It's too bad that Bradley Manning didn't torture and kill people instead of telling us about it

[votesparks]

If he would have, we would have been like, "Woah dude, you are awesome! Thank you for our freedom!"

[Autumn]

1. That's just about the truth.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

39. He'd have probably gotten a bunch of medals, too

[railsback]

2. Manning didn't even know what he was telling anybody

He was just dumping to Lady GaGa.

[think]

3. Keep telling yourself that....

[railsback]

5. Why would I have to 'keep telling myself that..'

HE told me that.

[Luminous Animal]

8. No he did not.

[sabrina 1]

28. It's always best when you don't much about an issue, not to make definitive declarations about it.

Bradley Manning knew what he was releasing and gave it a lot of thought before doing so. He WAS in a position to release material that could have been damaging to the troops, but he did not do so. He released material that was damaging to Bush/Cheney.

Is there some reason why any Democrat might want to protect Bush/Cheney?

Manning is a hero.

[railsback]

37. Yeah, well, he wrote that during his court proceedings

No mention of that in his endless chat logs while committing the crime.

[sabrina 1]

38. Yes, there was mention of what he did, and why he did it in the chat logs. .

In fact he explained how he was able to read so much data, in detail. He also knew what he was releasing by classification. He's a smart man, far smarter than those who are so busy trying to hide their crimes that they are abusing their power to try to silence those willing to tell the truth.

Like I said, when you are not informed about a subject, it's to wait until you are before making definitive statements about it.

[Hydra]

4. Killing the shit out of people to bring them democracy~!

How could Bradley have gone so wrong as to try and stop that!


Shouldn't need this, but do these days:

[MADem]

6. Well, Lynndie England, Charles Graner, et. al. weren't given the "awesome" treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England

She cooperated, so she ended up with a three year sentence; ended up serving a year and a half or so, but she'd been confined for over a year before she went to trial.

The boyfriend got ten years, but ended up serving six and change. He is still on parole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Graner Ironically, he ended up marrying the OTHER female soldier who was implicated in that shameful episode.

[Th1onein]

10. And Manning? You really think he's going to get as little as them?

Come on, now. Let's bet something on it, shall we?

[MADem]

11. Of course not. I think he'll get twenty, and do half that if he behaves.

A bit less if you take off time served.

And it's silly to make "bets" with anonymous people on the internet--I don't need a "bet" to make a guess, which I've done in my subject line.

If I am wrong, it's no biggie. I was never an Army JAG, and I can't get into the head of this judge and figure out what she's going to decide. Nor can anyone else, unless they're her.

[Th1onein]

12. I agree that it's always "silly" to make a bet you're not likely to win. And you're not.

And to argue that the torturers of Abu Graib were not treated well is bullshit. Considering what they did to their victims, I think that they were treated royally. Compared that to what their going to give Manning? NOT justice; NOT punishment fitting the crime. NO fucking way.

[MADem]

13. I can wait for the outcome. You've already decided that it's "Off with his head."

What will you do if your wish, errrrr, prediction...does not come true?

And speaking of predictions, you haven't made one. You are simply saying he isn't going to be treated royally, it's not justice, not punishment fitting the crime, etc.

Throw down--how many years is he going to do? Forty? Fifty? A hundred or more?

[Th1onein]

18. Don't be rude to me, MADem.

It's not necessary and it's uncalled for.

IF Manning gets twenty years, that's NOT justice and NOT punishment fitting the crime.

I think he'll get more than twenty though. If we're comparing punishments, however, he should sure as hell get less than the torturers.

[MADem]

21. I'm not being rude. Talk about rude, you're the one that snarked about

"bet you're not going to win," (is that your way to POLITELY goad and bait?) so all I was asking is that you do what I did -- either put up or forever hold your peace.

I came right out and told you what I thought when you asked. You got snide in response and then avoided giving me a direct reply--and you're claiming that I am being 'rude?' That's a bit rich, frankly.

FWIW, we aren't "comparing punishments." Follow the thread trajectory, and to whom I was replying (that would be the OP), and the context of my remarks. The OP said that if Manning was a "torturer," he'd be greeted as "awesome," and all I was doing was correcting that misapprehension by providing two very famous examples who were NOT greeted as "awesome."

I wasn't "comparing" a doggone thing, either. In fact, YOU'RE the one who introduced a comparison (along with an attempt to put words in my mouth, words I never uttered or even suggested) with this post:

And Manning? You really think he's going to get as little as them?
Come on, now. Let's bet something on it, shall we?

