An update on Bradley Manning

Justice.

 

Er, yes, they DO exist. In the military you no duty to turn a blind eye if you witness an illegal, immoral, or unethical act. You have a chain of command and you may report any such events to your superiors. If they do not listen then there is an independent IG's office, and they most certainly will listen, because they don't like crap like that blowing up in the Army's face. If they don't listen then you can always report it to a member of congress - you can always find one of those who will listen and who will make some noise.

This douchebag chose NONE of those channels. Instead, after repeatedly and explicitly expressing his hatred for the Army and for the USA he illegally stole classified documents from government computers and gave them to an organization that he KNEW would publicize them.

The fact that you fail to recognize that there ARE proper channels to go through with something like this, and this piece of excrement purposefully avoided those channels, tells me that you are the one who is ignorant. You have ideological blinders on that are preventing you from seeing the truth. You think this guy is a hero because you agree with his liberal, anti-US/anti-military worldview.

Had he gone through proper channels then he you wouldn't even know his name right now.

 

well, noise of a certain kind.

 

Words in mouth? Nah. But to believe the narrative that most of this douchebag's supporters have been flinging around it's pretty necessary to always think the worst about the US military in particular. I mean, unless you're part of the gay contingent who supports him because, well, he's gay. So, are you a hater, or just gay?

So. Exactly what laws you think need to be changed? The ones that prohibit military members and government employees, who have signed nondisclosure agreements, from stealing classified data from government computers and disseminating it to the entire world, including OBL? What is your rationale for changing that law? You don't think that the government or the military should be allowed to have any secrets?

I don't know if that's hatred of the govt/military or just a dazzling, mindblowing stupidity driving that one.

 

Snowden simply went about it the wrong way. I don't think his motives were as questionable as Manning's, but throwing it out there and then offering yourself up to the Chinese and Russians isn't exactly a fantastic way of going about it either. Dude, seriously, just send it to Rand Paul's office and watch the scandal explode.

All of these leakers seem to have something in common: they are drama queens and attention whores. They could have gotten their information out there in a more responsible manner, but they didn't. And they will pay the price for it.

 

the wrong way, yup, you do it anonymously so you don't get caught, not parade around that you did it

 

Bradley Manning did put people's lives in danger with what he leaked. He deserves to be punished for that.

But what he did isn't as bad as his superior officers who ignored him when he turned in the military personnel who committed the horrible offenses of killing first responders etc.

Those military personnel who committed those crimes deserve the most punishment in this whole affair. They are the ones who betrayed the nation more than Manning or anybody else. They are the ones who are biggest shame on our nation.

 

Would any charges from the leaked information be considered forbidden fruit?

 

I agree the deaths were prevented, thank goodness. And yes others are complicit in the making the connections to risk the lives of various people.

Like I said Manning deserves some minor punishment, but his punishment should be lowest on the list of those that deserve to face the consequences of justice. Manning tried to do things the right way when reported the horrible goings on.

The crime is that because he turned in others that were doing horrible things, Manning faces going to prison for the rest of his life, and the people who did the things and ignored the reporting face no punishment at all.

 

Your characterization of what happened is EXTREMELY misleading. False, actually. I am guessing you're referring to the video of the Apache attack in 2007 that mistakenly killed two journalists and then fired on the van that came to evacuate the survivors? You say they "killed first responders"?!?

A few facts. First, there *were* insurgents at that location that day. The journalists were there interviewing them and getting pics. Wrong place wrong time, and the journalist put themselves in harm's way. If you are carrying around a big-a$$ camera that looks like a weapon around a bunch of other guys who are actually carrying around weapons, and you know that their game is trying to kill Americans, don't be surprised if the Americans show up and kill everybody first. We're good at that. Second, if you are planning on rescuing your friends who just got shot up by a couple of Apaches that are still hovering in the area, it's a really BAD idea to try and do it with your small kids in the vehicle with you in an unmarked vehicle. They inserted their kids into a hot zone, and THEY are responsible for what happened to them.

First responders would put a red crescent on their ambulance to identify it, and it would not then have been fired upon. It was just a random van that pulled into the *middle of a hot zone* and started trying to gather survivors. That is called a "target", not "first responders".

This is exactly the sort of dishonest BS that makes me sick. You don't even know what you saw on that video. You don't know the context. You don't know who is where or who is doing what, or what was happening right down the street. You call those pilots murderers, yet have no idea what they have to go through for the rest of their lives, having to live with the fact that they accidentally killed noncombatants. I know for a fact that one of those pilots broke down into tears after he found out about the kids in the vehicle. It was not his fault, but he will have to live with it for the rest of his life.

