Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Manning found guilty in 20 of 21 charges

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    karma_ wrote: »
    Let's not forget that Obama himself redefined the term 'militant' in order to make civilian deaths more palatable.

    To be classified a militant now all you have to do is be of military age. That's right, if you are a male over 16 anywhere in the world, you are a militant.

    Don't for get this doozey

    enemy combatant

    In the United States the phrase "enemy combatant" was used after the September 11 attacks by the George W. Bush administration to include an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States.


  • Options
    #153
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Eh, this is shown right in the Collateral Murder video, the helicopter firing on the van coming to help the wounded.

    That's a notorious incident from the Iraq war in 2007. Why are the helicopter pilots asking permission if it's policy just to shoot up rescue workers? was the van marked as an ambulance?

    In the second attack on Fallujah US soldiers were basically given carte blanche - that's policy, they literally shot anything that moved.


  • Options
    #154
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    That's a notorious incident from the Iraq war in 2007. Why are the helicopter pilots asking permission if it's policy just to shoot up rescue workers? was the van marked as an ambulance?

    It was someone with their kids in the van passing a massacre, they where unarmed and tried to help the injured (obvious to see) and were fired upon.

    Jonny7 wrote: »
    In the second attack on Fallujah US soldiers were basically given carte blanche - that's policy, they literally shot anything that moved.


    And should be tried for war crimes. Will they be do you think?:eek:


  • Options
    #155
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    karma_ wrote: »
    Naturally, that stands to reason.

    i think what he did was right, but sadly he still must face the punishment, you can make exceptions because he felt morally obliged, would set silly precedence


  • Options
    #156
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    i think what he did was right, but sadly he still must face the punishment, you can make exceptions because he felt morally obliged, would set silly precedence

    136 year prison sentence appropriate?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    i think what he did was right, but sadly he still must face the punishment, you can make exceptions because he felt morally obliged, would set silly precedence

    What precedence does it set? Don't report crimes?


  • Options
    #158
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,091 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    i think what he did was right, but sadly he still must face the punishment, you can make exceptions because he felt morally obliged, would set silly precedence

    What, that if you do the right thing that you won't get punished for it?
    As opposed to now which is do wrong or else.


  • Options
    #159
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,037 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    he took a risk
    good for him, a very brave man, a true american who cares about his country unlike those of your opinion
    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    he now has to do the time.
    he shouldn't have to do any time
    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    he broke the law
    good, this is law breaking that is very exceptable and should be condoned at all costs
    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    just becuase he uncovered and exposed other law
    breaking doesnt excuse him.
    absolutely it does, if the american government are behaving like terrorists when preaching about terrorists then its the publics right to know about it whatever the cost
    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    he needs to be made an example of.
    no he doesn't and he won't, people will be more determined to expose terrorism by governments who preach against it, what happened to this brave man will not stop the exposing of evil deeds by those who try to make themselves out to be pillers of the world society.
    bradly manning, i'l never know you, but what you have done, i support you and thank you for, your a brave man and nobody will ever forget what you have done for us all, thank you for giving your freedom to expose the evil deeds of your government, may your god bless you, your a hero

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #160
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    bumper234 wrote: »
    What precedence does it set? Don't report crimes?

    breaking the law because the law is being broken is not a logical i condone. He did what he felt morally obliged to do, and fair play to him, he's a brave lad. But he should be exempt from the law as a result. He knew this would happen and it did, bit of a no story tbh.


  • Options
    #161
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    Does anyone know what time GMT Manning is due to be sentenced?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    breaking the law because the law is being broken is not a logical i condone. He did what he felt morally obliged to do, and fair play to him, he's a brave lad. But he should be exempt from the law as a result. He knew this would happen and it did, bit of a no story tbh.

    So by your logic he should have said nothing and let murderers get away with it? You think that the public does not have the right to know what happened in that video? You feel that the American people shouldn't know what sort of atrocities are being perpetrated in their names?


  • Options
    #163
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    FouxDaFaFa wrote: »
    Does anyone know what time GMT Manning is due to be SHAFTED?

    FYP


  • Options
    #164
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    bumper234 wrote: »
    It was someone with their kids in the van passing a massacre, they where unarmed and tried to help the injured (obvious to see) and were fired upon.

