Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

biko · 13-07-2011 01:21PM

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/assange-challenges-extradition-512483.html

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange today asked the High Court to block his "legally flawed" extradition to Sweden regarding sexual assault allegations.

Although not charged, the Australian computer expert is wanted by the Swedish prosecution authority to answer questions on three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape, said to have been committed in Stockholm last August. The accusations were made by two female WikiLeaks volunteers.

Assange has expressed fears that extradition to Sweden could be a stepping stone to being sent to the US to stand trial on fresh charges relating to WikiLeaks, and he could even face the death penalty.

Mr Emmerson argued that using extradition for the limited purpose of an investigation amounted to a "a disproportionate utilisation" of the EAW system.

He stressed that the court was not inquiring into the credibility of the women - referred to as SW and AA - who had made complaints against Assange, or determining questions of guilt or innocence.

Nothing he said should be taken to involve any condemnation of the women.

It was not intended to challenge "the genuineness of their feelings of regret about having had consensual sex with Mr Assange or trivialise their experiences".

Nor was he challenging the fact that they "found Mr Assange's sexual behaviour in these encounters disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with".

But the sexual activities that occurred had taken place with consent and, unlike in Sweden, could not be criminalised in the English jurisdiction, argued Mr Emmerson.

Dyr · 13-07-2011 01:27PM

But the sexual activities that occurred had taken place with consent and, unlike in Sweden, could not be criminalised in the English jurisdiction, argued Mr Emmerson.

Whats that mean? if you wind up a feeling a bit durty after a ride in sweden you can go to the cops about it?

Seachmall · 13-07-2011 01:55PM

Bambi wrote: »

Whats that mean? if you wind up a feeling a bit durty after a ride in sweden you can go to the cops about it?

The sex was consensual but for some silly reason Sweden have found a crime there (he wasn't wearing a condom or something). He's saying the Brits shouldn't extradite him because he hasn't committed a crime under British Law and thus they have no legal obligation to extradite him.

If they ignore this objection he'll probably come back with the fact that he's allowed to travel freely between EU states (think he has an EU passport, could be wrong) and extraditing him without any legal cause would be an impediment on this right.

OutlawPete · 13-07-2011 02:04PM

Bambi wrote: »

Whats that mean? if you wind up a feeling a bit durty after a ride in sweden you can go to the cops about it?

To quote Assange:

"I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism."

mikemac · 13-07-2011 02:19PM

Seachmall wrote: »

THe's saying the Brits shouldn't extradite him because he hasn't committed a crime under British Law

said to have been committed in Stockholm

What does British law matter, it's Swedish law he disregarded/broke and that will be applied

Not aimed at you Seachmall, just if that's his lawyers argument I can't see him winning

seamus · 13-07-2011 02:23PM

I think the most important point is that he has not been charged with any offence, so there's little or no basis for his extradition.

You can't be extradited for questioning, afaik. Though there may be some scope to have him arrested by UK authorities and questioned in the UK by Swedish ones.

What does British law matter, it's Swedish law he disregarded/broke and that will be applied

Not aimed at you Seachmall, just if that's his lawyers argument I can't see him winning

Extradition generally requires that the act for which a person is charged or has been convicted, must be illegal and carry a penalty in both countries. It also usually requires that the penalties are relatively equivalent. That is, if it's a €200 fine in one country and the death penalty in another, the offender has a legal basis on which to challenge extradition.

Assange's assertion is that the act he is alleged to have committed is not illegal in the UK. The Swedish authorities counter-argument is that the act is classed as "rape" in Sweden, and since "rape" is also illegal in the UK, then it's a valid extradition.

Personally I don't agree, but I'm not a British judge

prinz · 13-07-2011 02:57PM

seamus wrote: »

I think the most important point is that he has not been charged with any offence, so there's little or no basis for his extradition. You can't be extradited for questioning, afaik. Though there may be some scope to have him arrested by UK authorities and questioned in the UK by Swedish ones.

