[QUOTE=Cone;39913114]i fail to see how authority is relevant when it's so blatantly immoral[/QUOTE]
Immoral, yes. I agree that something like this deserves attention.
You don't need to leak thousands of classified documents to expose it. I know it's more difficult without it, but it has the advantage of not being illegal.
If he hadn't already been tortured by the US government and wasn't facing a completely ridiculous sentence, I'd almost be willing to tolerate the military and their dumb ceremonial laws. But the fact is they did torture him and now after a lengthy pre-trial imprisonment he is being tried with aiding the enemy, a sentence that could result in death, but the prosecution, in their infinite mercy, only want life imprisonment.
It's a complete farce and a joke that people are defending this with "Well it is how it is you can't change the military he knew what he was getting in to".
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39912987]they shouldn't lack the ability to expose criminal activity in the military. they shouldn't be forced cover up evil activities.[/QUOTE]
if he exposed it to a member of congress or an investigative agency he would have been protected under the whistle blower act.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39913332]if he exposed it to a member of congress or an investigative agency he would have been protected under the whistle blower act.[/QUOTE]
But because he didn't do that he deserves torture and life imprisonment? Really?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39913385]But because he didn't do that he deserves torture and life imprisonment? Really?[/QUOTE]
now where did I say that? Can you show me? Putting words in people's mouth is always pathetic.
Point is, there were other avenues Manning could have taken that would have LEGALLY PROTECTED him from prosecution. Instead he choose to leak everything to a "crazy white haired Australian"-those are Manning's words not mine. He knew what he was doing, and he even said that he didn't cared if he died or went to prison for the rest of his life. All this centers around Manning's belief that information should be free, he knew he was breaking the law, but he didn't care. There are no exceptions to the law, not for heros nor villains. This is how the world works.
We shouldn't let him off the hook because his motives were just, there were many paths he could have taken, and he made his choice.
I'm saying we should let him off the hook because he was tortured.
Unless military law says that's okay because apparently the US military's version of morality is the only objective one.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39913521]I'm saying we should let him off the hook because he was tortured.
Unless military law says that's okay because apparently the US military's version of morality is the only objective one.[/QUOTE]
The military court already ruled that the terms of his confinement was unjust.
[QUOTE=scout1;39913764]The military court already ruled that the terms of his confinement was unjust.[/QUOTE]
oh.
how does that impact his sentencing then?
Anybody got a transcript of this?
[QUOTE=source]"The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemingly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have," Pte Manning says of the video which caused a storm when it was released to the world by WikiLeaks.
[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression that the helicopter pilots thought that the people they were shooting at were enemy militants?
If that's the case, then what's wrong with 'bloodlust'? In WWII it was pretty much encouraged that one would 'give it to' the 'krauts' and celebrate the destruction of a tank or enemy fortification - now it's wrong?
I'm not saying I agree with the war in Iraq or that we shouldn't put measures in place to double-check potential targets when there's no imminent danger to friendly forces.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39913826]oh.
how does that impact his sentencing then?[/QUOTE]
112 days subtracted from his sentence
[url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/08/168898659/judge-reduces-possible-sentece-for-alleged-leaker-bradley-manning[/url]
[QUOTE=smurfy;39914363]112 days subtracted from his sentence
[url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/08/168898659/judge-reduces-possible-sentece-for-alleged-leaker-bradley-manning[/url][/QUOTE]
I guess it's a small consolation prize for someone facing a life sentence.
Luckily I'm sure the people in command of his detainment were reprimanded and punished for obvious excessive force.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39914218]I was under the impression that the helicopter pilots thought that the people they were shooting at were enemy militants?
If that's the case, then what's wrong with 'bloodlust'? In WWII it was pretty much encouraged that one would 'give it to' the 'krauts' and celebrate the destruction of a tank or enemy fortification - now it's wrong?
I'm not saying I agree with the war in Iraq or that we shouldn't put measures in place to double-check potential targets when there's no imminent danger to friendly forces.[/QUOTE]
It was wrong then, too. The reason why wars, genocide, massacres exist in the first place is because leaders can enforce notions of dehumanization and xenophobia. Once the situation is going, then it's a problem, but it's that mindset that lets it happen in the first place. We're at a point in our civilization where we can conduct diplomacy, and sometimes warfare, without resorting to dehumanizing and alienating people. We should no longer expect or encourage excessive violence or killings when alternatives are possible. To say that it's okay for soldier of war and peace to channel want to kill as a motivation for their job, is heinous and unnerving. We are a nation of men, and our military is supposed to, if we believe the common perception, be empowering another nation of men to lead their own lives in a way consistent with the goal of peace and prosperity, and to protect from others who would seek to do the opposite, and act on violence and terror. At what point, then, does a force that is allowed to act out violence for personal satisfaction fit into that situation? Could it be said that those who kill for satisfaction with a state mandate, are worse than those who kill for the enactment of a "righteous" goal?