THIS is why Manning is going to get what he deserves. That episode was THOROUGHLY investigated and everyone was cleared of wrongdoing. All procedures were properly followed, it was a matter of the journalist and "responder" doing stupid sh^t that got them killed. Hang around with jihadis or insert yourself into a fight and you run that risk. Manning, as a military person, should have a better grasp of those facts, but he didn't care - he put it out anyway, knowing that people like yourself wouldn't understand it and that you would jump to the wrong conclusions. He KNEW it would be used as propaganda against the US military, and yet he did it anyway.

I hope he rots for it. He has done an IMMENSE disservice to the US military and by extension his country.

 

What I said happened is what happened. They did kill two journalists. On the video it's possible to see what's happening a lot more than you make it out in your post. I understand that we are seeing the video in the safety of our living rooms and not real time in the heat of action, but it's still wrong. They did kill the first responders who came to the scene after the attack. Random vans don't pull up and start treating survivors. All the people who attacked them had to do was watch what was happening, and if it was something hostile then attack and take them out. But once they saw it wasn't then let them treat survivors.

The fact that the people who did that were let off is sickening. They and the people that didn't prosecute them have done a huge disservice to the military far worse than what Manning did.

For the record the video didn't make me think poorly of the military. It made me think poorly of a few people who did horrible things but not the military in general. What did bother me about the military was the fact that the people who did those things were let off with no punishment whatsoever, and the guy who tried to help bring about justice could spend his whole life locked away.

My father was a WWII vet who served in the Pacific. My nephew fought in the most recent Iraq conflict for the Marines. He served honorably, and I'm incredibly proud of him. The people who used the same double tap tactics that terrorists use did not serve honorably.

I guess we just have to disagree with what happened.

 

Uh, no, you are COMPLETELY wrong in almost every single point you made, and I am NOT going to let it slide.

No, it isn't. You said that they "murdered" those people. They killed them - there is a difference. You have to remove EVERY singly point of context to not see it.

Yes, they did. And those two journalists were with a bunch of jihadists/insurgents when it happened. Are you aware that at the time that this engagement occurred, there was a large firefight going on *literally* 100m away from their location? There was a ground unit - the same one that showed up on scene towards the end of the video - that was taking heavy fire from insurgents literally right down the street. It was a neighborhood-wide fight. So when the Apaches see a bunch of guys walking around with weapons, literally right down the street from where bad guys are engaging our people, they ARE going to take that shot.

Are you aware that when the ground unit made it on site they founf 2 RPGs and at least one AK/AKM? Do you have any idea what a RPG can do to an Apache? Do you know what it can do to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle? It will tear both of them apart and kill everyone inside. The Apache gunner's job is to neutralize threats like that before the grounds troops encounter it.

And what do you know about what's going on outside of the guncamera's view? NOTHING.

No, it's not "wrong". It was an unfortunate series of events that the journalists injected themselves into, and then the father of the children injected themselves into. The pilots did nothing wrong. They were supporting a ground action that was taking place literally right down the street. They are SUPPOSED to try and kill the bad guys before they have a chance to kill our guys on the ground.

They weren't "first responders". They weren't fu&king EMS, EMS puts a red crescent on their vehicle to mark it as such and we leave it alone. It was some random idiot who didn't have enough sense to stay away from what was an obvious firefight. Remember, there was literally a firefight going on down the street as he rolled up to the scene, there is NO WAY that he wasn't aware of that. He has his kids in the car. What sort of a freaking idiot brings his kids into a situation like that?

There had been NUMEROUS situations where a vehicle would roll up and grab survivors before coalition forces could get there, that was insurgents grabbing their own people. How is the guy in the helicopter supposed to know that isn't what's going on? He can't possibly know that and has to assume that since everybody in the whole freaking country knows to stay away from a fight - except for the insurgents, that is - then this guy is probably not a noncombatant?

I just explained most of this, but you need to understand that WE wanted to capture the survivors. We didn't let the bad guys collect their own people. We captured them and rendered aid. That was the only way to take them out of the war for sure.

No, they were "let off" because they didn't do anything wrong. Had the journalists not put themselves into that position, and had random idiot with kids in the car used better judgment, then the only dead would have been the insurgents. And they WERE insurgents. The pilots were cleared because there was NO WAY they could have reasonably known that A) those were journalists among the insurgents, or B) that the "first responder (as you put it) was actually just a random guy trying to help, or C) that there were kids in the vehicle.

