Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYes but it is impossible to ignore the fact that Manning is being tried by the very organsation that carried out those atrocity's.
That video was one of 750,000 classified documents he leaked. For simplicity I already leads lets only punish him for the other 749,999.
You for some reason only allow for colllateral damage when it involves innocent civillians, the death you are asking us to concern ourselves with is of someone who chose to ally himself with an invasion force that was occupying His own country, But you despise Manning as a traitor.😕
Originally posted by empovsunYou'll have to look at the documents to what end? What expertise do you have to determine what harm could be done by what information? Not that you would go through all 750,000 documents anyway.
ill have to look into the type of documents that were leaked. i read it sometime last year, and its hard to retrace your tracks that far
could you please stop saying "people". it was a person. singular.
do you not respect the research behind the "damage" manning did? retired Brig. Gen. Robert Carr testified about the work that was done by his informatio ...[text shortened]... , wasn't proven by anyone. not even by the people that wanted to find something.
It's one person who was killed as a direct result that we know of, and frankly I'm surprised we were able to find that much. Correlations between deaths and the documents would be nearly impossible to prove. The only reason we were able to in that one case is because the Taliban announced that's how they found him. Had they chosen not to publicize that, you would be stating definitively that literally no one died as a result of the documents, and of course that would be false. It's extraordinarily unlikely that he was the only one killed as a result of the leaks, either directly or indirectly.
Originally posted by kevcvs57So all actions committed by individuals are committed by the organization? I guess the organization routinely puts itself on trial then.
Yes but it is impossible to ignore the fact that Manning is being tried by the very organsation that carried out those atrocity's.
You for some reason only allow for colllateral damage when it involves innocent civillians, the death you are asking us to concern ourselves with is of someone who chose to ally himself with an invasion force that was occupying His own country, But you despise Manning as a traitor.😕
Civilian deaths are unavoidable in any war. Whether or not you believe a particular war is justified is open to debate, but irrelevant to the Manning case.
So you believe it is unpatriotic for Afghans to oppose the Taliban and their Coalition of outside groups, and instead to support the Northern Alliance and other factions who oppose them?
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperthen prove it. i already posted about the research used in the tribunal and proved my point.
It's one person who was killed as a direct result that we know of, and frankly I'm surprised we were able to find that much. Correlations between deaths and the documents would be nearly impossible to prove. The only reason we were able to in that one case is because the Taliban announced that's how they found him. Had they chosen not to pub ely that he was the only one killed as a result of the leaks, either directly or indirectly.
ball is in your court
1 edit
Originally posted by empovsunThat's something that is impossible to prove. If the Taliban didn't announce they found that one guy from the documents, we wouldn't be able to prove he died as a result, but that wouldn't mean it didn't happen.
then prove it. i already posted about the research used in the tribunal and proved my point.
ball is in your court
Prove to me that tomorrow there will be a traffic accident somewhere in New York City. You can't prove it, but it's extraordinarily unlikely there won't be.
Originally posted by Ponderable"The 1,294 days Manning has already spent in military custody, since May 2010, will be deducted from his sentence. The figure includes 112 days that is being taken off the sentence as part of a pre-trial ruling in which Lind compensated Manning for the excessively harsh treatment he endured at the Quantico marine base in Virginia.
So he got 35 years.
Anybody collecting the bets?
"He has to serve a minimum of a third of his sentence, meaning he will be eligible for parole in just over eight years, and, at the very earliest, could be released under parole soon as 2021. He can earn 120 days per year off his sentence for good behaviour and job performance."
The Guardian
Originally posted by kevcvs57Yes, a few weeks before the DDay invasion, the US should have been informed and given the opportunity to debate the pros and cons.
I think most people see Manning as a whistleblower as opposed to someone involved in classic espionage, but my problem is the very people, ie 'The People' are the ones calling for a harsh sentence for people who inform them about what the government is doing, now I can see why the govt might want deter whistleblowers but are The People not 'cutting their no ...[text shortened]... decision making on the part of The People but an uninformed decision is no decision at all.