The EAW also applies where charges are intended to be brought, not only in cases where charges have been brought. It could be argued that the Swedish authorities need to actually interview Assange etc to make that decision. Or they may well be at the stage of bringing charges.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0045/sec0010.html

seamus wrote: »

Extradition generally requires that the act for which a person is charged or has been convicted, must be illegal and carry a penalty in both countries. It also usually requires that the penalties are relatively equivalent. That is, if it's a €200 fine in one country and the death penalty in another, the offender has a legal basis on which to challenge extradition..

The European Arrest Warrant included a list of crimes for which the dual criminality rule would not be applicable. Rape (as an all-encompassing crime) is on that list.

seamus wrote: »

Assange's assertion is that the act he is alleged to have committed is not illegal in the UK. The Swedish authorities counter-argument is that the act is classed as "rape" in Sweden, and since "rape" is also illegal in the UK, then it's a valid extradition. Personally I don't agree, but I'm not a British judge

Rape is one of the 32 IIRC crimes on the list of offences for which dual criminality is not required under the EAW. It's not a very clear definition of what rape in that context means but it seems to me that if he is wanted for rape in Sweden the criminality of the exact act/acts in Britain is irrelevant. The only route left is to argue over the definition of rape, and if what he is alleged to have done isn't 'rape' rape.

Seachmall · 13-07-2011 03:06PM

prinz wrote: »

The only route left is to argue over the definition of rape, and if what he is alleged to have done isn't 'rape' rape.

I imagine this will be on his list of things to do before he gets extradited, get the European Courts to define rape to see if his case is actually exempt from the Dual Criminality law.

Twill be an interesting one to watch.

Manic Moran · 13-07-2011 04:43PM

The sex was consensual but for some silly reason Sweden have found a crime there (he wasn't wearing a condom or something).

I'm actually somewhat surprised by this argument. The Swedes have three categories of rape, much like in the US we have several categories of unlawful homicide, and the incident here is basically the 'lightest' such category. However, the British don't appear to make such a distinction.

Now, here's my question:
If you're with a woman in your jurisdiction, who says 'Let's do it, but you must wear a condom', and you then go and consciously violate that condition, all of a sudden it's not consensual sex any more, is it? And given that the British don't have a category of 'slightly offensive rape,' the only option remaining is... well.. rape.

NTM

KyussBishop · 14-07-2011 07:00PM

The full chat logs between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning have been released:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs

Only read a little bit into it thus far, but very interesting reading; from my point of view, the guy is more a hero than anyone who fought in Afghanistan/Iraq.

Killer Pigeon · 14-07-2011 08:13PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The full chat logs between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning have been released:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs

Only read a little bit into it thus far, but very interesting reading; from my point of view, the guy is more a hero than anyone who fought in Afghanistan/Iraq.

I must read over that.

I was reading over another log between Manning and a prominent youtube atheist/gay activist who goes by the username ZJemptv.

The log is available here: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/bradley_manning_the_im_chat_lo.html

Reading over it, it's obvious that he's a very intelligent guy. He went into detail about his personal life, the fact that he was gay and how was isolated and bullied in the army.

I've a huge amount of respect for him already for having the balls to do what he did and even more now after reading these logs. He put up with all kinds of shit throughout his life and he still has the will and determination to expose injustices.

It's so terribly to see the way he's being treated by his own government and now it seems likely that he'll face 50 years in prison and maybe even the death penalty for exposing the truth. He's only ~23 y/o too.

I guess it shows you what type of a mad world we live in.

Manic Moran · 14-07-2011 11:54PM

the guy is more a hero than anyone who fought in Afghanistan/Iraq.

Some of us who fought in Afghanistan/Iraq are of a slightly different opinion.

As, it seems, was the hacker who turned him in.

NTM

NTMK · 15-07-2011 12:06AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Some of us who fought in Afghanistan/Iraq are of a slightly different opinion.

You mean to say someone who stood up and presented evidence of pilots clearly breaking rules of engagement and killing civilians and joking about it is less of a hero than the scum who did these crimes and their commanders who let them go unpunished while punishing manning

He didnt put your lives in danger. the actions of a lot of your ****wit troops do.

nacho libre · 15-07-2011 12:17AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Some of us who fought in Afghanistan/Iraq are of a slightly different opinion.

As, it seems, was the hacker who turned him in.