    It wasn't policy to shoot kids though.

    It is policy to check each target and give clearance for it, they do that because they don't want to intentionally kill civilians.

    They have gunned down friendly forces - it's a mistake, it's not their intention to kill friendlies - the pilots can be over-zealous

    This particular case with these chopper pilots is notorious, as are a few other incidents.
    And should be tried for war crimes. Will they be do you think?:eek:

    It's very doubtful, in war they do have to kill people, and in the case of Fallujah they evacuated the city. If some people have a problem with the killing of others - then that's a separate issue.

    I believe the only part of Fallujah that possibly constitued a war-crime was the use of white phosphorus.


  • Options
    #165
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    It wasn't policy to shoot kids though.

    It is policy to check each target and give clearance for it, they do that because they don't want to intentionally kill civilians.

    They have gunned down friendly forces - it's a mistake, it's not their intention to kill friendlies - the pilots can be over-zealous

    This particular case with these chopper pilots is notorious, as are a few other incidents.



    It's very doubtful, in war they do have to kill people, and in the case of Fallujah they evacuated the city. If some people have a problem with the killing of others - then that's a separate issue.

    I believe the only part of Fallujah that possibly constitued a war-crime was the use of white phosphorus.

    Ah so when others kill indiscriminately it is terrorism and they should be charged as such. When American soldiers do it then they are "casualties of war" because of "over zealous pilots" and it's all ok:rolleyes:

    Also when was war declared on Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Yemen?


  • Options
    #166
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    breaking the law because the law is being broken is not a logical i condone. He did what he felt morally obliged to do, and fair play to him, he's a brave lad. But he should be exempt from the law as a result. He knew this would happen and it did, bit of a no story tbh.

    Again, what do you think of the prospective 136 year sentence that he faces? Can you not acknowledge that the law(s) in question are a bit messed up?


  • Options
    #167
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Ah so when others kill indiscriminately it is terrorism and they should be charged as such. When American soldiers do it then they are "casualties of war" because of "over zealous pilots" and it's all ok:rolleyes:

    No one is saying it's perfectly okay, but it's the reality.

    It's the nature of people murdering each other, on paper it's easy to criticise a chosen target but in the real world hard to set boundaries in concrete and enforce them.
    Also when was war declared on Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Yemen?

    Announcing "we declare war" wouldn't have made a lick of difference to the situation in Iraq.

    It was a pre-emptive war. Emphasis on the word war. Also deeply unpopular across the world and turned into a quagmire.


  • Options
    #168
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    No one is saying it's perfectly okay, but it's the reality.

    It's the nature of people murdering each other, on paper it's easy to criticise a chosen target but in the real world hard to set boundaries in concrete and enforce them.



    Announcing "we declare war" wouldn't have made a lick of difference to the situation in Iraq.

    It was a pre-emptive war. Emphasis on the word war. Also deeply unpopular across the world and turned into a quagmire    .

    And is it a "pre-emptive war on Pakistan and Yemen? Why when someone sets a bomb off and kills Americans is it an act of war but when America does it it's a military strike?

    If Al quaeda set off a bomb in Washington tomorrow and killed 40 men women and children would that EVER be called an act of war? Or would it just be labeled an act of terrorism?


  • Options
    #169
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    bumper234 wrote: »
    And is it a "pre-emptive war on Pakistan and Yemen? Why when someone sets a bomb off and kills Americans is it an act of war but when America does it it's a military strike?

    Pakistan - this could be described as limited war, as part of a larger war between militants, Taliban and Pashtun militias on one side and Pakistan, US on the other. The drone strikes are done with the tacit approval of Pakistan

    Yemen - these are strikes (drone and missile) on training camps, etc with the approval of the Yemeni government. So not really a war.

    If Al quaeda set off a bomb in Washington tomorrow and killed 40 men women and children would that EVER be called an act of war? Or would it just be labeled an act of terrorism?

    An act of terrorism because they would be purposefully targeting innocent civilians for political statementor reason

    The US military doesn't purposefully target innocent civilians.

