So there weren’t top secret documents? That amazes me – just because just about everything is. So which parts of this mess are the worse that Abu Ghriab ones?
It’s good that there is some attention being paid, even if it is in Germany, instead of here.
It would still be murder and thus a war crime even if there were no children in the van. The original targets were fired on again while ‘hors de combat’ and trying to crawl to cover, while a civilian bystander who stopped to try and evacuate them was targeted and killed. That is more than ‘tragic and sad’ it’s criminal, just like Abu Ghraib.
The rest of the documents were just a minor embarrassment, but for that the leaker gets tortured and imprisoned and then everything goes on as “normal”. That’s one morally bankrupt nation you’ve got there, USA.
4 Likes
Described in the link above are, among other things, U.S. forces killing reporters, U.S. forces bombing a village in Yemen, killing scores of women and children and making sure the Yemen government takes responsibility for it, Hillar Clinton ordering State Dept. personnel to spy on UN reps (a crime, fwiw), and revealing lies by the U.S. about civilian casualties in Iraq, which forced the Iraqi government to insist to the Obama administration that if U.S. forces were to remain, they’d have to be subject to Iraqi courts if they broke the law. Obama wanted to keep U.S. forces there past the deadline set by the Bush administration, but this Wikileaks inspired demand killed the deal. So, despite your bad reaction to Assange, he and Manning are more responsible for getting us out of Iraq than Obama (who wanted us to remain there).
Again, whether or not the messenger is smarmy or troubled is microscopically important compared to the secret lies, crimes, and injustices they revealed. You really should check out the link.
5 Likes
They were classified. They were less secret than what Daniel Ellsberg released. And I think killing dozens of women and children and covering it up is as bad or worse than Abu Ghriab.
I think protecting the Bush administration from investigations into their criminal torture program is as bad as Abu Ghriab. They’re at least accessories after the fact on that one.
4 Likes
Well, why don’t you go martyr yourself and show us all how to do it correctly?
1 Like
Yes. Who really knows their true motivations for doing the things they do? I’m sure there is truth in Manning’s initial statement, where he made it clear this was an act of conscience, and there is also truth in this final statement. We are complex creatures, and the real motivations for our actions are also complex. Does it make what Manning did any less heroic and risky?
If you run into a burning building to save a child, does it matter that you would like to be seen as a hero afterwards? I bet the kid’s parents wouldn’t give a crap.
1 Like
I’m not sure what your point was then. Its been made abundantly clear that his original actions didn’t cause any real damage. Its not clear how his closing statement can cause “more damage” than something that didn’t cause any damage.
1 Like
No. Its been made abundantly clear that the leaks didn’t cause any damage, only lots of embarrassment. Which all just shows the real reasons for the lack of transparency in government: its not to “save lives” or “protect the homeland” or any other such Orwellian garbage. Its to save the powerful from embarrassment, criticism and potentially losing their jobs or, in a better world, being brought up on criminal charges for their illegal acts.
3 Likes
The prosecutor absolutely did go after Manning for “Aiding the Enemy.” He was acquitted on that charge by the JUDGE.
Every reason you offered as to why Manning was not convicted of aiding the enemy is predicated on the notion that he was not charged with that offense.
He categorically was, but the evidence did not support the charge.
None of this is hypothetical, and it’s not just possible, it’s actual and confirmed.
2 Likes
“Because I believe that charge could have led to Manning’s execution, something that probably no one would have been happy about;”
I disagree. If anyone had really been harmed or endangered by Manning, plenty of people would be willing to execute him. I frightening number of people are not shy at all about their support of the death penalty.
“Doing so would likely have included information about the soldiers who had been injured or killed because of it and create even further issues with the families of those soldiers.”
Prosecutors aren’t shy about bringing people to justice when they think it’s necessary, even when it involves painful memories for survivors or their family members. Some survivors & their family demand it.
The best explanation seems to be that Manning was really turning secrets over to an important enemy of the US govt, and that enemy is the American people. The only people harmed were the politicians and appointees whose lies or crimes were exposed, because they might get voted out next cycle, or fired or jailed. (I hope.)
2 Likes
There used to be an anti-racist zine (and later website) called “Race Traitor.” You can still find some articles or issues online. Their motto was “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” I keep thinking about that when people talking about Manning.
Manning had a choice to remain loyal to the military and the current administration, which he saw covering up massive crimes, or he could turn against the military and the current administration out of loyalty to humanity. I’m glad he made that choice.