To which I responded, "Of course not."

You dish it out with far more alacrity than you seem to be able to take it. That said, there's a huge variation in "more than twenty" and I think you need to match your tough talking words with a bit more precision. How many more than twenty? Five years more? Ten? Fifty years more?

More than twenty could be twenty years and a day. I think you need to get a bit more specific if you want to remain credible, particularly since you were the one boasting about "bets" that I am going to lose upthread!

[Th1onein]

27. I'm not going to bother with you anymore. Read what you want to in my posts.

You're incorrect.

And, now, you're being ignored.

[MADem]

31. Ah, so you're not going to give me a real number, then?

After all that posturing and snarking at me that I was "going to lose" a bet you wanted me to make? Why am I not surprised?

You can dish it out real good, you just can't take it.

Your conduct in this little exchange is extremely illustrative. I hope anyone else who gets bullied or pushed around by you takes a lesson from it in how to deal with you. You're good at bluster, teasing and snark, certainly, but your bravado falls apart if anyone defends themselves after you goad and bait them.

[LanternWaste]

61. I find it odd that you hold others to a higher standard of civility than you obviously hold yourself

I find it rather odd that you hold others to a much higher standard of civility than you obviously hold yourself to; yourself being guilty of the very sins you indicted MADem for...

[truedelphi]

57. Have you ever asked why those that perpetuated the system that allowed

For not only the entire philosophy of torture at Abu Gharib, but also saw to it that only Col. Janis Karpinsky and the low in rank service people were punished, while the top commanding officers directly over them lost nothing? Not even a day's R & R?

From an old "Democracy Now" headline:
Tuesday, October 26, 2005 | HEADLINES
Col. Janis Karpinski, the Former Head of Abu Ghraib, Admits She Broke the Geneva Conventions But Says the Blame "Goes All the Way to The Top"

[MADem]

58. BGen Karpinski was demoted to Colonel, IIRC.

She was relieved of command of those prisons. She didn't go to jail. She retired with an honorable discharge, despite admitting she "broke the Geneva Conventions." She collects a hefty pension--between her retirement and her husband's active duty pay, she's a one percenter. She wrote a book and made some money from that. She disobeyed a lawful order and was busted for shoplifting, that's why she was demoted.

Here's the bottom line about that whole mess--you're in charge, you take the hit. She didn't memorialize her concerns in a way that left no ambiguity, and she had issues of her own that impacted her conduct in her most senior rank, which also didn't make her a good 'witness to the truth.' It's unfortunate, but that's life. Anyone who plays that game needs to be like Caesar's wife. It's also bad news when the military put a hands-off hotelier in charge of prisons. There should have been better oversight of the entire process by those in charge, but, as we know, there wasn't. Again, unfortunate, but you're not unringing that bell or deflecting from Manning's own problems by complaining about it.

I will subscribe to the "Two wrongs don't make a right" school. Manning had options--one was to take a discharge and complain in public as a member of the antiwar movement. Instead, he violated his oath, stole bulk amounts of classified material, including gossipy State cables that had absolutely NOTHING to do with his reservations, gave it to Assange for publication, committed assault upon the person of his supervisor, and in general acted like a dumbass.

I know a guy whose career ended because he gundecked a classified material control report that didn't involve anything higher than "CONFIDENTIAL." The military doesn't play when it comes to this kind of thing--anyone who wants to whistleblow has to either do it responsibly (and giving reams of shit to "Wikileaks" without reading it isn't the way to do that) or take the hit when they get caught.

[truedelphi]

59. Since you yourself used the expression "two wrongs" I guess I am now entitled

To look at the situation from the aspect of "morality." possibly a word that will have to be scrubbed from our lexicon, just as Feinstein's attack on the US Senate's ethic code (through re-writing it) basically destroyed the notion of conflict of interest.

i see no morality in the system of US involvement of going to war against the nation of Iraq, enslaving its people in prisons, (some were even children), and then applying torture.

I see total moral justification for what Manning did. As well as what Binney, Tom Drake and Snowden did.

[MADem]

60. No "morality" about it.

Two wrongs do not make a right. That's just math, not morality.

You're trying to say that, if I get mugged by someone, that gives you the "right" to go mug my mugger because of a moral imperative.