    Obviously in some alternative universe if the US military had the same intentions as Al Qaeda - they could wipe out most of the population of country x, y or z overnight


    They grey area arises from the cause and effect of all this.

    for example

    If forces are going to assault a village and in the process likely kill or maim half the inhabitants - then it's an easy decision to take action to stop those forces.

    However if in the process of attacking those forces to prevent them from reaching the village, 10 civilians may be killed, then there is a dilema.

    The above is just an example, but those criticising the drone war often fail to see or even acknowledge that this is happening in NW Pakistan and Waziristan. If there is an option to use an accurate predator drone missile to take out militants - then logically that will be less devastating that giving intel to the Pakistan army which might use a much more blunt object.

    There are reasons and causes of this conflict that can be tied to the Bush admin, and even going back further than that, unfortunately the US government does not have a time machine to reverse all those bad decisions .. yet.


  • Options
    #170
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Pakistan - this could be described as limited war, as part of a larger war between militants, Taliban and Pashtun militias on one side and Pakistan, US on the other. The drone strikes are done with the tacit approval of Pakistan

    Really? So why is Kerry in Pakistan now to ease tensions over drone strikes? Sounds like the Pakistani government are not as happy about the illegal drone strikes and blatant murder of it's citizens as you would have us believe.

    http://www.mail.com/news/politics/2247766-kerry-pakistan-to-discuss-drones-afghanistan.html

    How about the legality of said drone strikes in Pakistan?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/12/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

    The chief justice's first finding is perhaps the most obvious: "[Drone strikes] are absolutely illegal and a blatant violation of sovereignty of the state of Pakistan." The strikes are, he says, international war crimes, given that there is no state of war between the US and its nominal ally, Pakistan.

    http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/184596/


    Ms. Ann Wright, highlighted that three independent organizations conducted surveys that nearly 2500- 3000 people have been killed including 400 to 800 civilians and 176children in drone strikes. According to her, the US government officials think it is legal to use drone against the enemy targets. She also quoted the title of an article published recently in Wall street Journal “US unease over drone strike.� In her opinion, the US has not declared war on countries like Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen where drones are frequently used against enemy targets and that drone program lacks transparency


  • Options
    #171
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    bumper234 wrote: »
    So by your logic he should have said nothing and let murderers get away with it? You think that the public does not have the right to know what happened in that video? You feel that the American people shouldn't know what sort of atrocities are being perpetrated in their names?

    not at all but he should expect to get away with it, he broke the law, its pretty clear he broke the law, just because he broke it doing something right doesnt make it legal... i dont understand why people believe that in doing something he felt was morally right, negates him from the full fury of the law. People have a very distorted and idealistic view of the judicial system on this forum and need to come back down to reality


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    not at all but he should expect to get away with it, he broke the law, its pretty clear he broke the law, just because he broke it doing something right doesnt make it legal... i dont understand why people believe that in doing something he felt was morally right, negates him from the full fury of the law. People have a very distorted and idealistic view of the judicial system on this forum and need to come back down to reality

    A man is about to cut a babies throat. You throw a stone and kill the man. Technically you have broken the law (manslaughter) should you be jailed for that crime?


  • Options
    #173
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,037 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    not at all but he should expect to get away with it
    i agree, sending him to prison for exposing the worlds biggest terrorists evil deeds is ridiculous, glad you finally agree with that at least
    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    he broke the law
    good
    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    its pretty clear he broke the law
    so what, he was right
    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    just because he broke it doing something right doesnt make it legal...
    it makes it okay though
    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    i dont understand why people believe that in doing something he felt was morally right, negates him from the full fury of the law.
    because the law has to be just and the law he's been charged under is injust in the case of whistle blowers

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #174
    StinkyMunkey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    bumper234 wrote: »
    A man is about to cut a babies throat. You throw a stone and kill the man. Technically you have broken the law (manslaughter) should you be jailed for that crime?

    It wouldn't be classed as manslaughter. It would be classed as self defence - to protect someone or yourself against death or injury.

    Very bad example tbh.


  • Options
    #175
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    StinkyMunkey wrote: »
    It wouldn't be classed as manslaughter. It would be classed as self defence - to protect someone or yourself against death or injury.

    Very bad example tbh.

    Self defence is in the title it's to defend oneself. He could plead mitigating circumstances ie he did what he did to save a life. I wonder how many lives Manning and Snowdon have saved?