3 Likes
“What I heard was the backwash of adrenaline that happens when you are alive when you thought a moment ago that you would be blasted into a million bloody, painful pieces.”
Blown to a million bloody pieces by a tv camera held by a Reuters reporter? Or by the dangerous man who stopped to help the wounded?
“men who were walking with other men who were carrying RPGs,”
From what I heard, the men in the helicopter saw a tv camera and thought it was some kind of weapon like an RPG. Were any RPGs or weapons actually found on the scene?
2 Likes
No, blown to pieces by the man carrying the RPG, which were not actually cameras. I watched the video so long ago I cannot remember the part of those shot afterwards. I do know that the first version I saw was highly edited. The unedited (i.e., true) version painted a much different and less-damning picture of the shooting of the armed men and the journalists with them. It might be worth checking out the full video to see if there is anything left out of the edited one that would explain why the helicopter fired on the people in the street.
Personally, I’m done talking about this. It’s all Monday-morning quarterbacking from the comfort of our homes. If any of you feel you would do better than the soldiers, please feel free to enlist today.
I’m out.
And thus leaves the military apologist, their parting shot (paraphrased):
“If you’re not brave enough to go kill Afghans, then your opinion about Bradley Manning doesn’t count.”
2 Likes
It’s good that there is some attention being paid, even if it is in Germany, instead of here.
It’s worldwide protests, including the United States. I just gave Germany’s 40 cities as an example.
1 Like
I’ll reiterate what Jerwin wrote, with a further assertion that there were absolutely no “top secret” documents in Manning’s leaks. Not that it should really matter: Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers release was all top secret docs, and he’s a national hero.
2 Likes
there is no doubt that Manning did not adhere to the rules and standards of the job he chose to
And, thank God for that. The exposure of war crimes… The exposure of governmental, quasi-governmental and military overreach/corruption trump your beloved standards and practices.
Look, if Manning had exposed Abu Ghraib or similar wrongdoing I would think this had more to do with patriotism, conscience and honor (and no, the highly edited video of the journalists being killed does not qualify in my mind as anything but a sad result of walking with heavily armed men in a war zone.)
You have not properly researched (or been properly briefed) on the “collateral murder” video.
the highly edited video
First of all, many claim that the full version video was edited or hidden by Wikileaks, but that’s a lie. The full version was released by Wikileaks in its entirety along with the short version at the same time on the same damn web page. The long version was NOT edited by Wikileaks and was shared just as it came to them via the leak.
heavily armed men
You mean some armed escorts that regularly travel with journalists (including Americans) for their protection against insurgents? And, the so-called RPG that wasn’t really fired?
I’ve watched the fuller version many times before and never see anything that appears to be an RPG in the video. As the camera hangs off the corner of the building, it looks like a zoom lens camera and one can even see the lens reflect light. (The Canon brand zoom lens in question was found on the scene, BTW)
You can even hear on the audio where a soldier blurts that someone shot the so-called RPG (camera), but there’s very clearly no smoke whatsoever coming from the camera nor the surrounding area. Sounds like a trigger-happy person is making any excuse to fire upon them. Have you ever seen an RPG that doesn’t emit smoke? Right, you haven’t.
But, what anyone can also see very clearly (and is very DAMNING) is where the group casually walks in plain sight within the middle of the street (and this is even after one of them clearly points out the Apache helicopter earlier in the video and many look straight at it).
I mean, look at this full version video at 1:43
Screenshot:
(Imgur: The magic of the Internet)
Video:
Can you tell me with even a remotely straight face this is somehow evasive behavior?
They are fucking casually strolling in plain view of an Apache helicopter without aiming anything at it, taking cover, running, etc. They’re just standing and walking around in the middle of the street in broad daylight in front of an Apache helicopter in clear view. No running. No taking cover…
Is that the behavior of insurgents? Much less ones that just supposedly shot at an Apache helicopter with an RPG in broad daylight? It’s clearly not.
They are acting like people who have no fear of being shot unprovoked by U.S. forces. You know, just like ANY journalists would do with an armed escort?
More on the RPG?
Ethan McCord is the name of soldier who says he found an RPG on the scene. Since it’s never shown in the video, it’s extremely debatable how the RPG may have gotten there before he arrived.
First of all, he wasn’t the first soldier on the scene and it could have very well been planted there by another U.S. soldier after reports of kids and civilian adults being injured and killed already came through (to cover their asses).