NTM

Hardly surprising.
The Russian soliders who fought in Afghanistan probably had the same sense of pride in fighting for their country. While on the other hand the Army you represent saw their presence there at that time in a less noble light. Had Manning being a traitor spilling the secrets of an American foe you were engaged in combat with, you'd probably see him in a different light.

Manic Moran · 15-07-2011 01:17AM

Possibly. Or maybe just as a useful tool, depending on motivation. Does the Taliban consider Manning to be a hero to the Taliban? Or just someone closer to the category of "the enemy of my enemy"?

It all gets fairly complicated. After all, PFC Manning was entrusted by the nation and swore an oath to it. And, as nations go, the US really isn't all that bad a place, in my opinion: It was good enough for me to choose to live here and once here, to serve it. So yes, I am biasedly disposed to thinking that the US, generally speaking, fits in the 'good guys' corner, and the insurgents, generally speaking (notably excepting those who fought against the occupying power 2003-2005 or so), fit into the 'bad guys' corner.

Manning says something pretty fundamental in the log:

i dont believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… i only a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless

This is a revelation of such great astounding perception that it is often so commented on Boards that countries almost always act in their own self interest. What's new there? We needed a massive cable leak to understand this?

Once we are agreed on that point, how are, as he puts it, the varying ethics and moral standards of the US vs those of the insurgents that we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan at that point? (Bearing in mind that those were the ones killing other Iraqis in sectarian violence or fighting for the Taliban respectively). If your vote is for the other side, so be it, we've not much more to discuss. I think, however, that it is a minority vote in the Western world: By this point our fight was to get Iraq and Afghanistan stable enough that they'd stop killing each other. The locals in general seem like decent people, I personally think they deserve better than the Taliban or sectarianism.

This isn't saying that the US and its actors is above criticism. There is a viable argument that states that if you're aware of something which you know is wrong and that it is not being investigated already, there's something to be said for bringing it to wider attention. But there are also responsible ways of doing that. The mass leak was not an attempt at bringing to light a specific wrong which had been buried by conspiratorial leadership. There was no attempt to bring Colonel X to task for breaking Law Y. There was no specificity to the release at all, actually, it was a raw data dump with the direct result that what I'm putting my life on the line for un-necessarily suddenly got more difficult, or more dangerous. Obviously I'm not going to be overly appreciative. And since I think that the overall work that the US is doing is generally beneficial to our society, I'm not overly appreciative of it from the larger scale either. And finally, since the leaks only released US information, that disproportionally affected the US in the largest sphere. As long as countries act in their own self-interest, which isn't likely to change in our lifetimes, one must look at it from that perspective.

In a nutshell, the balance question is what did Manning achieve, and what did he put at risk?

NTM

KyussBishop · 15-07-2011 01:38AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Some of us who fought in Afghanistan/Iraq are of a slightly different opinion.

As, it seems, was the hacker who turned him in.

NTM

I've much greater admiration for a person willing to inform the world about the injustices of a war he regrets participating in, than someone who takes pride in having fought in needless wars that have destroyed two countries, and led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

Not only that, Manning has uncovered thousands of other injustices from all around the world, and information he released played a contributory part in the Arab Spring revolts.
I hate how much the word 'hero' has become diluted over the years, but I do believe this guy really is a genuine unsung hero (in quite a much more significant way than you can achieve through fighting in a war).

The guy knowingly risked his future, fully conscious that he may even face execution, and he did it to inform the public of wrongdoing and to bring about change (which he has achieved).
He's got solid principles, he knew exactly why he was doing that, and he intended it for the public good (and succeeded); what are the soliders fighting for in Afghanistan/Iraq? They have only succeeded in destroying two countries, nothing good has come from that.

NTMK · 15-07-2011 01:55AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

it was a raw data dump with the direct result that what I'm putting my life on the line for un-necessarily suddenly got more difficult, or more dangerous. Obviously I'm not going to be overly appreciative. And since I think that the overall work that the US is doing is generally beneficial to our society, I'm not overly appreciative of it from the larger scale either. And finally, since the leaks only released US information, that disproportionally affected the US in the largest sphere. As long as countries act in their own self-interest, which isn't likely to change in our lifetimes, one must look at it from that perspective.

In a nutshell, the balance question is what did Manning achieve, and what did he put at risk?