That being said, the situation is different from WWII. They fired on clearly unarmed men, on a civilian vehicle, and showed no mercy to the fatally injured. Not uniformed soldiers in a life-or-death, nor even combat, situation.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39914218]I was under the impression that the helicopter pilots thought that the people they were shooting at were enemy militants?
If that's the case, then what's wrong with 'bloodlust'?[B] In WWII it was pretty much encouraged that one would 'give it to' the 'krauts' and celebrate the destruction of a tank or enemy fortification - now it's wrong?[/B]
I'm not saying I agree with the war in Iraq or that we shouldn't put measures in place to double-check potential targets when there's no imminent danger to friendly forces.[/QUOTE]
this is the 21st century now
back then Germans openly supported mistreatment of Jews, things change
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39918512']It was wrong then, too. The reason why wars, genocide, massacres exist in the first place is because leaders can enforce notions of dehumanization and xenophobia. Once the situation is going, then it's a problem, but it's that mindset that lets it happen in the first place. We're at a point in our civilization where we can conduct diplomacy, and sometimes warfare, without resorting to dehumanizing and alienating people. We should no longer expect or encourage excessive violence or killings when alternatives are possible. To say that it's okay for soldier of war and peace to channel want to kill as a motivation for their job, is heinous and unnerving. We are a nation of men, and our military is supposed to, if we believe the common perception, be empowering another nation of men to lead their own lives in a way consistent with the goal of peace and prosperity, and to protect from others who would seek to do the opposite, and act on violence and terror. At what point, then, does a force that is allowed to act out violence for personal satisfaction fit into that situation? Could it be said that those who kill for satisfaction with a state mandate, are worse than those who kill for the enactment of a "righteous" goal?
That being said, the situation is different from WWII. They fired on clearly unarmed men, on a civilian vehicle, and showed no mercy to the fatally injured. Not uniformed soldiers in a life-or-death, nor even combat, situation.[/QUOTE]
I definitely valued human life over there man. I broke bread with several Afghan citizens, they are good people. However, you need to watch out for their misguided uncle, Johnny Taliban. The military does not mandate us to kill. It mandates us to protect, be it our own forces, or a civilian. You do not know our ROE because it is classified. We shoot in self defense. Hell, I never shot at another person over there because we were so good at keeping the peace. I would like to keep it that way.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39918980]I definitely valued human life over there man. I broke bread with several Afghan citizens, they are good people. However, you need to watch out for their misguided uncle, Johnny Taliban. The military does not mandate us to kill. It mandates us to protect, be it our own forces, or a civilian. [B]You do not know our ROE because it is classified. We shoot in self defense[/B]. Hell, I never shot at another person over there because we were so good at keeping the peace. I would like to keep it that way.[/QUOTE]
not anymore
if a german serviceman during WWII decided to defect and join the Allied forces because he opposed the nazi ideology and practices, would you still support him being thrown in prison for treason? or would you give him a pass because he put morality / humanity before some ridiculous pledge he made to a governing body / military force?
He broke the binding agreements he made joining the military and leaked classified documents. He should have reported it to his superiors and if the 'emotional burden' was that much to bear he should have left the military.
What he did was potentially very stupid, no matter how many incidences of war crimes it exposes.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912818]Thing is, you can't get around the fact that [B]he broke the binding law that he swore to abide by[/B], [B]as well as agreeing to abide by his orders[/B]. He broke that promise (which is definitely in writing, everyone in the Military agrees to obey lawful orders and the UCMJ) and he is paying the consequences. Look at it how you will, he is not going to get any special treatment.[/QUOTE]
That's not absolute. If a Nazi soldier refused to send a jew to a concentration camp, would you want him court marshaled as well?
Didn't think so.
The only reason you're stammering on about this 'binding law that he swore by' shit is because it fits hand in hand with your point of view.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;39920942]That's not absolute. If a Nazi soldier refused to send a jew to a concentration camp, would you want him court marshaled as well?
Didn't think so.
The only reason you're stammering on about this 'binding law that he swore by' shit is because it fits hand in hand with your point of view.[/QUOTE]
Can you not understand the difference between the nazi regime and the US govt today, and a german soldier resisting as opposed to the negligent and downright dangerous manner in which manning carried out his 'resistance'?