If you (or anyone else here wants to) deny that planting weapons in these situations ever happens, then you need to educate yourself. It’s called “drop-weapons”, look into it. Don’t blame me for suspecting this, blame the corrupt soldiers that use drop-weapons on a regular basis.
Also, the RPG he found may have been left by insurgents earlier at the scene (but I’ll admit that’s less likely). Either way, the evidence that this specific group that was fired upon by the Apache had an RPG is flimsy at best. And, if you watch the fuller video, no one shoots an RPG at the helicopter or anyone else.
What’s also odd, is Ethan only speaks of one RPG, but then later an internal military “investigator” said there was two RPGs, one loaded, etc. – I guess they’ll just keep adding more weapons as time goes on?
Speaking of Ethan McCord… While he did state (after finding that possible drop-weapon RPG) that the initial attack was OK, he also stated that the attack on the van that injured the two children was WRONG.
That’s one of many reasons why many focus on the second part of the attack on the van.
Ethan McCord is a soldier who was there who stated on the record that it was wrong, it was a mistake and it shouldn’t have happened. Ethan said warning shots should have been fired first on the van. He also said he was verbally abused by commanding officers for his efforts to help the children after finding them injured. How fucked up is that?
Civilians with kids in a van were driving to pick up family members when they stumbled upon an injured civilian in the road who asked to be taken to a hospital. For trying to help an injured civilian, the children and adult civilians in the van got injured and killed by trigger-happy war criminals (“Let me engage!”, "Come on, let us shoot!).
No weapons were found in the van after the people were massacred and there wasn’t any shown in the video. The injured civilian the people in the van were trying to help had no weapon or any other sign he was an insurgent, either.
Do you now understand the issue and why (at the very least) the attack on the van was WRONG?
(Like most of the rest of the world does?)
It’s really sick to see Americans who keep defending this attack and it only hurts our standing (and security) around the world. At the very least, Crazyhorse 18 never should have engaged that van the way they did, period. Instead of making excuses, the USA needs to apologize for this.
Or… I guess we can just keep persecuting patriotic whistleblowers instead, huh?
3 Likes
No, blown to pieces by the man carrying the RPG, which were not actually cameras.
Lies. The cameras were seen in the video and were found on the scene. The RPG that was later “found” on the scene was very likely a drop-weapon considering it’s never shown in the video and no RPG is shot at the Apache (or anyone else) at all in the fuller video (despite bullshit claims).
Also, even after clearly spotting the Apache, the journalists with their armed escort were casually standing and walking in the middle of a street in broad daylight just before they got slaughtered by trigger-happy U.S. forces.
watched the video so long ago I cannot remember the part of those shot afterwards
Convenient.
The unedited (i.e., true) version painted a much different and less-damning picture of the shooting of the armed men and the journalists with them.
No one was hiding the longer version from the public. Wikileaks shared it on the same page as the edited video.
much different and less-damning picture of the shooting of the armed men and the journalists with them.
Nope, that version is even WORSE.
Please Educate yourself.
It might be worth checking out the full video to see if there is anything left out of the edited one that would explain why the helicopter fired on the people in the street.
Right, insinuate there’s possibly blame on the victims driving children in a van to see their family. It was worth checking out and they were attacked completely unprovoked. No need for insinuations, you can be factual instead by watching the video, m’kay? How about watching the fuller video instead of conjecturing it’s the civilians fault next time?
If you’re referring to the journalists with their armed escort, you’ll see the same thing. They didn’t point any weapons at the Apache. They aren’t shown with RPGs. They are shown with cameras that were found on the scene. They weren’t running from the helicopter nor being remotely agressive when they were obliterated.
They weren’t “asking for it”, ok?
If any of you feel you would do better than the soldiers, please feel free to enlist today.
Wow, that was blatant ignorance…
Ethan McCord is a soldier who was there who stated on the record that the attack on the van was wrong, it was a mistake and it shouldn’t have happened. Ethan said warning shots should have been fired first on the van. He also said he was verbally abused by commanding officers for his efforts to help the children after finding them injured.
Feel free to educate yourself, Elagie, instead of wallowing in jingoistic ignorance.
It’s the patriot thing to do.
2 Likes
If you saw the full video of what happened, you’d realize there was no excessive force used by the police against Rodney King. The media just presented damning clips without the full context, and…
Wait, which authoritarian actions am I justifying here? Oh, that other thing, yeah, anyone who sees the full video will understand better and agree with me. Let’s assume anyone who doesn’t agree with me hasn’t seen the full video.
2 Likes