Then you're just a sap. If you are stupid enough to think that Manning simply had pure motives then you are just dumb. If his motives were pure then he would have been selective about what he released. He wasn't. He just dumped several GB on Wikileaks. He didn't provide any context. And Wikileaks had a field day. They edited ALL context out of the videos like the one that we are discussing and played people like you for saps. And you fell for it.

Great for your family, but YOU still don't understand what combat is like, and it shows. That "double tap" is sometimes necessary to make sure the bad guy doesn't get up and start shooting at you after you pass by him. It's a freaking war. You're trying to kill people who are trying to kill you, and you'd best do it first if you like breathing. And sometimes taking prisoners isn't an option.

You know, had Wikileaks mentioned the fact that there was a firefight going on down the street while this event occurred, it might have been forgivable. Had they mentioned that there were 2 RPGs and an AK/AKM recovered from the site it might have been forgivable. But they didn't, and by omitting those SALIENT facts they skewed the perception of the events, and people like you have gotten the wrong idea as a result.

Wikileaks is guilty as hell. But so is Manning. He knew who he was giving it to.

 

nope. You don't have to let it slide, but I what said is still accurate.

killing non-combatants and first responders in cold blood is murder

So there was heavy combat and battle being waged right there? Man that's certainly hectic and dangerous for everyone around.

My nephew that was with the Marines was assigned to be in charge of Apache and other flying things. When one went down, he had to go rescue the crews, and destroy the helicopters. He had to do that multiple times during the conflict. I have at least some idea what kind of damage that can be done.

The gun camera shows what was happening but not all of it. That's true. Having the immense chaos and combat going on outside of what's in camera view doesn't make it okay to kill first responders.

Ahh, so the chaos and heavy battle that you spoke about that was going on that was somehow supposed to justify what happened in that video and was so horrendous and intense and out of control didn't manage to deter a guy with his two kids from driving up and getting out of his van? It didn't make him think twice about that? In the middle of huge battles with mass chaos people don't casually drive up with their two kids and get out of there vehicle. Those two things don't match up. Something your version of things isn't quite consistent. Also on the video we see a guy standing there on a cell phone. Is that normal behavior for a huge neighborhood wide battle that's going on? Would a person just be standing straight up behind no cover casually talking on a cell phone?

They could watch. If the guy turns out to be an insurgent, then open fire. If not, then don't open fire.

If the survivors were gathered in the van and it started taking off, the Apache is capable of taking out a van and the people in it.

neither you nor I know what Manning's motives were. I will say that he initially did report it along the chain of command as he was supposed to do. If his motive was to embarrass the military and make them look bad, I would think he'd release the stuff first and not bother reporting it.

You're absolutely right I nor anyone who wasn't in combat will ever be able to really understand what it's like. It's why I have such respect for veterans. They've been in incredibly difficult positions that only they can understand. Nobody else will ever be able to.

 

That was always going to happen. There was no way all of the leaked secrets stayed contain over time. I'm with your general sentinment on Manning, but he was naive to think the data he handed over would stay "secured" or not end up risking the lives of people.

 

No, it isn't. You slandered those pilots and called them murderers. That is NOT accurate.

Accidentally killing non-combatants is NOT murder. And for the third time, the guy in the van was NOT a "first responder", he was just some idiot who injected himself into the middle of a fight. A first responder would have been in a marked vehicle. Why do you not understand this? Are you dense? It's not complicated at all.

Yes, there was, and it would have been impossible NOT to notice it was going on. Everyone in Iraq knew to stay away from it. Except the insurgents and not-too-terribly-bright journalists, I suppose.

Then you will acknowledge that two guys with RPGs - and there WERE two RPGs found at the site - would be a threat worth taking out? Explain to me how neutralizing that threat is "cold-blooded murder"?

That's right. ALL context is eliminated from the video. Don't you think that if Wikileaks had ANY interest in actually getting at the truth they would have mentioned that SALIENT fact in the video?

If you call the dude a "first responder" one more time then you are going on my ignore list, because it can ONLY mean one of two things: 1) you are an idiot and don't understand what a "first responder" is, or 2) you are simply trolling and trying to get a rise out of me. Either way, stop using that term, it is NOT accurate.

Uh yeah, it would have deterred a normal person from interjecting himself - AND HIS CHILDREN - into a firefight. There was NO WAY that a normal person would not have realized that they were running into a fight. Anyone who would do that with their children in the car bears responsibility for what follows.

