21 10:49:47 PM  

Biological Ali: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Have you seen Collateral Murder (a Manning video release)?

I've seen "Collateral Murder" (one of the shiattiest titles possible; whoever came up with that bit of shameless editorializing should be ashamed). It shows a door gunner going about his job as normal doing absolutely nothing wrong.

You know who I can tell hasn't seen it? Most of the pro-Wikileaks people claiming that it shows some kind of war crime taking place. The ones who have seen it at generally have the sense not to make stupid claims like that - they instead focus on other irrelevant details like how one of the guys laughs at some point.


Your poor reading comprehension and inability to grasp basic concepts is telling. Where did I say "war crime" or even say shiat about the soldiers?? Point was, and still is, all this shiat is happening because of a lie, told by politicians, to create a war, to support corporate cronies. And we're not supposed to see any of the fallout because that just might shock enough people (like it has in past wars) to motherfarking think twice about letting it happen again, or stop it, or consider the reasons. And then god forbid, actually think about starting to remove money from politics.

It's links in a chain doofus. And you want to keep cutting the chain because one of the links isn't good enough for you.
 
2013-08-21 11:03:54 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your poor reading comprehension and inability to grasp basic concepts is telling. Where did I say "war crime" or even say shiat about the soldiers??


So, what exactly did you mean when you said the following:

And the only reason to hide it is to cover up crimes and collusion to commit crimes.

What "crimes" or "collusion to commit crimes" would be "covered up" if door gunner footage like that wasn't made public?

If you aren't making that assertion, then you need work on properly defining your arguments, and making sure your eventual claims link back to your initial statements in a way that makes sense and is intelligible to others.
 
2013-08-21 11:14:18 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-08-21 11:16:59 PM  

Biological Ali: It shows a door gunner going about his job as normal doing absolutely nothing wrong murdering innocent civilians including reporters for Reuters, all while cracking jokes about it.


On the morning of July 12, 2007, the crews of two United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters observed a gathering of men near an open air section of Baghdad from a distance of up to 800 meters.[7][19] The crews estimated that group was made up of twenty men.[23] This group included two members of staff from the Reuters news service, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh.[19][24][25][26][27] While the two were carrying media cards, identifying themselves as journalists, an Army investigation states that they were not wearing distinctive clothing identifying themselves as such.[28] The helicopter crews mistook the photographic equipment carried by Chmagh and Noor-eldeen for weapons.[29]

A crew member reported seeing "five to six individuals with AK-47s" and requested authorization to engage.[19] The men then became obscured behind a building.[19] Once some men became visible again, both helicopters strafed a group of around ten men with 30 mm rounds.[18][19][30] Several men were killed, including Noor-Eldeen, and others wounded, including Chmagh.[7][19][25]

The wounded Chmagh was crawling on the ground,[25][31] when a van appeared at the scene.[19][25][31] In the van was Saleh Mutashar, taking his two children age nine and six to visit his brother.[32] They saw an injured man lying on the street.[33] The van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle.[9] Mutashar said to "take him to [a] hospital".[33] In the helicopter, the crew saw unarmed[25] men attempted to carry Chmagh into the van.[19][25][31] The watching helicopter crews requested permission to engage, stating "... looks like [the men] possibly uh, picking up bodies and weapons" from the scene,[34] and after repeating their request by "Let me engage" and "Come on, let us shoot!",[35][36][37][38][39] received permission to open fire on the van and its occupants.[19][25][31] From the 30 mm fire shot at the van, sitting in the front seat, both children were wounded but survived.[19][25][31] Chmagh was killed[19][25][31] along with the children's father.[33] Sajad Mutashar, one of the surviving children later told a reporter: "We were coming back and we saw an injured man
 
2013-08-21 11:17:47 PM  

Biological Ali: What "crimes" or "collusion to commit crimes" would be "covered up" if door gunner footage like that wasn't made public?


The murder of innocent civilians.
 
2013-08-21 11:25:15 PM  

BullBearMS: The murder of innocent civilians.


I can put up with a lot for the sake of spirited argument, even when arguing against people who I suspect not to be entirely sincere, but this is just a bit too much. You can't actually expect me to believe that you genuinely don't know what "murder" means.
 
2013-08-21 11:36:39 PM  
Manning violated his oath. Period.
His reason are not relevant.
So.............Bye!
 