It doesn't. We have a number of different situations here, and they all involve dereliction of duty. Bush, his "crew" in country, Karpinski, Manning, they are all a bunch of fuckups who disregarded their oaths and their responsibilities. Some will be held more accountable than others, at least immediately, but I wager the long lens of history will not be kind to the ones who escape accountability in the near term.

Manning wasn't drafted. He chose that work. He knew what it was about. He might not have liked his assignment, his location, his co-workers, but he signed up to do the damn job, not sun himself at Club Med and drink mojitos at night. He is a smart boy. He signed documents that made promises to his government in exchange for an enlistment contract, pay and bonuses. He took oaths where he agreed to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over him. If he couldn't deal, lucky him, he HAD an out without even having to go the "conscientious" route --one that isn't available to people anymore thanks to the long overdue repeal of DADT. He didn't take that route. Instead, in a fit of major pique, he belted his supervisor and gave reams of unvetted stuff to Assange.

I have no sympathy for him. For someone who has to be reasonably intelligent in order to get the assignment he got, that child had no damn common sense or maturity. I'd give him a ten to twenty sentence and let him out early on probation if he behaved. I wouldn't let him dance off to fame and a book deal--he needs to understand that actions while in uniform have consequences. I think he's starting to get that during his time in confinement.

[truedelphi]

62. I think that anyone who has any inkling

o f philosophy would be upset with your statements.

First of all, Manning did nothing wrong. Period. So there is really no "two wrongs don't make a right" about it.

And even if there were two wrongs - then morality is being discussed. Correct behavior vs. wrong behavior is indeed a discussion of morality. Not math - morality.
Again, period.

Then let's look at everything about the situation you are ignoring.

Bradley Manning is possibly responsible for the fact that we are no longer in Iraq. On account of how this information which he saw being released to Wikileaks, there was an actual change in popular Iraqi sentiment, as the Iraqi government would no longer allow American service people and contractors to have immunity.

That change in sentiment ended up in the troops being brought home.

Among the consequential bits of information that he transmitted to WL

The Apache helicopter incident showed the US service people killing 12 people. Then rescuers were killed.
This ended up being several separate war crimes.

Section 491 of the Field Manual:
Every violation of the law of war is a war crime

Common article three of the Geneva Convention states that the wounded must be cared for, and
no one showing care or concern for wounded is to be treated with disrespect.

Well, killing rescuers is, after all, a sign of disrespect.

A soldier is not supposed to obey an illegal order. And also, a soldier has a responsibility to see to it that illegalities are brought to light. For a soldier to fail to do so is also illegal. (Just as a civilian who doesn't report a murder would be guilty of an illegal act.l)


Everything you and others keep saying that Manning should do, he did. He went up the chain of command. They refused to do anything.

Let me repeat that: they refused to do anything. If he wanted to be a soldier in legal standing, he had to make sure that he got the information out.

The number one reason that our nation, together with Russia, France and Great Britain, held the trials at Nuremberg was to create this body of law, that states that an individual in uniform cannot simply state that "I was following orders."

The information contained in the documents or data that Manning released to Wikileaks is information that absolutely needed exposure, and that in fact was of such a serious nature that any service person including Manning has the legal obligation to expose. What violations of law are more terrible than war crimes?

It is important when examining all of this to remember the President's own statement that was his response to the Bradley manning and his upcoming trial: "This is a nation of law."

So ask yourself these questions:
1) how is it that President Obama oversees the situation known as Guantanamo? And the US military at Guantanamo was lashed out by the UN as having been the scene of torture, when prisoners there were victims of force feeding. Yes, the UN viewed this situation as torture (force feeding of prisoners is torture. Period.)

2) Since individuals who have military authority are obliged by an actual section of the military code to see to it that those who have created or participated in illegal actions would then be charged with appropriate violations and indicted and taken to trial, when Obama failed as the Chief Executive of the Armed Forces to see to it that his predecessor George W Bush, and also Dick Cheney, who took the nation to war, for a purposes that were outright falsehood and lies, with Cheney also being guilty of the crime of outing a CIA agent, when that agent's husband exposed the "yellow cake" not being in existence in Iraq, and since Obama failed to do any of that, violating the Section 491 of the Field Code, then Obama is derelict for not having brought these people to trial!

####
Citation: A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' The reasons for war are not supposed to be the purview of soldiers in the field. One should not take this issue lightly, just as one should not take the decision to follow an illegal order lightly.

[MADem]

63. You play the "compare and contrast" game, and overlay a moral imperative upon it,

as though I MUST consider two completely disparate events as somehow equivalent on the basis of a philosophical argument; that is just not supportable.

