Free Bradley Manning
Comments
-
There are officers who are responsible for declassifying information. It's their job, not yours, and not anyone else's.
While true, they are apparently not doing said job. Seeing as how we pay them and they act on our behalf, intervention is required. -
Let's also not forget about Adrian Lamo. Manning confided in him for advice, and Lamo straight up snitched him out to the FBI. I've said it before, in any decent society, snitches get stitches. I encourage anyone who meets him to treat him like a snitch (Columbian necktie, driveby, baseball bat, w/e
Bush didn't do it. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, Wolfowitz, and other neo-cons did it. The "official version" of events is so outlandish and implausible that it is the conspiracy theory.
The fact that we are in Iraq at all is a war crime in and of itself. Water boarding is a war crime. The Contra scandal was a war crime. The use of white phosphorus is a war crime. We crossed the line so long ago, we don't even know what crime looks like when we're funding it.
As you well know, bush is a puppet, and the more you dig, the more you see. I find it increasingly hard to know which is true and which is out-landish. -
Why is this even getting discussed?
He broke the law, simple as that.
Releasing classified information is ILLEGAL.
Originally Posted by DUKEofYORK View Post
the leaks are just further proof of the crime being perpetrated against innocents. Not a written document of fact that you can take to court and portray as evidence. If you are happy to go along with the your hopes and ignorance, if you are happy to believe that the blatantly obvious is all a lie! Then sail on my friend.
we walking backwards again? -
That's just like a pastor at your local confessional booth. From your perspective, he should follow "God's Law" in that anything he hears is to stay between him God and the person confessing. So you're saying If a murderer shows up to your booth, you wouldn't say anything about it? The line between right and wrong is fuzzy; blindly following along without following your own moral judgment is what causes all these issues to begin with.Why is this even getting discussed?
He broke the law, simple as that.
Releasing classified information is ILLEGAL. -
Green_Ranger wrote: »That's just like a pastor at your local confessional booth. From your perspective, he should follow "God's Law" in that anything he hears is to stay between him God and the person confessing. So you're saying If a murderer shows up to your booth, you wouldn't say anything about it? The line between right and wrong is fuzzy; blindly following along without following your own moral judgment is what causes all these issues to begin with.
BAAAAAAD analogy. The confidence of the confessional has a long history, and is considered sacred. You could waterboard most clergy and they would still not divulge what they were told.
I know you were being sarcastic, but you're entirely right. The pastor would not say a word. Also, this is not a confessional type situation. This is a government taking our money and using it commit crimes. Manning is what we call a whistle-blower. Obama promised to protect them when he ran for president, but that turned out to be another lie.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and I know for sure what side of that fence I am on. I can't hear the word terrorism anymore without a little piece of me laughing inside. -
Well I'm not quite sure what "side" your on. At first you come of as "I don't care, it's illegal he should be prosecuted without consideration" and now you sound completely opposite.BAAAAAAD analogy. The confidence of the confessional has a long history, and is considered sacred. You could waterboard most clergy and they would still not divulge what they were told.
I know you were being sarcastic, but you're entirely right. The pastor would not say a word. Also, this is not a confessional type situation. This is a government taking our money and using it commit crimes. Manning is what we call a whistle-blower. Obama promised to protect them when he ran for president, but that turned out to be another lie.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and I know for sure what side of that fence I am on. I can't hear the word terrorism anymore without a little piece of me laughing inside.
I'm no one to judge or make assumptions, don't get me wrong. All I mean to say is (leaving all conspiracy theories out of it) that people need to stop shunning their morality in this whole right-wrong thing. Laws were meant to be guidelines to carry everyone in the same direction; if you feel we're heading the wrong way... it's your job to tell the driver to change course. -
Green_Ranger wrote: »Well I'm not quite sure what "side" your on. At first you come of as "I don't care, it's illegal he should be prosecuted without consideration" and now you sound completely opposite.
That's right. I just wanted to point out that your analogy was bad, despite the fact that i agree with you. Don't dilute our mission with bad arguments, it gives the enemy ammunition.Green_Ranger wrote: »I'm no one to judge or make assumptions, don't get me wrong. All I mean to say is (leaving all conspiracy theories out of it) that people need to stop shunning their morality in this whole right-wrong thing. Laws were meant to be guidelines to carry everyone in the same direction; if you feel we're heading the wrong way... it's your job to tell the driver to change course.