NTM

Your(and my relatives) lives wouldn't have been put in more unnecessary risk if your troops and officers behaved themselves by indiscriminately killing civilians, torturing POW's, and imprisoning people people without trial.

Manic Moran · 15-07-2011 05:22AM

NTMK wrote: »

Your(and my relatives) lives wouldn't have been put in more unnecessary risk if your troops and officers behaved themselves by indiscriminately killing civilians, torturing POW's, and imprisoning people people without trial.

And those who broke the law deserve everything that they get with very little sympathy from me. As does Mr Manning. His actions have not brought any malfeasants to trial (or even identified anyone who may be, as far as I know) and regardless of what anyone else may have done, he has not helped the cause.

He has little way of knowing what he was releasing. A junior soldier of his position and experience has neither the time, knowledge or experience to review the hundreds of thousands of documents to ensure that nothing prejudicial to the US or its allies was in the data dump. He might have gotten more sympathy had he confined himself to releasing information bringing to light specific, obviously illegal matters.

NTM

Manic Moran · 15-07-2011 05:59AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I've much greater admiration for a person willing to inform the world about the injustices of a war he regrets participating in, than someone who takes pride in having fought in needless wars that have destroyed two countries, and led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

I am not convinced that Afghanistan was needless, or that Iraq was, overall, a bad thing, even if it was needless. Regardless, by the time both I and Manning got involved in the events, such matters of grand philosophy were best left to the political historians. All that matters is 'where do we go from here' and where I was sitting (in slightly closer proximity to the locals than I'll wager PFC Manning was) the two options are to either help the countries regain their footing so that the people could govern themselves and we could get the hell home, or to not do so and leave everyone to the chaos. I take pride in allowing Iraqis to vote for the first time in three decades, in providing infrastructure to Afghan residents, and in providing a lot of other positive services other than shooting people. If allowing girls to have an education which they would not otherwise have had is a bad thing, or to reduce the Afghan death rate from TB by two thirds in the last five years (Which, if you're going to do the maths, is 13,000 people a year not dying), then so be it. I'm guilty.

Not only that, Manning has uncovered thousands of other injustices from all around the world, and information he released played a contributory part in the Arab Spring revolts.

I think the action of Mohammed Bouazizi probably had a significantly greater effect. Even Assange has cautioned about overstating the effect that Wikileaks has had in the Arab Spring considering all the other factors that were out there.

The guy knowingly risked his future, fully conscious that he may even face execution, and he did it to inform the public of wrongdoing and to bring about change (which he has achieved).

Seriously, what change has he achieved? What can you point to and say "Manning did that, if he hadn't done it, this wouldn't have happened?" Bouazizi was a martyr or hero depending on how far you want to take the definition. Manning, not so much.

They have only succeeded in destroying two countries, nothing good has come from that.

For the point of view of Afghanistan, there was nothing to destroy. Seriously, when there aren't even paved roads (Excepting Hwy 1/1A), you know the country needs help. One district was so isolated, they thought the Russians had never left and that we were Soviet troops. I assure you, the average Afghan is better off now than he was ten years ago in pretty much every category you care to name. It's not why we invaded, but it's a good side-effect.
The average Iraqi opinion is "Good invasion, but you guys screwed up the occupation" which is a fair assessment. But even in that case, the invasion was only a catalyst, the real trouble began when the Iraqis started destroying themselves.

NTM

KyussBishop · 15-07-2011 09:46AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am not convinced that Afghanistan was needless, or that Iraq was, overall, a bad thing, even if it was needless.

Ok, hundreds of thousands dead, 2 countries destroyed and still in turmoil, and another (Pakistan) increasingly destabilizing. If these wars had not have happened, hundreds of thousands would not be dead, the countries would be more stable/safe than now, and the US would be not expanding the wars into other middle eastern countries. That's widely viewed as a bad thing.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Regardless, by the time both I and Manning got involved in the events, such matters of grand philosophy were best left to the political historians. All that matters is 'where do we go from here' and where I was sitting (in slightly closer proximity to the locals than I'll wager PFC Manning was) the two options are to either help the countries regain their footing so that the people could govern themselves and we could get the hell home, or to not do so and leave everyone to the chaos. I take pride in allowing Iraqis to vote for the first time in three decades, in providing infrastructure to Afghan residents, and in providing a lot of other positive services other than shooting people. If allowing girls to have an education which they would not otherwise have had is a bad thing, or to reduce the Afghan death rate from TB by two thirds in the last five years (Which, if you're going to do the maths, is 13,000 people a year not dying), then so be it. I'm guilty.