That's like saying to me that because I ate the steak, and mashed potatoes, I HAVE to eat the dessert, otherwise I can't properly judge the flavor and texture of the main course because I didn't indulge in that other course.

Sorry, no sale.

As for your Unlawful Orders canard, striking a superior officer or enlisted supervisor is never, ever mitigated. Ever. So poof goes that excuse into the ether. Stealing classified military property and transferring it to a foreign national is NEVER "forgivable."

The former BGen's shortcomings I've already addressed, so I won't repeat them.

Your arguments just have no weight. You want to believe, but your beliefs are not consonant with the oath that Manning took and swore to uphold. He knew the penalties, too--if I had to guess, I'd say he plotted the path of his own destruction with knowledge aforethought. He may have been depressed and suicidal at the time, and felt like his life didn't matter.

That's usually why people do stuff as utterly stupid as what he did.

[truedelphi]

67. If Manning hit a woman soldier or officer

In the face, that is a separate matter for which he should be charged.

In fact, he probably was charged for the matter.

Most people don't realize that he was charged with 21 or 22 counts, and pre-trial, he pled guilty to the majority of them. There was a trial only because the Obama Administration wanted him to go down for espionage. And that was the legal charge that didn't stick. The trial was a waste of taxpayer money.

As for the rest of my remarks, I stand by them.

[MADem]

68. What do you mean, "if?" He DID. And he stole classified material and transferred it

to unauthorized personnel.

You can stand by your remarks all you'd like, it doesn't change the facts of Manning's offenses.

The reason that he HAD to be tried (since you don't take the point) is that any time the death penalty is on the table, the accused is not ALLOWED to plea out. There is an absolute insistence that the wheels of justice go through their full grind.

The only people surprised about how this trial has progressed are the outsiders. Manning knew what he was getting--he has a crack legal team, he opted for a "judge only" trial, and he probably has a better idea of his eventual sentence than most pundits.

[sabrina 1]

32. They tortured people. Manning reported torture. Big difference.

Not in the same category at all. And the top torturers received medals of honor. Which told us a lot about where we are in this country. The others, the most guilty, are now obscenely wealthy 'elder statesmen'. Invited to the WH to be praised for their 'service to the country'.

The whole mess is disgusting.

[MADem]

34. I was responding, with specificity, to the OP's assertion that torturers are greeted as

"awesome" with two specific examples to the contrary.

Which "top torturers" received "Medals of Honor?"

Most recipients of that award are either dead, or grievously wounded in combat. So I'd really like a few names of "top torturers" who "received Medals of Honor" because I think your "facts" are way out of order.

I'm going to make it easy for you, too--here are the lists, with photos, of the servicemembers who were awarded the MoH post-Vietnam, so you'll find all the Iraq/Afghanistan awardees there. Please point out the torturers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-Vietnam_Medal_of_Honor_recipients

Is the late Robert Miller a torturer? He diverted the Taliban so his fellow servicemembers could escape and survive. How about Dakota Meyer, who rescued 36 people--23 of them Afghan allies--from certain death; is he a torturer?

How about the late Marine Corporal Jason Dunham, the late Army Spc. Ross McGinniss and the late Navy Petty Officer Mike Mansoor? They jumped on GRENADES to save the lives of their fellow servicemembers, and died in the process. Are they torturers?


You have the list of MoH awardees I have provided to you; now tell us--which ones are "torturers?" If you can't find any, and I don't think you can, you need to retract that statement you made. It is offensive in the extreme to those who have served in uniform. It's even more offensive to their families.

[sabrina 1]

35. I intended to say 'the Medal of Freedom'. It was given to people like Bremer, eg.

Others, like Gen Sanchez who was the one in charge of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib and gave the go ahead for some of the torture techniques, was honored by the Bush administration for his 'work' in Iraq, AFTER his role in the torture scandal was already known.

I see now why you mentioned England and her boyfriend, who deserved prison time, but were used as scapegoats due their low status.

But those who reported it, like Kevin Benderman and Bradley Manning get prison. This is wrong, something has gone very wrong in this country when those who do their duty are punished and the criminals who commit war crimes are rewarded.

[Dragonfli]

56. The rare scapegoat convictions happened before Obama promised the CIA

That their professional torturers would not have to fear prosecution in 2009 when he classified torture as "mistakes made" "in good faith" and praised them for their good work. Since then torture officially became mistakes and not crimes and no longer prosecutable.