Our 'driver' stopped listening some time around the Vietnam War. There are also laws that say you can't smoke weed, or bang a h00ker, or videotape police in some states. That doesn't make the law right, it just makes us victims.
By spreading the leaks, and supporting Assange, we have a way of protesting our runaway government without having to break the law. We should be glad the debate is so civil, many other countries would be led to armed revolution if this kind of corruption were uncovered.
If you honestly have any respect for modern American law, you obviously have not studied it nor been subject to it. -
I'm glad to hear that, but I don't understand where coming off against me. This isn't a point of "enemies"... it's that type of thought that makes people so easy to manipulate. As I said earlier, people feel the need to antagonize someone, thing or race. Give the people someone to point the finger to and bam, you can lead the herd.That's right. I just wanted to point out that your analogy was bad, despite the fact that i agree with you. Don't dilute our mission with bad arguments, it gives the enemy ammunition.
Our 'driver' stopped listening some time around the Vietnam War. There are also laws that say you can't smoke weed, or bang a h00ker, or videotape police in some states. That doesn't make the law right, it just makes us victims.
By spreading the leaks, and supporting Assange, we have a way of protesting our runaway government without having to break the law. We should be glad the debate is so civil, many other countries would be led to armed revolution if this kind of corruption were uncovered.
If you honestly have any respect for modern American law, you obviously have not studied it nor been subject to it.
For the record, the point of the analogy was that sometimes blowing the whistle is a good thing, and no matter how wrong some "laws" might make it out to be, it needs to be done. Only reason I stated that was because the people using the legality of the issue as an argument would be very much like those devout enough to consider the confessional sacred.
Laws are great, but we need to remember the purpose of their creation. If the foundation of our society is full of holes, we can't blame anyone but ourselves when it collapses.
I'm with you though. It may seem like we've been heading down the wrong road for a while now with no one attempting to change course or our complaints falling on deaf ears. Point of the matter is people have become compliant with it.
P.S: There are highs and lows in the laws of all countries. We are an imperfect race and we are bound to disagree on some points. -
DUKEofYORK wrote: »Originally Posted by DUKEofYORK View Post
the leaks are just further proof of the crime being perpetrated against innocents. Not a written document of fact that you can take to court and portray as evidence. If you are happy to go along with the your hopes and ignorance, if you are happy to believe that the blatantly obvious is all a lie! Then sail on my friend.
we walking backwards again?
You're an idiot, if anyone is for the leaks it's me...since I find out alot of things that concern my family living in Iraq.
But that makes NO difference...what he did was ILLEGAL -
Green_Ranger wrote: »That's just like a pastor at your local confessional booth. From your perspective, he should follow "God's Law" in that anything he hears is to stay between him God and the person confessing. So you're saying If a murderer shows up to your booth, you wouldn't say anything about it? The line between right and wrong is fuzzy; blindly following along without following your own moral judgment is what causes all these issues to begin with.
You're an idiot, god doesn't exist. -
You know, starting your lines of with you're an idiot doesn't make you any more right than without it... you shouldn't need to resort to mudslinging to prove a point.You're an idiot, god doesn't exist.
And the point of the existence of a god is moot. The principles or ideals of a religion are similar than those of a political system. In fact, for most civilizations these were one and the same at one point in history. Try to be a little more open to opinions, might learn something. For the record, I don't believe in "God" either. -
You're an idiot, if anyone is for the leaks it's me...since I find out alot of things that concern my family living in Iraq.
But that makes NO difference...what he did was ILLEGAL
Being an "Idiot" I apologise for that. I missed the fact that I am missing the point. blame my Idiocy. It works for me:) -
You're an idiot, if anyone is for the leaks it's me...since I find out alot of things that concern my family living in Iraq.
But that makes NO difference...what he did was ILLEGAL
We have a tool for that. Jury Nullification. You bring them to trial, and no matter how guilty they are, the jury refuses to convict. If juries these days had the balls, it would happen more often and we would be a lot better off. -
Our 'driver' stopped listening some time around the Vietnam War. There are also laws that say you can't smoke weed, or bang a h00ker, or videotape police in some states. That doesn't make the law right, it just makes us victims.