  • Options
    #176
    StinkyMunkey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    end of the road wrote: »
    i agree, sending him to prison for exposing the worlds biggest terrorists evil deeds is ridiculous, glad you finally agree with that at least

    good

    so what, he was right

    it makes it okay though

    because the law has to be just and the law he's been charged under is injust in the case of whistle blowers

    I think the point is, you don't get to choose which laws you would abide by.

    Right and wrong don't come into it. You break the law, you will be prosecuted. You expose your governments dirty little secrets - your going to prison for a long time.

    Hero or villain, he is not going to see freedom his entire life.

    Anyone who thought the US don't do everything without their own agenda or bury the nasty little secrets needs to wake up. Snowden or Manning only proved what everyone already knew. Unless ofc you believe in WMD's 0.o


  • Options
    #177
    StinkyMunkey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Self defence is in the title it's to defend oneself. He could plead mitigating circumstances ie he did what he did to save a life. I wonder how many lives Manning and Snowdon have saved?

    Wrong I'm afraid, it also takes into defence of others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law


  • Options
    #178
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    StinkyMunkey wrote: »
    I think the point is, you don't get to choose which laws you would abide by.

    Right and wrong don't come into it. You break the law, you will be prosecuted. You expose your governments dirty little secrets - your going to prison for a long time.

    Hero or villain, he is not going to see freedom his entire life.

    Anyone who thought the US don't do everything without their own agenda or bury the nasty little secrets needs to wake up. Snowden or Manning only proved what everyone already knew. Unless ofc you believe in WMD's 0.o

    So why are those helicopter pilots not in prison? Why are the people who drone strike innocent women and children not being prosecuted?


  • Options
    #179
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Really? So why is Kerry in Pakistan now to ease tensions over drone strikes? Sounds like the Pakistani government are not as happy about the illegal drone strikes and blatant murder of it's citizens as you would have us believe.

    Hence I used the word "tacit" in front of approval.

    The bottom line is - if Islamabad didn't want the drones there, they wouldn't be there.

    Thousands of civilians are being killed by the on-going war and the militants pushing down from the north (bit like Game of Thrones really) The drones are literally killing the enemies of Pakistan... the problem is that these are Pakistanis themselves.

    Complicated does not even begin to describe it.


    How about the legality of said drone strikes in Pakistan?

    The chief justice's first finding is perhaps the most obvious: "[Drone strikes] are absolutely illegal and a blatant violation of sovereignty of the state of Pakistan." The strikes are, he says, international war crimes, given that there is no state of war between the US and its nominal ally, Pakistan.

    Well murdering someone is illegal - so anyone can pretty much argue that anything that involves killing is illegal.
    Ms. Ann Wright, highlighted that three independent organizations conducted surveys that nearly 2500- 3000 people have been killed including 400 to 800 civilians and 176children in drone strikes. According to her, the US government officials think it is legal to use drone against the enemy targets. She also quoted the title of an article published recently in Wall street Journal “US unease over drone strike.� In her opinion, the US has not declared war on countries like Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen where drones are frequently used against enemy targets and that drone program lacks transparency

    Ah I would tend to agree with her to a large extent.

    However, the administration has been decreasing drone attacks in 2012 and this year, switched control from the CIA, cutting down on killing civilian innocents, increasing transparency and so on. It's not a huge change, but I think it's more a gradual climbdown.

    I think we'll see them phased out slowly except for the odd "decapitation" strike here and there.


  • Options
    #180
    F35
    Site Banned Posts: 87 ✭✭F35


    politics....pfff


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    StinkyMunkey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    bumper234 wrote: »
    So why are those helicopter pilots not in prison? Why are the people who drone strike innocent women and children not being prosecuted?

    It's really very simple. Unlike Snowden or Manning, the government gets to choose who and for what it's military personnel is prosecuted for.

    As I said right and wrong have nothing to do with it. The US government have and will do as they please to further their own interests. No one ever said this is fair, but that's simply how the world works. To think otherwise is naive at best.

    I've neither agreed or disagreed with Manning, simple fact is he is going away for the rest of his life regardless or whether you agree with his actions or not.


Advertisement