[randome]

7. Yes. How dare he join the military and then protest that soldiers killed people.

His 'protest'? Stealing as many classified documents he could get his hands on and dumping the whole batch into the hands of Wikileaks.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Zorra]

22. You really should watch this. Your heroes that Bradley fingered, in real life action!

Enjoy! Would you like some popcorn?

[jberryhill]

26. "that Bradley fingered"

And their names, again, were what?

[sabrina 1]

36. You don't know the names? Of the War Criminals?

[jberryhill]

41. The ones firing the shots in that video?

No. What are their names again?

[sabrina 1]

43. Who was president when these crimes were being committed on a regular basis in Iraq?

[jberryhill]

50. Was that a secret that Manning revealed?

Believe it or not, I knew that Bush had invaded Iraq before this video was released. It actually was not a secret.

[sabrina 1]

51. Yes, it was a secret the Government TRIED to keep by refusing for two years to release the video

that showed how those two journalists had been murdered. They also kept hidden from the American people the daily war crimes that took place on the orders of their government, against innocent people.

But since you were so informed, unlike a majority of the people, I am puzzled by your cavalier attitude towards it.

'Oh, we knew about them, so what'?? Whether you knew about them BEFORE the leaks or AFTER the leaks, the reaction of any decent society SHOULD be OUTRAGE.

I get the impression that the killing of children, torture etc is yawn-inducing to some people. Now that, thanks to Manning, we have actually witnessed that crime in action, it is stunning that anyone could try to simply brush it off. I see children being abused anywhere, and I am outraged. I think that is a normal reaction, especially when the perps try to cover it up.

People eg, often know that a crime has been committed, even have suspicions about who is responsible, but when nothing is being done about it, it requires more action on the part of those to WHOM IT MATTERS that criminals are getting away with their crimes.

Apparently even with proof now of the Crimes of the Bush gang in Iraq there are those who still don't care 'Oh, we knew that already'. Really? If you know about crimes, and do nothing about them, then it is obvious that someone else has to shout louder about them.

So thank you Bradley Manning for not yawning when you saw torture and murder going on.

He is a hero.

[jberryhill]

52. And yet you still don't care who the names of the shooters are

[sabrina 1]

53. Who ordered the shooters to fire on those people? Are you saying the same thing should

happen here that happened with Abu Ghraib, the lower echelon people should be made an example of to give the impression that justice is being done, while the top brass all the way to the WH, were honored with medals of freedom and promotions and never held accountable for their crimes?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. A crime was committed and recorded on film. Nothing has been done about it. There were victims, including two journalists, children, and relatives of those killed that day. We also learned that this was a common thing in how Bush's war was conducted, daily war crimes against the Iraqi people, who had nothing to do with 9/11 as the American were told.

Why did 'move forward' from those massive crimes but not from those who tried to let the American people know what was going on? Got any idea of why no one has been prosecuted yet for the lies and the ensuing crimes re the Iraq War?

[jberryhill]

54. Ah, George W. Bush's voice is clearly audible in the video giving that order

How could I have missed that.

[sabrina 1]

55. Warning!! Godwin's law about to be invoked! For those who object to learning from history only.

Nazis breaking down doors of Jews in Nazi Germany after receiving an order to do so.

Ah, Hitler's voice is clearly audible to those giving that order.

Yes, yes it certainly was as was determined during the Nuremberg trials.

So you blame the military for acting on the orders and policies of their CIC?

Interesting. .

So your position is that the pilots and their superiors alone are to blame for the War Crimes, while Bush, whose voice is never heard on these military operations, is blame free???

I'm struggling to understand your position on this. Bush, FYI, was the CIC of the military.

[Zorra]

44. Yeh, you know, like, turned over the evidence? Just because the MIC didn't prosecute them and

probably gave them medals, bonuses, and sweet penions for their war crimes doesn't mean they didn't commit war crimes.

I assume you do understand that the government knows who they are.

[sabrina 1]

33. ??? What are you talking about. He reported TORTURE. It was his duty to do so.

Whistle Blowers STEAL DOCUMENTS, when their superiors ignore the crimes they are trying to report. That is how Whistle Blowing works. That is what Ellsberg did eg.

I guess you haven't followed this case.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

40. War Crimes are Not only frowned upon by society in general, they are Illegal, too. (VIDEO)

The defenders of these murderous policies remind me of the clowns on teeVee...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do

Glenn Greenwald OWNS Totalitarians Over Snowden, Manning

[Th1onein]

9. Bingo! You said it!

Good point.