.
You are a minority though. The majority of Americans when polled do not support the legalization of drugs or prostitution.By spreading the leaks, and supporting Assange, we have a way of protesting our runaway government without having to break the law. We should be glad the debate is so civil, many other countries would be led to armed revolution if this kind of corruption were uncovered.
If you honestly have any respect for modern American law, you obviously have not studied it nor been subject to it.
I would like to know what corruption wikileaks has revealed that would lead to armed revolution?
Not releasing civilian casualties?
Black Ops hit squads on enemy leaders/targets?
Bombings in yemen?
Diplomats opinions of their hosts?
RC Drones being flown from Nevada?
How the US covered up evidence that the Taliban have acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles?
IED Problem bigger than stated?
Sorry, but to the normal person most of these seems plausible. This isn't some new earth shattering information.
Personally I don't want to hear about civilian tragedies. Death of innocents is a terrible thing.
You played FPS videogames, you know special ops teams exist...
The leader of Yemen claiming responsibility for US missile attacks, to save face with his people. Yep such a terrible thing, to try to promote stability in a country.
Imagine that diplomats talking about their hosts. Have you ever been to a family reunion? What do you think happens when you leave?
UAV's are main stream now, this isn't something new.
I am startled that the Taliban has more advanced weaponry than we we're told, but at the same time they do have alot of money...
Find me 1 thing that is so terribly bad/evil/corrupt that we should revolt. 1 thing from wikileaks. -
He IS a criminal.
War crimes are criminal, exposing them is not only a moral but legal requirement, esp when the military refuses to release the video under FOI by the family and then continually labels the victims as insurgents when they know very well that they wasn't (they knew that right after ground troops moved in) never mind months after.
And talking about laws/crimes (when it really shouldn't be classed as one), remember this:
It was a crime to be gay a number of years ago.
It was a crime as a slave to run away from your master years ago.
It was a crime for a black person to enter white areas years ago.
So yes even if it was a so-called crime to expose war crimes it shouldn't be, maybe one day it won't be a crime to expose war crimes too.I haven't read the afghan war documents or the diplomatic cables, but I have seen the chopper video.
All I have seen is the chopper video
I personally don't believe it was a war crime. Was it a tragedy? Yes, definitely. Was it a war crime? No.
I have saw 3 videos the one you mention and 2 more, assuming all of these were actually insurgents when they are not (for arguments sake).
In the one you mention there are a few clear violations:
1) Shooting a wounded and a clearly unarmed subject.
2) Shooting the rescuers of the unarmed subject who themselves are unarmed.
3) Firing on a location when it is known a civilian will get injured or killed and when the attack could of waited until the civilian had left the immediate area (later in the video).
The second video shows a surrendering man being blatantly killed:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=66d_1219663925
The third shows a large group of people being bombed for no apparent reason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AXN3H3BPQU
Efforts should not be made to punish the whistler blower but to punish those that were directly responsible, those that gave the orders to engage and those that set the policies in place to have lax ROE and those that chose to hide these facts. -
UKDissident wrote: »War crimes are criminal, exposing them is not only a moral but legal requirement, esp when the military refuses to release the video under FOI by the family and then continually labels the victims as insurgents when they know very well that they wasn't (they knew that right after ground troops moved in) never mind months after.
And talking about laws/crimes (when it really shouldn't be classed as one), remember this:
It was a crime to be gay a number of years ago.
It was a crime as a slave to run away from your master years ago.
It was a crime for a black person to enter white areas years ago.
So yes even if it was a so-called crime to expose war crimes it shouldn't be, maybe one day it won't be a crime to expose war crimes too.
I would have no issue with someone exposing pure war crimes. Granted those tend to leak out without stealing information.
He stole, without discretion, hundreds of thousands of classified documents and threw it to the most controversial (unfortunately) organization for publication of documents, Wikileaks, without discrimination as to what the documents might contain.
Careless to say the least.
Punishable, lets hope it stays that way.
Nobody knows where Wikileaks (but thank god he decided to give them to them rather than a foreign government, even though he did by association) alliances lie. Trusting them blindly because they publish confidential (doesn't that just get your James Bond testes tingling) information acquired with any means. -
I would have no issue with someone exposing pure war crimes. Granted those tend to leak out without stealing information
Lol the more important of the two things is war crimes not leaking.