2013-08-21 11:42:49 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: vygramul: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Your viewpoint is rigid. And therefore flawed. Morality and ethics are situational and fluid. And messy and complex. You have a formula. It lacks nuance and therefore validity.

Morality may be fluid, but like molasses, not like quicksilver. You don't get to declare something ok just because you like it. Otherwise, morality and ethics are meaningless. In fact, if it always matches your liking, it's probably anything but morality and ethics.

I don't like it. It's necessary. And your argument is recursive and therefore null.


I don't think you understand what recursive arguments are.

In light of circumstances, Manning is a farking hero. A beacon of light. A siren call to those that are victims of abuse of power to do something. Even if that something isn't perfect.

I see, imperfection is only ok if you're betraying a trust, but not ok in any other circumstance. Got it.

Wut? No, srsly, wut?


I am not surprised you didn't follow your own argument.

If I knew right now that my own sister died in a terrorist IED attack DIRECTLY because of Manning's actions, I would want him dead. By court order or otherwise. I know that about myself. But it still would not change the fact that at the end of the day I also know it's only through the actions of Mannings that thousands of sisters/brothers/loved ones will be saved.

Yeah - I'm sure that some of the same people in this thread who can't find any way how Manning's release of secret information could possibly harm someone would rush to subscribe that things have changed and that thousands of lives were saved by Manning's actions. Right.

See my point above. Subversion of governments is only possible in a democracy when the the objective of that gov't is deception. He's opened a door and shed some light.


And that saved thousands of lives?

Please. You can't even begin to support that. Nor have you tried, I've noticed.
 
2013-08-21 11:46:50 PM  

Biological Ali: BullBearMS: The murder of innocent civilians.

I can put up with a lot for the sake of spirited argument, even when arguing against people who I suspect not to be entirely sincere, but this is just a bit too much. You can't actually expect me to believe that you genuinely don't know what "murder" means.


It's a typical position tactic where you stake out an extreme position in the belief that the center moves based on the aggregate "pull" of the arguments. If you advocate moving one step to the left, they won't move but half an inch. Advocate moving a mile, and you might get the one step you secretly want anyway.
 
2013-08-21 11:56:20 PM  

vygramul: It's a typical position tactic where you stake out an extreme position in the belief that the center moves based on the aggregate "pull" of the arguments. If you advocate moving one step to the left, they won't move but half an inch. Advocate moving a mile, and you might get the one step you secretly want anyway.


True, that kind of thinking would explain many of these comically extreme remarks. All the same, I find people who misuse the term "murder" in this context to be almost as loathsome as the douchebags protesting outside abortion clinics. Not only do they both use terms like "murder" incorrectly, they're alike in other ways as well - most notably in their apparent beliefs that appeals to emotion and displays of context-free graphic imagery are an acceptable substitute for rational discussion.
 
2013-08-22 12:01:25 AM  

Biological Ali: You can't actually expect me to believe that you genuinely don't know what "murder" means.


Killing innocent civilians is murder and a war crime.

It's not really a difficult concept.

Even for an Obama shill desperate to make excuses for his bad behavior.
 
2013-08-22 12:22:20 AM  
It's always interesting to read how prior to WW2 so many Americans were heavily pro-fascist and thrilled about the fantastic authoritianism of Hitler and Mussolini.

And here are their descendants, applauding the imprisonment of a whistleblower.

Your country has a rotten, jackboot-licking core. Such a shame.
 
2013-08-22 12:27:53 AM  

BullBearMS: Biological Ali: You can't actually expect me to believe that you genuinely don't know what "murder" means.

Killing innocent civilians is murder and a war crime.

It's not really a difficult concept.

Even for an Obama shill desperate to make excuses for his bad behavior.


I'm sorry - this is the point at which I can no longer suspend my disbelief. I just have too hard a time believing that you actually feel, unironically, that the unintended deaths of civilians during a legitimate military action as "murder". If you want any more serious responses, you'll have to do a better job pretending than that - either dial the rhetoric down a notch, or put more some feeling into it.

The other option, of course, is to drop the serious pretense altogether and just straight up post your comments as jokes. You're already halfway there - accusing somebody of being an "Obama shill desperate to make excuses for his bad behavior" while discussing an incident that happened in 2007 was definitely chuckle-worthy.
 
Displayed 50 of 422 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report