[Octafish]

14. Good point. The drone pilots laughed when they blasted kids and reporters.

Of course, we wouldn't know any of that without Manning as the Pentagon had refused Reuter's request for the video.

[MADem]

17. Drones don't have pilots. They have remote operators.

I think you're confusing drones with helos.

[randome]

19. And kids with reporters. I don't believe there were any kids involved in the Apache attack.

The soldiers asked for, and received, permission to fire, so I'm not sure what there is to blame them for.

Even Assange said it looked like one of them was carrying an RPG.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Octafish]

23. No. The kids were hurt in the follow-up attack.

Maybe the shooters thought they were rescue personnel.

Anyway, none of this would've happened if Bush hadn't lied America into invading an innocent country.

[sabrina 1]

47. There were two beautiful children who were left to die in the van, when those pilots shot their

father, driving his children somewhere that day, seeing someone wounded on the ground, he tried to help him. Against the Rules of War when someone is wounded, and someone tries to help them, those pilots opened fire, finishing off the wounded man and killing the man who tried to help, the father of the children, and riddling the van with bullets, nearly fatally wounding those innocent children.

They were rescued by two heroes, two US soldiers who took it upon themselves when they saw the children dying in the van.

Both of those soldiers have spoken publicly about the crimes they say, happened all the time, not just day, but on a regular basis.

A documentary has been made about that awful day which has been seen around the world. The film-makers found the children wanting to know what had happened to them. The two soldiers apologized to the family. The US never contacted them.

The little girl appeared to be traumatized and her scars were visible as were the little boy's.

But the biggest trauma for them was the loss of their father.

The mother and the uncle who has taken them in, told the film makers that the van was their only means of getting around. The father's income now gone, they are struggling to take care of the children and the mother. The US Govt didn't even offer them a new van. They have trouble getting the children to the doctors they still need, or to any kind of counseling, without a car.

The US Government has never contacted them, never compensated them for their huge losses, and no counseling has ever been provided for those little children.

According to a public statement from one of the one of the soldiers when asked why he did what he did, he said 'I didn't lose my soul'.

It was a shameful crime with untold numbers of victims, and according the hero, the soldier who rescued the children, those crimes against innnocent Iraqis took place every day. That one was just filmed.

I often think of those little children .... I wonder why this country does these awful things to innocent people. And I wonder why the American people allow their government to do it in their name.

The documentary has recorded the events of that day and what happened afterwards to the victims, for history.

Only in America has it not been widely distributed. We won't bother our beautiful minds with the fate of two beautiful children who mean nothing to those who claim to represent us and to 'fighting for our freedoms'.

They do not represent me.

[EX500rider]

73. "driving his children somewhere that day.."

I believe you mean driving his children around in the pitch dark at 2 AM in a war zone and in a city under curfew.

Generally at that time in Baghdad small groups of men sneaking around in the middle of the night with embedded reporters were insurgents.

If they are shot and a van screeches up to pick them up at 2am during curfew they are most likely insurgents also. Stupid insurgents without a baby sitter it sadly seems.

The van also had no red cross/crescent on the side.

[sabrina 1]

74. Are you serious?? Even the US Government hasn't tried to come up with such nonsense. The

killing of the Reuters employees took place during the MORNING.

Airc the father was driving his children to school. He was NOT in 'the pitch dark' nor was he 'screeching up to pick them up'.

If you're going to make stuff up to try to justify the murder of two journalists and the near murder of two children, at least try to be CLOSE to the facts.

The US Government has acknowledged that this was a 'tragic error' and have made no attempt, as you just did, to alter the FACTS.

The 'insurgent' whose life he tried to save, was a REUTERS JOURNALIST!

A man already wounded. A war crime to shoot a wounded person and anyone trying to rescue them.

The man was a hero. The two US soldiers who saved the lives of the two children have apologized to the Iraqi people for all that has been done to them, and specifically to the family who lost a husband, a father and the main provider for his family.

Imagine if this happened here. An invading army is in this country. What would Americans do? IRaq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. We are invaders of a sovereign country to get control of their oil. That is all, and every death of an Iraqi citizen IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, is a crime.

Let me try to say it slowly. An Iraqi father driving his children ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, in his own country, has EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO.

Despicable war based on lies, still being defended. With false statements no less. Well, it's appropriate that a war based on lies would HAVE to be defended BY lies.