Originally posted by techsouthYou do understand the concept of "element of surprise", don't you? The basic democratic debate involves whether you join the war in the first place, and whether you stay in it. You can't expect a military to fight a war with all its operational plans publicly available.
Yes, a few weeks before the DDay invasion, the US should have been informed and given the opportunity to debate the pros and cons.
This is not relevant to the Manning case as what he leaked were documents regarding the past. The question is to what extent the leaked documents directly compromised named individuals who were in the documents.
Originally posted by DeepThought"The question is to what extent the leaked documents directly compromised named individuals who were in the documents."
You do understand the concept of "element of surprise", don't you? The basic democratic debate involves whether you join the war in the first place, and whether you stay in it. You can't expect a military to fight a war with all its operational plans publicly available.
This is not relevant to the Manning case as what he leaked were documents regard ...[text shortened]... xtent the leaked documents directly compromised named individuals who were in the documents.
The crime, if it is that, cannot realistically be judged on the basis of "compromise" done to named individuals. There are too many what-if hypotheticals required in such a scenario, and the defense would have no trouble having such analyses thrown out. Also, some operations may be cancelled or modified due to a leak. How is the seriousness of the harm done by these measures to be judged?
You are right that secrets are essential in foreign policy including war policy. It is a fact of life. Only utopians will disagree.
The post that was quoted here has been removedAgreed, they are grown ups who made their own choices, however even in secret communications which are enciphered I always assumed people were referred to by code names - that way no single communication being busted can cause a problem. Why were these people referred to by their natural names?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI expected everyone to catch my sarcasm based on the context (shown in the quote to which I replied to).
You do understand the concept of "element of surprise", don't you? The basic democratic debate involves whether you join the war in the first place, and whether you stay in it. You can't expect a military to fight a war with all its operational plans publicly available.
This is not relevant to the Manning case as what he leaked were documents regard ...[text shortened]... xtent the leaked documents directly compromised named individuals who were in the documents.
The claim was made that seemed to imply citizens should be able to discuss everything the government does. This is in the context of a thread about the wikileaks, 750000 documents that Manning couldn't have possible read.
"Element of surprise" is just one very clear example of where the government cannot consult the population at large. I could think of several other possibilities even if documents are largely about past activities.
Regardless, I understand the need for secrecy. The person I'm replying to made a blanket statement implying the government didn't have any legitimate cause for secrecy. I also understand that it can be abused, and that there are difficult questions involved.
I think we're on the same basic side of this debate.
3 edits
Originally posted by techsouthI'm late to this debate and didn't check backwards, so sorry to miss your irony.
I expected everyone to catch my sarcasm based on the context (shown in the quote to which I replied to).
The claim was made that seemed to imply citizens should be able to discuss everything the government does. This is in the context of a thread about the wikileaks, 750000 documents that Manning couldn't have possible read.
"Element of surprise" is are difficult questions involved.
I think we're on the same basic side of this debate.
I went through the Afghan War Diaries looking for evidence of British War Crimes (not American - I was interested in what British forces had done at that time), but could only find stuff that was explainable, for example this:
At 0045Z, TF Phoenix reported that a civilian vehicle with three MPRI interpreters and a driver were fired upon in downtown Kabul by a military-type vehicle that was brown with a gunner on top. Three of the occupants were wounded, two critically and one non-critically. The injured were taken to the hospital in downtown Kabul, condition unknown. It has been confirmed that there were no US forces located in the vicinity of the event that may have been involved. More to follow!Which is just the kind of thing you get from nervous soldiers.
Initial reports indicated 3 interpreters were wounded from friendly fire from a military-type vehicle in downtown Kabul. It has been confirmed that the interpreters vehicle was fired upon by an UK vehicle near Camp Blackhorse, wounding 2 of the interpreters.
(UPDATE 2) BDA: 2 X LN TERPS WOUNDED, NO DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INCIDENT
INVESTIGATION IS CONTROLLED BY THE BRITISH. WE NOT ABLE TO GET THE COMPLETE STORY. THIS EVENT BELONGS TO THE BRITISH ISAF FORCES.
ISAF Tracking # 10-521
Edit 3: This is also one of the most amazing pieces of handwashing you'll ever see!