When you have a government that is complicit and is protecting all the players involved it is difficult to expose war crimes without resorting to 'underhanded methods'.
The soldiers involved certainly won't speak out, the government won't.UKDISSIDENT wrote:
Yes hide those war crimes:p
Do you support punishment for those committing the acts? Such as shooting people that surrender?? -
As I said, I'd have no issue if documents were stolen only in the interest of bringing war crimes to light.UKDissident wrote: »Lol the more important of the two things is war crimes not leaking.
When you have a government that is complicit and is protecting all the players involved it is difficult to expose war crimes without resorting to 'underhanded methods'.
The soldiers involved certainly won't speak out, the government won't.
Yes hide those war crimes:p
Do you support punishment for those committing the acts? Such as shooting people that surrender??
Of course I support punishment for murder. Worth noting however that the definition of 'murder' is somewhat scrambled during a war.
Civilian casualties are to be expected in times of war. -
UKDissident wrote: »War crimes are criminal, exposing them is not only a moral but legal requirement, esp when the military refuses to release the video under FOI by the family and then continually labels the victims as insurgents when they know very well that they wasn't (they knew that right after ground troops moved in) never mind months after.
And talking about laws/crimes (when it really shouldn't be classed as one), remember this:
It was a crime to be gay a number of years ago.
It was a crime as a slave to run away from your master years ago.
It was a crime for a black person to enter white areas years ago.
So yes even if it was a so-called crime to expose war crimes it shouldn't be, maybe one day it won't be a crime to expose war crimes too.
I have saw 3 videos the one you mention and 2 more, assuming all of these were actually insurgents when they are not (for arguments sake).
In the one you mention there are a few clear violations:
1) Shooting a wounded and a clearly unarmed subject.
2) Shooting the rescuers of the unarmed subject who themselves are unarmed.
3) Firing on a location when it is known a civilian will get injured or killed and when the attack could of waited until the civilian had left the immediate area (later in the video).
The reporters were unarmed, however the people they were with were armed. Troops had been receiving small arms fire/rpg fire throughout the day, and before the chopper attack.
Its all in the military report, that has been public for awhile now.
-
As I said, I'd have no issue if documents were stolen only in the interest of bringing war crimes to light.
Then why didn't the government turn them over with the FOI? That was a perfectly legal request, would save leaking no?..Worth noting however that the definition of 'murder' is somewhat scrambled during a war.
Surrendering is surrendering, killing people that surrender is murder even in war.Civilian casualties are to be expected in times of war.
You are referring to the none deliberate ones I take it? -
The reporters were unarmed, however the people they were with were armed. Troops had been receiving small arms fire/rpg fire throughout the day, and before the chopper attack.
You do realise that I said even if every single one in each video was an insurgent there are still majors problems and war crimes:I have saw 3 videos the one you mention and 2 more, assuming all of these were actually insurgents when they are not (for arguments sake).
In the one you mention there are a few clear violations:
1) Shooting a wounded and a clearly unarmed subject.
2) Shooting the rescuers of the unarmed subject who themselves are unarmed.
3) Firing on a location when it is known a civilian will get injured or killed and when the attack could of waited until the civilian had left the immediate area (later in the video).
The second video shows a surrendering man being blatantly killed:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=66d_1219663925
The third shows a large group of people being bombed for no apparent reason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AXN3H3BPQU
Efforts should not be made to punish the whistler blower but to punish those that were directly responsible, those that gave the orders to engage and those that set the policies in place to have lax ROE and those that chose to hide these facts.
![[dot]](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/27/navatar_2942827.gif){kind=avatar}
with a rocket launcher. seriously... 
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- Off-Topic - Go To Game OT Forums
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 16 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 5.2K CrossFire
- 955 CrossFire Announcements
- 945 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 1.4K Community
- 122 Modes
- 602 Suggestions
- 85 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 274 CF Competitive Forum
- 19 CFCL
- 26 Looking for a Team?
- 705 CrossFire Support
- 52 Suggestion
- 116 Bugs
- 29 CrossFire Guides
- 166 Technical Issues
- 47 CrossFire Off Topic