[EX500rider]

77. I had read somewhere that it had happened at 2am but..

....that was wrong, 10:30 local time.

What did the van in was they were picking up the wounded AND the weapons which is what your insurgent buddies would do, not some random good samaritan.

And all this didn't happen in a vacuum, the Apaches were called in because of ongoing firefight in that neighborhood.

If you really want to know what happened I suggest reading the sworn statements and the investigations carried out by 1st Air Cav Brigade and 2nd Brigade Combat Team, all available here:

https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists

[Octafish]

20. My mistake. Here's a link to the video.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. ...

[leftstreet]

16. Ouch

DURec

[kenny blankenship]

24. He'd have his commission by now w/ a silver bar, and maybe a silver star

the thanks from a gratefully ignorant as fuck nation.

[bigwillq]

25. K and R

[JNelson6563]

29. Ok, no.

I think that he'd have fared best of all if he'd done many bad things that ruined many lives and trashed the economy and gotten really wealthy doing it. He should have gone into banking because...damn, it feels good to be a bankster.

[mucifer]

30. John Burge of the Chicago Police Dept. tortured many blacks into confessing to murder

Unfortunately the statute of limitation on torture ran out. He got 5 years for perjury while at least 17 African American men spent decades in prison under false conviction.

On Thursday, the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission found credible evidence that Chicago detectives had tortured Mahaffey — as well as four others sentenced to lengthy prison terms — into confessing to murder. Each of the five cases will now be assigned to a Cook County Criminal Court judge to decide whether a new trial is warranted.

The commission has found 17 credible instances of torture since it began inquiries in 2011, and investigations into more than 100 additional claims continue, said David Thomas, the commission's executive director. New claims continue to come in "at a fairly steady trickle," he said Thursday.

Four of the five cases filed Thursday involved Burge or detectives who worked on his infamous "midnight crew." Burge is serving a 41/2-year sentence in federal prison for lying under oath about his knowledge of the torture.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-07-26/news/ct-met-burge-torture-20130726_1_police-torture-illinois-torture-inquiry-torture-commission

[pnwmom]

42. It's too bad he also released hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables for no reason

other than he could.

It's too bad that Wikileaks released the documents without redacting names of US agents and allies.

Too bad Manning didn't limit himself to actual whistle-blowing, like the release of the helicopter video.

[Zorra]

45. It's too bad some modern day good American quasi-nazis believe that anything their government does,

no matter how unspeakably wicked, is ethical and just because of their blind devotion to a leader.

It's sickening.

[pnwmom]

46. No one here is in that category. Everyone I know agrees that the helicopter videos

and other evidence of US crimes should be exposed. But Manning went much farther, releasing hundreds of thousands of diplomatic emails, not because they exposed crimes (he hadn't read them so he couldn't have known what was in them) but just because he could.

[Zorra]

48. Honestly, I haven't seen any evidence of that among strong supporters of the MIC here.

All I have seen is indignation and outrage that someone exposed it.

And you do realize that what Manning uncovered and exposed is just the tip of the iceberg of vile rot, corruption, and violence that is being perpetrated in our name by our government in service of wealthy private interests?

Almost all of these unspeakably wicked things are being done in our name by our government so that wealthy private interests can continue to increase their profits.

What Manning Revealed - Read This & Tell Me Just WHO Is Our Government Keeping Safe?

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 09:03 PM USA/ET - Edit history (3)
What did WikiLeaks reveal?

PFC Bradley Manning is a US Army intelligence specialist who is accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, an organization that he allegedly understood would release portions of the information to news organizations and ultimately to the public.

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.


U.S. defense contractors were brought under much tighter supervision after leaked diplomatic cables revealed that they had been complicit in child trafficking activities. DynCorp -- a powerful defense contracting firm that claims almost $2 billion per year in revenue from U.S. tax dollars -- threw a party for Afghan security recruits featuring boys purchased from child traffickers for entertainment.


The Guantanamo Files describe how detainees were arrested based on what the New York Times referred to as highly subjective evidence. For example, some poor farmers were captured after they were found wearing a common watch or a jacket that was the same as those also worn by Al Queda operatives. How quickly innocent prisoners were released was heavily dependent on their country of origin.

Even though the Bush and Obama Administrations maintained publicly that there was no official count of civilian casualties, the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs showed that this claim was false. Between 2004 and 2009, the U.S. government counted a total of 109,000 deaths in Iraq, with 66,081 classified as non-combatants. This means that for every Iraqi death that is classified as a combatant, two innocent men, women or children are also killed.