So you're calling me a fu^king liar, then? Why don't you just google it? Even Wikipedia comments on it:

Military legal review[edit source | editbeta]
On April 5, 2010, the same day as the release of the video footage by WikiLeaks, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released a collection of documents including two investigative reports.[2][23] Pentagon officials told the Reuters news agency that US military lawyers were reviewing the video and could reopen an investigation into the incident,[66] but said more recently that there are no plans to reopen the investigation.[106]
The report states that at least two members of the group which were first fired on were armed, that two RPGs and one AKM or AK-47 rifle could be seen in the helicopter video, and that these weapons were picked up by the follow-up U.S. ground troops. The report concludes that the Reuters employees were in the company of armed insurgents. It also states that "The cameras could easily be mistaken for slung AK-47 or AKM rifles, especially since neither cameraman is wearing anything that identifies him as media or press".[20] The report recommends encouraging journalists in Iraq to wear special vests to identify themselves, and to keep the U.S. military updated about their whereabouts. Reporters' "furtive attempts to photograph the Coalition Ground Forces made them appear as hostile combatants".[11][107]

Attack on personnel and a van per US Army report account[edit source | editbeta]
According to the U.S. Army investigation report released by the United States Central Command, the engagement started at 10:20 Iraqi local time and ended at 10:41. A unit from Bravo Company 2–16 was within 100 meters of the individuals that were fired upon with 30mm AH-64 Apache cannons. The company was charged with clearing their sector of any small armed forces, and had been under fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). The company was supported by two Apache helicopters from the 1st Cavalry Division's Aviation Brigade, callsigns "Crazyhorse 1/8" and "Crazyhorse 1/9". Two men were identified by Crazyhorse 1/8 as carrying an RPG launcher and an AKM or AK-47. When the cameraman on the ground aimed his camera in the direction of Bravo Company 2–16, a pilot remarked "He's getting ready to fire". An Apache maneuvered around a building to get a clear field of fire and shot all nine men, killing eight. A van then arrived and attempted to load a wounded man. After getting permission to fire, the Apache crew fired on the van. When Bravo Company arrived at the scene, they reported finding two RPGs and an AK-47 or AKM. They also found two Canon EOS digital cameras with telephoto lenses. Two children were found in the van, a four year old girl with gunshot wounds and embedded windscreen glass wounds and an eight year old boy with multiple wounds, including brain damage arising from shrapnel damage to his right temporal lobe. Both children were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital via Forward Operating Base Loyalty, then transferred to an Iraqi medical facility the next day.[8] This account of first bringing the wounded children to the Combat Support Hospital appears to be contradicted by orders by radio that form part of the video record, which forbids it and orders that the children be handed over to local police.[108]
While the Air Weapons Team was providing support at the first engagement area they were informed by ground troops that they were receiving small arms fire from the south/southwest. The crew for Crazyhorse 1/8 then located multiple individuals with weapons about 400 meters east of coalition forces and was given clearance to engage the targets. However, the co-pilot/gunner then observed a child and some other non-combatants in the vicinity of the individuals and decided to hold off on the engagement until the non-combatants were clear. After the non-combatants were clear Crazyhorse 1/8 engaged the targets. The crew for Crazyhorse 1/9 could not engage due to target obfuscation from buildings and dust.[8]
The team observed several individuals from this group, some possibly wounded, run into a large multistory building. The co-pilot/gunner for Crazyhorse 1/9 spotted three individuals near this building get into a red SUV and drive away to the west. For about 5 to 10 minutes the team diverted its attention to this vehicle. However, according to the co-pilot for Crazyhorse 1/8 they failed to positively identify the occupants as combatants and returned to the previous engagement area.[8][/i

Or better yet, hear it from someone who was there:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/

Take what you want from the last guy's opinion on the subject but note the facts. There WAS a firefight going on nearby, so get your facts straight before you call me a fu^king liar, please.

It's not normal behavior for a noncombatant, but it is not out of the ordinary for insurgents. How the hell do you think they communicated during fights? Smoke signal?

In which case you and Wikil;eaks would STILL be calling them murderers.

That's right. I only know that if his motives were good he would have been selective and provided context. He did neither of those things.

Yeah, and he didn't get the result he wanted, so he broke the law and did it the improper way. The incident had already been investigated, and he didn't like the results. It's sorta like some random moron killing Zimmerman because he didn't like the results of the trial. Of course, many on your side of the aisle would probably try and justify that...