The reasons/faults for starting the wars aren't something to just be waved over; reasons why the countries should not have been invaded/occupied in the first place, are reasons why the militaries should leave.
Most people in the US oppose the wars, and that is reason alone to get their troops out; the US stands very little (if any) chance of stabilizing Afghanistan by the time they pull out, and are not helping matters by pissing off Pakistan and Afghanistan with drone strikes, and deliberately destroying what's left of US/Pakistan diplomatic relations in the wake of killing Bin Laden (primarily in their diplomatic reaction to Pakistan).

The presence of the US in these countries (and their propping of widely corrupt governments there) is one of the biggest drives for recruitment for the extremist groups destabilizing these countries, and the general US interference in the middle east is viewed (in the middle east) as the greatest obstacle to peace/stability there.

Also in Iraq, which has finally reached relative political stability, the US presence is not needed anymore, and is more counterproductive politically, than it's worth logistically.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think the action of Mohammed Bouazizi probably had a significantly greater effect. Even Assange has cautioned about overstating the effect that Wikileaks has had in the Arab Spring considering all the other factors that were out there.

While Mohammed Bouazizi was definitely the initial catalyst, Manning nonetheless played his part in contributing.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Seriously, what change has he achieved? What can you point to and say "Manning did that, if he hadn't done it, this wouldn't have happened?" Bouazizi was a martyr or hero depending on how far you want to take the definition. Manning, not so much.

He revealed all of this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak

A snippet relevant to my reply on Afghanistan:

Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council and a principal representative of the European Union, was quoted as saying to Howard W. Gutman, U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, that the "EU no longer believes in the success of the military mission in Afghanistan"

Also this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

And this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak

And this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Collateral_Murder_video#Leaked_video_footage

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the point of view of Afghanistan, there was nothing to destroy. Seriously, when there aren't even paved roads (Excepting Hwy 1/1A), you know the country needs help. One district was so isolated, they thought the Russians had never left and that we were Soviet troops. I assure you, the average Afghan is better off now than he was ten years ago in pretty much every category you care to name. It's not why we invaded, but it's a good side-effect.

The country is on the verge of collapse, with the likelihood of taking Pakistan with it.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The average Iraqi opinion is "Good invasion, but you guys screwed up the occupation" which is a fair assessment. But even in that case, the invasion was only a catalyst, the real trouble began when the Iraqis started destroying themselves.

Yes, they screwed up the occupation, and hundreds of thousands are dead; the grand majority of Iraqi's don't view the US very favourably.

NTMK · 15-07-2011 10:47AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

He has little way of knowing what he was releasing. A junior soldier of his position and experience has neither the time, knowledge or experience to review the hundreds of thousands of documents to ensure that nothing prejudicial to the US or its allies was in the data dump. He might have gotten more sympathy had he confined himself to releasing information bringing to light specific, obviously illegal matters.

NTM

The US goverment were offered the chance of to review the material by wikileaks to reduce risk to soldiers they refused. the data was dumped in its entirety. You know as much as i do bringing it to his superiors would have done nothing as what usually happens. all you need to look at is gitmo to know that

Tell me have the 2 pilots and their CO been court marshalled for breaking rules of engagment and killing civilians?

Manic Moran · 15-07-2011 06:00PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ok, hundreds of thousands dead, 2 countries destroyed and still in turmoil, and another (Pakistan) increasingly destabilizing. If these wars had not have happened, hundreds of thousands would not be dead, the countries would be more stable/safe than now, and the US would be not expanding the wars into other middle eastern countries. That's widely viewed as a bad thing.