-U.S. Military officials withheld information about the indiscriminate killing of Reuters journalists and innocent Iraqi civilians.

-The State Department backed corporate opposition to a Haitian minimum wage law.

-The U.S. Government had long been faking its public support for Tunisian President Ben Ali.

-Known Egyptian torturers received training from the FBI in Quantico, Virginia.

-The State Department authorized the theft of the UN Secretary General's DNA.

-The Obama Administration allowed Yemen's President to cover up a secret U.S. drone bombing campaign.


MORE:
http://www.bradleymanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/WikiLeaks2.pdf
http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/what-did-wikileaks-reveal

Meanwhile, still free to roam the streets, take their book tours and collect their 5- and 6-digit speaking fees, is the cabal of scorpions that rationalized torture which they claimed was not torture, secretly rendered people off the streets of U.S. allies and secretly transported them to secret prisons in nations ruled by dictatorial regimes, fabricated evidence to take us into Iraq, where thousands of Americans and tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the conflict, conjured up a hell-hole at Guantánamo Bay, a place the attorneys created to be jurisdictionless—not quite the U.S., not quite Cuba—and thus free from both American and international law.

[pnwmom]

49. Then why didn't he release more info about "unspeakably wicked things"

instead of hundreds of thousands of emails that revealed nothing illegal but caused problems with our diplomatic relations with other countries?

[MADem]

64. I don't see anyone on this thread calling you names.

Why do you have to resort to the low and despicable tactic of inferring that DUers who don't see things your way are "quasi-nazis" -- that is really bad form.

You should retract the remark.

It's sickening.

[TheKentuckian]

65. I'd be disgusted if my caliber as a sentient being was so low and easily transparent

that I closely resembled such remarks as some folks here do but I'd be more vexed by the shriveled soul made of dusty cobwebs and old sour piss that apparently animates my flesh, the bodies of those I call like minds, and the power seekers that we put out our own light to lionize, protect, and enrich.

I'd be disgusted that my conscious had degraded to chaffing at being called out on my amorality.

What you folks see different is life, the universe, and everything. Jaundiced eyes and shrunken hearts that somehow extract betrayal watching the Grinch's change at the end, disgust at the thought that Tiny Tim may have seen another Christmas, furious anger at George Bailey for holding back your idea of progress.

There is a reaction to be accounted for when one has to willfully believe in little more than adding to the riches of the wealthy, secrecy in an unlimited government and transparency of the people before an unblinking eye, protecting war criminals, distorting truth and elevating lies, excusing wanton murder and destruction for false rationales and outright lies, propping up and advancing unchecked power, and lashing out at folks who want to be decent, peaceable, equal, just, and kind as the betrayers rather than those who handsomely benefit from wickedness and their putrid toadies that excuse and generally seem to worship them.

That gnawing of a reaction, if properly channeled might save you an eternity or two in Hell before you forgive your wicked selves and allow yourself to associate with good again and perhaps mitigate much evil in the world now but all some folks have is lashing out against those trying to struggle against the darkness for disturbing your illusion of decency.

[MADem]

66. Here's the bottom line. People that get rude and personal aren't taken seriously. nt

[TheKentuckian]

71. Unless they agree with you and then it is cool and froody or else by some strange definition

such things cannot even be operative because those folks deserve it or are less than people.

Your running crew are some of the most smarmy, rude, and nasty rudedogs around.

[MADem]

72. People who get rude and personal are not taken seriously.

Example:

TheKentuckian
71. Unless they agree with you and then it is cool and froody or else by some strange definition

such things cannot even be operative because those folks deserve it or are less than people.

Your running crew are some of the most smarmy, rude, and nasty rudedogs around.

[TheKentuckian]

78. True, your nasty running crew is a joke.

[MADem]

79. You have one of those nice days, now. nt

[truedelphi]

75. And when a person considers all the puppet strings attached to that

Leader, it is even MORE sickening.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. A prisoner exchange should be in order. Manning exchanges his cell for Dubya's ranch.

Of course, if all the torturers and murderers, and those responsible for them, employed by our government were tried and incarcerated there would be overcrowding in the prisons.

[liberal_at_heart]

70. Sounds about right. You can kill for the government. You just can't tell the citizens of said

country what their government is doing.

[Niceguy1]

76. he did

Punch a female.

Does that count?