[editline]15th March 2013[/editline]
You are just way stretching it here
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39918980]I definitely valued human life over there man. I broke bread with several Afghan citizens, they are good people. However, you need to watch out for their misguided uncle, Johnny Taliban. The military does not mandate us to kill. It mandates us to protect, be it our own forces, or a civilian. You do not know our ROE because it is classified. We shoot in self defense. Hell, I never shot at another person over there because we were so good at keeping the peace. I would like to keep it that way.[/QUOTE]
hey wait, didn't you say you'd let an enemy combatant bleed out after the fighting's done and you've got every opportunity to save him, just on the principle of revenge and making yourself feel better afterwards? in that case, either you don't value human life as much as you say you do, or you have been mandated to kill. which one is it?
[QUOTE=Cone;39921073]hey wait, didn't you say you'd let an enemy combatant bleed out after the fighting's done and you've got every opportunity to save him, just on the principle of revenge and making yourself feel better afterwards? in that case, either you don't value human life as much as you say you do, or you have been mandated to kill. which one is it?[/QUOTE]
Could you try proving such an accusation before pointlessly railing him for something that's probably been taken out of context
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912758]Who is this "We" you are referencing? I am sorry, but it is not up to us to decide this. However you feel, no matter what happened to him, "We" cannot do anything. It is all up to "Them", being the court martial. Sure, what happened to him was bad. However, he broke several laws and violated a ton of orders. You can't let someone off due to torture. I know that sounds horrible, but the truth is that there is no chance in hell he is going to get any sort of "special exception."[/QUOTE]
Wow, the US military is a pretty fucked up, considering it's in a developed country.
[QUOTE=scout1;39921035]Can you not understand the difference between the nazi regime and the US govt today, and a german soldier resisting as opposed to the negligent and downright dangerous manner in which manning carried out his 'resistance'?
[editline]15th March 2013[/editline]
You are just way stretching it here[/QUOTE]
Except for the part where the pentagon admitted that the documents which were leaked were not endangering anyone.
Even if he feels that what he did is right, he should understand that his actions have consequences, and this is one of them.
Also i find it ironic that the audio tapes to his trials have gotten leaked, from a trial that is about leaks.
Skeea:
Blindly follows orders regardless of if it's right or not.
They step into other peoples country, and shoot innocent people. Then fucking laugh. It disgusts me how humanity ends like that.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912713]The result of what he leaked has no bearing on this case. The simple fact is that he violated UCMJ and his general orders. There is no way around that. You break UCMJ, UCMJ breaks you. This PFC is no different than any other UCMJ violator before him in the eyes of the law.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunate but true.
Welcome to the human machine that is the military. Please step in line to receive your honor. Do not pass the yellow stripe. Mind the empathic gap.
How can anyone find pride in serving under this kind of constriction? I understand the pride in personal deeds accomplished while in service, but how can one respect the [I]thing[/I] that is the military structure? It's an unfeeling and uncompromising emotionless conglomeration that serves only to bend and mold individuals into useable tools. Personal direction and initiative is hammered away for the sake of efficiency. And what is gained for that sacrifice? A few possibly more stable countries among many violent countries, countries that would not have been in need of stabilizing if not for the actions of those who control the military in the first place?
What "honor" is there in being a tool for the manipulative and the conceited? I just don't understand, no matter how hard I try. Not this country's military, not under these circumstances.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;39932256]Welcome to the human machine that is the military. Please step in line to receive your honor. Do not pass the yellow stripe. Mind the empathic gap.
How can anyone find pride in serving under this kind of constriction? I understand the pride in personal deeds accomplished while in service, but how can one respect the [I]thing[/I] that is the military structure? It's an unfeeling and uncompromising emotionless conglomeration that serves only to bend and mold individuals into useable tools. Personal direction and initiative is hammered away for the sake of efficiency. And what is gained for that sacrifice? A few possibly more stable countries among many violent countries, countries that would not have been in need of stabilizing if not for the actions of those who control the military in the first place?
What "honor" is there in being a tool for the manipulative and the conceited? I just don't understand, no matter how hard I try. Not this country's military, not under these circumstances.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry princess. I guess can't stand the idea that you can't be a special snowflake in the military, huh? Yeah, they remake you into something stalwart and sometimes cold, they have to, that's how it always been since we realized structure and drill makes better warriors than run over there and beat those other chimps to death (though the mindset may still show itself sometimes). And there is honor in serving your own country, for if you love the country you're serving in, which all citizens should, then you have done something honorable unto yourself and the nation you represent.
[QUOTE=Persecution;39925619]Skeea:
Blindly follows orders regardless of if it's right or not.[/QUOTE]
I am not taking sides in this argument, but you do realize that is the definition of the army right? I mean you do draw lines somewhere, but in the army that line is pretty far away from normal life. You take orders, you obey order, you do not question orders. You might find this concept stupid and/or illogical, and that is why army life might not be for you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