I'm not convinced that a stable Afghanistan under the tender and loving care of the Taliban government resulting in bugger-all freedom for men or women, no opportunity, a stupidly high mortality rate from avoidable disease, farming at a subsistance level and no infrastructure is all that much better for the average Afghan than the conditions which now prevail. As for Pakistan, well, they've finally had the elephant in their room pointed out to them. As for the sectarian violence in Iraq, it is quite likely that it would have happened eventually anyway: You don't need to look outside of Europe's borders to see what happens to an ethnically diverse nation held together by a strongman when that strongman dies.

The reasons/faults for starting the wars aren't something to just be waved over; reasons why the countries should not have been invaded/occupied in the first place, are reasons why the militaries should leave.

Disagree. Once the egg is broken, you either continue to make the omlette, or leave it alone and let it rot. You can't consider your future actions on the question based on conditions extant beforehand, such as 'the egg should never have been cracked"

Most people in the US oppose the wars, and that is reason alone to get their troops out;

Americans could stand to learn from the Chinese a bit. We have something of an instant gratification attitude. Or maybe even learn from the Iraqis: They want the US out completely as well, but there is an understanding there are two mutually exclusive wants: The US out, and a self-sustaining nation. That's why they're currently debating extending US authorisation beyond Dec 2011: They may not want the US to hang around, but there is also a level of acceptance that they need the US to hang around.

the US stands very little (if any) chance of stabilizing Afghanistan by the time they pull out,

Depends on how you think ISAF's trying to stabilise the country. If you think it's by beating the Taliban into submission, I would agree with you. Fortunately, that's not the primary course being taken.

and are not helping matters by pissing off Pakistan and Afghanistan with drone strikes, and deliberately destroying what's left of US/Pakistan diplomatic relations in the wake of killing Bin Laden (primarily in their diplomatic reaction to Pakistan).

Pakistan is facing its moment of truth. It has deliberately ignored the goings-on in the NorthWest so long that the problem has surfaced anyway. They may not be happy about having the elephant pointed out to them, and really not happy about it being pointed out to them by another country, but now they have to (finally) deal with it. It was never going to be pretty whenever it happened.

Also in Iraq, which has finally reached relative political stability, the US presence is not needed anymore, and is more counterproductive politically, than it's worth logistically.

See above comment about the Iraqis not being entirely in agreement with your statement. They will have the final say on whether US troops stay or go, and have not yet reached a decision on the matter.

He revealed all of this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak

Which had what tangible effect, exactly, other than causing several thousand words of newsprint?

A snippet relevant to my reply on Afghanistan:

Afghanistan is not an EU mission. The contributing countries from NATO may have their own opinions. And in any case, the deadline he puts out for seeing whether or not things are going well has passed with little fanfare, so it seems that either he was wrong, or the EU has changed its mind. In any case, even with the knowledge of this comment by the EU, what has changed?

Also this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

And this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak

And this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Collateral_Murder_video#Leaked_video_footage

All things which he has done. But that wasn't the question, the question is 'what has happened as a result of all this?'

The US goverment were offered the chance of to review the material by wikileaks to reduce risk to soldiers they refused.

Irrelevant. Manning had no control of what happened to the information once he had handed it over to unauthorised personnel. Wikileaks may have asked the US for co-operation, or it may not have. It's his job to secure the information, not Wikileaks'.

the data was dumped in its entirety. You know as much as i do bringing it to his superiors would have done nothing as what usually happens. all you need to look at is gitmo to know that

Again, if he saw a transgression which was not being properly investigated (they usually are), he could have selectively leaked it. You're arguing that he released everything on the assumption/hope that there was something heinously illegal in there which was not being addressed by other means. I think that irresponsible.

Tell me have the 2 pilots and their CO been court marshalled for breaking rules of engagment and killing civilians?

No, because they didn't. I hate to break this to you, but the laws of war are such that killing civilians is not automatically a court-martial offence.

NTM

KyussBishop · 15-07-2011 07:45PM

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm not convinced that a stable Afghanistan under the tender and loving care of the Taliban government resulting in bugger-all freedom for men or women, no opportunity, a stupidly high mortality rate from avoidable disease, farming at a subsistance level and no infrastructure is all that much better for the average Afghan than the conditions which now prevail. As for Pakistan, well, they've finally had the elephant in their room pointed out to them. As for the sectarian violence in Iraq, it is quite likely that it would have happened eventually anyway: You don't need to look outside of Europe's borders to see what happens to an ethnically diverse nation held together by a strongman when that strongman dies.

Things still look quite bleak, in so far as human rights are concerned in Afghanistan:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Human_rights_in_Afghanistan

At the time of the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, the country was in civil war, with fighting of various forms going back 20 years; that's why the country and infrastructure was so poor.
Going to war then was not the solution, it has prolonged the fighting and destabilized the entire region; peace talks between the Taliban and Karzai need to take place to end things (that is unavoidable), and that would have been the right move 10 years ago, not war.

Manic Moran wrote:

Disagree. Once the egg is broken, you either continue to make the omlette, or leave it alone and let it rot. You can't consider your future actions on the question based on conditions extant beforehand, such as 'the egg should never have been cracked"

You don't just ignore the bad decisions leading to a war, they are an important factor/reason for withdrawing from a war.

Manic Moran wrote:

Americans could stand to learn from the Chinese a bit. We have something of an instant gratification attitude. Or maybe even learn from the Iraqis: They want the US out completely as well, but there is an understanding there are two mutually exclusive wants: The US out, and a self-sustaining nation. That's why they're currently debating extending US authorisation beyond Dec 2011: They may not want the US to hang around, but there is also a level of acceptance that they need the US to hang around.

It's a matter of having a legitimate democratic government; a countries government should not be in a position to fight a war, in the face of overwhelming public disapproval. A governemnt that can wage war with impunity like that, has too much power; governments need to be accountable to their citizens, especially when it comes to war, as going to war is the most serious action a country can undertake.

Manic Moran wrote:

Depends on how you think ISAF's trying to stabilise the country. If you think it's by beating the Taliban into submission, I would agree with you. Fortunately, that's not the primary course being taken.

Well they won't win militarily, that's for sure; the only way to stabilize things long term seems to be to enter talks with the Taliban.

Manic Moran wrote:

Pakistan is facing its moment of truth. It has deliberately ignored the goings-on in the NorthWest so long that the problem has surfaced anyway. They may not be happy about having the elephant pointed out to them, and really not happy about it being pointed out to them by another country, but now they have to (finally) deal with it. It was never going to be pretty whenever it happened.

They haven't ignored anything, their forces are stretched thin, and public sentiment limits what they can do (especially when the US is using drones to blow up peoples homes and routinely infringe the countries sovereignty); they have to manage things very carefully in order to avoid fighting spreading.

Manic Moran wrote:

See above comment about the Iraqis not being entirely in agreement with your statement. They will have the final say on whether US troops stay or go, and have not yet reached a decision on the matter.

There is talk by the government of extending their stay, but the population are widely opposed (as are many political factions).

Manic Moran wrote:

Which had what tangible effect, exactly, other than causing several thousand words of newsprint?

It brought everything mentioned in the article to light, exposed corruption around the world, exposed various forms of US interference in other countries politics, and contributed (in some part) to the Arab Spring revolts.

Manic Moran wrote:

Afghanistan is not an EU mission. The contributing countries from NATO may have their own opinions. And in any case, the deadline he puts out for seeing whether or not things are going well has passed with little fanfare, so it seems that either he was wrong, or the EU has changed its mind. In any case, even with the knowledge of this comment by the EU, what has changed?

The quote was adding to my arguments about the US in Afghanistan, not the cable leaks.

Manic Moran wrote:

All things which he has done. But that wasn't the question, the question is 'what has happened as a result of all this?'

What happened, is all that information has been revealed, with the notability of that described in the articles I link.

NTMK · 15-07-2011 07:53PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, if he saw a transgression which was not being properly investigated (they usually are)

The Leaks beg to differ

No, because they didn't. I hate to break this to you, but the laws of war are such that killing civilians is not automatically a court-martial offence.

NTM

Forgive me for thinking the US should follow any International laws regarding slaughtering civilians, torture, POW rights or treating civilian injuries that were caused by your weaponry.

The video shows us that these civilians were unarmed and were attacked which is Illegal in international law and how to justify the treatment of the two kids which were badly wounded in the slaughter?

Please spare us from the US military and government are doing the right thing BS.

Also what do you think of the video in your opinion should those pilots and their co be punished?

Manic Moran · 15-07-2011 08:54PM

You don't just ignore the bad decisions leading to a war, they are an important factor/reason for withdrawing from a war.

Academically, yes. But the reality on the ground was that after the Golden Mosque bombing, things went to hell in a handbasket. If the Americans were to say in 2005 (or whenever) "Yes, you're right, we shouldn't have invaded, we'll leave now", what do you think would happen in Iraq?

Also what do you think of the video in your opinion should those pilots and their co be punished?

I think it shows the unfortunate truth that there is no such thing as a 'clean' war regardless of how much we supposedly civilised people would like to think so, and no, they should not as there is no indication that they did not have an honest belief that they were shooting at valid targets.

how to justify the treatment of the two kids which were badly wounded in the slaughter

I seem to recall they were given medical attention and survived.

NTM

NTMK · 15-07-2011 09:06PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it shows the unfortunate truth that there is no such thing as a 'clean' war regardless of how much we supposedly civilised people would like to think so, and no, they should not as there is no indication that they did not have an honest belief that they were shooting at valid targets.

I seem to recall they were given medical attention and survived.

NTM

The man Crawling away was not a valid target
International law states so
So they and their co should be punished to full extent of the law

Clearly Unarmed people are not valid targets

Those kids were not brought to the nearest hospital which was controlled by the People that orphaned them instead they were dumped on the Iraqi police and then sent to a poorer quality hospital further away.They were incredibly lucky

Manic Moran · 16-07-2011 07:51AM

The man Crawling away was not a valid target
International law states so

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/470?OpenDocument

Article 41. If you are hors de combat (as this gentleman was, as defined by 2(c), wounds), you are protected from being a target. If you attempt to escape, however, the article states that you have lost that protection.

Clearly Unarmed people are not valid targets

Show me anything in the laws of war which require that a target must be armed before it can be engaged.

Those kids were not brought to the nearest hospital which was controlled by the People that orphaned them instead they were dumped on the Iraqi police and then sent to a poorer quality hospital further away.They were incredibly lucky

Untrue. They were evacuated to the 28th CSH at FOB Loyalty. They were subsequently transferred to Medical City (an Iraqi facility) the following day.

NTM

NTMK · 16-07-2011 12:17PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/470?OpenDocument

Article 41. If you are hors de combat (as this gentleman was, as defined by 2(c), wounds), you are protected from being a target. If you attempt to escape, however, the article states that you have lost that protection.

How would you react if you were hit by a 20mm round as a civilian

Show me anything in the laws of war which require that a target must be armed before it can be engaged.

NTM

Act 49
1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

Act 61
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/470?OpenDocument

But it goes without saying the US doesn't exactly acknowledge Human Rights Laws when it doesn't suit them

Manic Moran · 16-07-2011 04:46PM

NTMK wrote: »

How would you react if you were hit by a 20mm round as a civilian

Probably bleed a lot and say some involuntary, not PG rated things about the people who just shot me whilst interspersed with loud screaming in agony and writhing.

Problem was that the pilot was of the belief that he wasn't shooting a non-combatant, so the question doesn't even apply.

I am aware of the other regulations you quote, and in the case of combatants who deliberately cannot be distinguished from the civilian population, it becomes a question of the totality of the situation. What is the past history in that area of insurgent attacks, and their escape/evasion mechanisms? Are they known to use vans of that nature to move around? In prior experience for the area, how likely is it that it's a random passer by who has stopped to help a combatant and not a cohort of his? I'm this case, the pilots appeared not to have any particular doubt from their perspective that they were engaging a valid target, it was not a question of triggering the ' in case of doubt presume civilian' clause you quote.

NTM

NTMK · 16-07-2011 06:57PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Problem was that the pilot was of the belief that he wasn't shooting a non-combatant, so the question doesn't even apply.

That's opinion though the live feed from the apache clearly shows that the is no evidence of the civilians having weaponry. i'm of the belief that the pilot was trigger happy and it is confirmed to me by the way he laugh and jokes about a civilian body being run over by the truck

and lets not forget the amount of civilians killed by drone strikes which is an illegal tactic as the us are doing nothing to reduce risk to civilians when blasting craters in their villages.

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments