honest question for those ready to hang manning and assange
- Thread starter pjjjjj
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
What constitutes an order that should be ignored?
Would it be an order from an entity outside the country, like an order from the UN?
Is an order from someone who is a foreign national, a lawful order?
Why are we fighting against countries who we have not declared war against?
Is this unlawful?
Would it be an order from an entity outside the country, like an order from the UN?
Is an order from someone who is a foreign national, a lawful order?
Why are we fighting against countries who we have not declared war against?
Is this unlawful?
While I'm often sarcastic, I was not being sarcastic here. Merely honest. I read through your original post and didn't immediately answer, because I couldn't discern the crux of your question. Others did, so now I know what your question was. I admit I only read your original post the one time.
In the case of the video, if they were ordered to do that, they should have flat refused to comply, and they would have been right to refuse the order. Unfortunately, they came up with that one all on their own, and they and the superior officers who allowed idiots like that to fly in a gunship, should be brought up on charges.
An incomplete list would include an order given by someone without authority to give the specific order and an order to perform an illegal act such as shooting civilians.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The problem with what you quoted EL is that it is only a portion of what was (allegedly) said in those conversations between Lamo and Manning ..... and it does not include and ignores the other stuff - which was exculpatory - that he said specifically regarding what his exact motivations were.
The part you quoted mentions notoriety as possible consequence of what he has done - not explicitly as a motivation.
Indeed, the entirety of the chats are not public and have not been looked at by anyone as far as I know beside those at Wired (likely Kevin Poulson and Kim What's-her-name, who wrote the original story) .... although it appears the Washington post has at least some portion - since they published additional material that Wired did not, IIRC.
And speaking of wanting to grab the headlines - have a little look at the history of Adrian Lamo, - that's a real eye-opener ..... as is his relationship to Kevin Poulson at Wired, who has made it a significant part of his career, repeatedly promoting Lamo ......
Poulson's ethics are highly in question as journalist at least - and Lamo's ethics are about at the level of worm ..... please do keep in mind both he and Lamo are convicted felons ....
And for that he will have the undying gratitude of many ...
.... according to the government ......
Keep in mind as part of the proviso Manning made when he submitted the documents was that certain of them should not be published until they were vetted and redacted as a part of a harm minimization process to protect lives.
I believe that Wikileaks is still sitting on some 15,000 docs relating to the Afghan War Logs which have not been released, until such can happen.
Chaos .... really ?
Perhaps part of the price of being free is that one has to suffer a little chaos and danger occasionally .....
Yeah .... I'm fairly certain that is how it actually is .....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
That is exactly true ..... in the case of this country, we need hundreds of millions ......
In the case of the entire world, it's billions .....
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
My, my who put you in a bad mood today 
You really and honestly believe that to be true?
The problem with what you quoted EL is that it is only a portion of what was (allegedly) said in those conversations between Lamo and Manning ..... and it does not include and ignores the other stuff - which was exculpatory - that he said specifically regarding what his exact motivations were.
What he said and what will be proved I think will be very different.
The part you quoted mentions notoriety as possible consequence of what he has done - not explicitly as a motivation.
Yes
Indeed, the entirety of the chats are not public and have not been looked at by anyone as far as I know beside those at Wired (likely Kevin Poulson and Kim What's-her-name, who wrote the original story) .... although it appears the Washington post has at least some portion - since they published additional material that Wired did not, IIRC.
And speaking of wanting to grab the headlines - have a little look at the history of Adrian Lamo, - that's a real eye-opener ..... as is his relationship to Kevin Poulson at Wired, who has made it a significant part of his career, repeatedly promoting Lamo ......
I don't believe Lamo is going on trial or that we were discussing Lamo here
Poulson's ethics are highly in question as journalist at least - and Lamo's ethics are about at the level of worm ..... please do keep in mind both he and Lamo are convicted felons ....
As above but insert Poulson
And for that he will have the undying gratitude of many ...
Really
.... according to the government ......
Keep in mind as part of the proviso Manning made when he submitted the documents was that certain of them should not be published until they were vetted and redacted as a part of a harm minimization process to protect lives.
Well just as long as he got a written guarantee with that, he's ok then ... right?
I believe that Wikileaks is still sitting on some 15,000 docs relating to the Afghan War Logs which have not been released, until such can happen.
Lets hope they stay sat on them
Chaos .... really ?
Yup really
Perhaps part of the price of being free is that one has to suffer a little chaos and danger occasionally .....
Yeah .... I'm fairly certain that is how it actually is .....
You really and honestly believe that to be true?
Did the superior officers KNOW that things might happen? What is the context? Keep in mind that this enemy does NOT have the courage to wear a uniform. he hides in with civilians. Attacks from places that he knows that we will NOT go into or attack. How many "incedents" occured BEFORE a "bad" retaliation? It is all so simple from our living rooms.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Bad mood ....... because I replied to your post ........ and raised what I deem are relevant issues ?
How is that being in a bad mood ?
Next time I'll be sure to use more similey faces
So lemme see if I get this correct - you offer up something that he said as evidence of his bad motivations (arguably) .... but when I raise additional things that he stated that appear to be more germane to the issue of his actual motivations, then that doesn't count .... it's somehow not relevant ?
Is that how it works ?
That's funny - I thought it was you who mentioned Lamo's name and introduced him into the conversation.
Are you saying that the credibility of someone who might be a witness against the accused is not an area that is open to discussion - and it should not be weighed ?
From what jurisprudence does this stem ?
See my words immediately above but insert Poulson ...
You betcha
First he didn't get any written guarantee AFAIK, second the relevant thing is, if there is documentary evidence that he indeed did do this it goes to his motivations ... and is, at least to some degree, exculpatory in relation to at least some of what people are advocating he be charged with ....
Nope, I don't ...... I absolutely know it to be a fact - the contemplation of which, perhaps you, as well as many others, may find extremely disturbing ....
There was a very good reason why Franklin once remarked:
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
Yay RLENT smiled - thats better
That is a brilliant statement - and worthy of its own thread
Please say you are still smiling
Next time I'll be sure to use more similey faces
So lemme see if I get this correct - you offer up something that he said as evidence of his bad motivations (arguably) .... but when I raise additional things that he stated that appear to be more germane to the issue of his actual motivations, then that doesn't count .... it's somehow not relevant ?
Is that how it works ?
I offered up another angle is all.
Though from the many sites I have searched they all seem to have the "disgruntled employee" theme for his motive.
As all of this is conjecture at the moment I answered IMO correctly that when it goes to trial we may all be wrong as to why he did it.
That's funny - I thought it was you who mentioned Lamo's name and introduced him into the conversation.
I did - but we are talking Manning on this thread aren't we?
Are you saying that the credibility of someone who might be a witness against the accused is not an area that is open to discussion - and it should not be weighed ?
From what jurisprudence does this stem ?
LOL I would not even pretend to know the Philosphy of Law - I, as I am sure nearly everyone here uses "their opinion" only.
See my words immediately above but insert Poulson ...
Okey dokey
You betcha
First he didn't get any written guarantee AFAIK, second the relevant thing is, if there is documentary evidence that he indeed did do this it goes to his motivations ... and is, at least to some degree, exculpatory in relation to at least some of what people are advocating he be charged with ....
According to Mr Assange the set up that WikiLeaks has for receiving whistle blower info is not designed to receive the senders information - which apparently is why Mr Assange had not heard of Pvt Manning.
Nope, I don't ...... I absolutely know it to be a fact - the contemplation of which, perhaps you, as well as many others, may find extremely disturbing ....
There was a very good reason why Franklin once remarked:
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
That is a brilliant statement - and worthy of its own thread
Please say you are still smiling
witness23
Veteran Expediter
TRIALS FOR “ENEMY COMBATANTS”
One of the great things about the United States is a judicial system that provides due process for those accused of a crime. It is a model that we tout throughout the world as the “gold standard.” To hold individuals – even those accused of heinous terrorist acts anywhere, including Guantanamo – without due process and the right to a speedy trial is wrong and reflects poorly on our judicial system and on us as a nation. This, by the , is the same judicial system that we point to as the reason why our troops should not be subjected to the International Criminal Court System, and you can’t have it both ways.
Placing individuals in Guantanamo and holding them for years without due process makes us look like a third-world country and damages our reputation immensely. The detainees should be placed in federal prisons, tried in an expeditious manner, and executed, imprisoned, or released in a fair and impartial manner – just as we did with Ted Bundy and the likes. Close Guantanamo or use it as a holding area for large numbers of detainees until we can sort out where they should go, and this process should be capped at a maximum of thirty days.
The men and women in our armed forces are a tremendous group who are safeguarding America’s interests around the world. They serve in the finest traditions of those who have gone before them, and they’re keeping peace in a very dangerous and very complex world. We owe it to those great troops, and to the great American public, to maintain that fine tradition by ensuring that we hold our commanders (all the way to the top) accountable and responsible for conducting themselves with the utmost character and integrity, and to speak out in the spirit o McMaster’s Dereliction of Duty, when they see situations in which these principles are being violated. Intelligence can no longer be manipulated to justify an agenda. Prisoner abuse and withholding of due process can no longer be tolerated.
General Dave Patraeus was working as my executive officer when I required all the Joint Chiefs to read Dereliction of Duty, and from the way he is leading his own troops, it is obvious to me that he took those words to heart. Here’s a letter he sent them when the issue of “questionable” interrogation techniques was exposed, and it’s something we should all take to hear.
The years ahead present some significant challenges to America. They will test more than our armed forces; they will test America’s mettle, our values, our will, our ability to persevere in the face of these global threats – and our willingness to continue to work together to harness the power of an international effort to face these threats to our way of life.
Perhaps my greatest concern is that we hold fast to maintaining the incredibly high standards that have made us the greatest country in the world. In doing so, I am confident that through hard work and diligence, we will meet any challenge and triumph over any enemy or obstacle in our path.
I wish I could take credit for those written words but I can’t. That distinction goes to General (ret.) Hugh Shelton 14th Chairman, Joint Chiefs of State.
It was taken from his book I am currently reading – Without Hesitation – The odyssey of an American Warrior.
One of the great things about the United States is a judicial system that provides due process for those accused of a crime. It is a model that we tout throughout the world as the “gold standard.” To hold individuals – even those accused of heinous terrorist acts anywhere, including Guantanamo – without due process and the right to a speedy trial is wrong and reflects poorly on our judicial system and on us as a nation. This, by the , is the same judicial system that we point to as the reason why our troops should not be subjected to the International Criminal Court System, and you can’t have it both ways.
Placing individuals in Guantanamo and holding them for years without due process makes us look like a third-world country and damages our reputation immensely. The detainees should be placed in federal prisons, tried in an expeditious manner, and executed, imprisoned, or released in a fair and impartial manner – just as we did with Ted Bundy and the likes. Close Guantanamo or use it as a holding area for large numbers of detainees until we can sort out where they should go, and this process should be capped at a maximum of thirty days.
The men and women in our armed forces are a tremendous group who are safeguarding America’s interests around the world. They serve in the finest traditions of those who have gone before them, and they’re keeping peace in a very dangerous and very complex world. We owe it to those great troops, and to the great American public, to maintain that fine tradition by ensuring that we hold our commanders (all the way to the top) accountable and responsible for conducting themselves with the utmost character and integrity, and to speak out in the spirit o McMaster’s Dereliction of Duty, when they see situations in which these principles are being violated. Intelligence can no longer be manipulated to justify an agenda. Prisoner abuse and withholding of due process can no longer be tolerated.
General Dave Patraeus was working as my executive officer when I required all the Joint Chiefs to read Dereliction of Duty, and from the way he is leading his own troops, it is obvious to me that he took those words to heart. Here’s a letter he sent them when the issue of “questionable” interrogation techniques was exposed, and it’s something we should all take to hear.
The years ahead present some significant challenges to America. They will test more than our armed forces; they will test America’s mettle, our values, our will, our ability to persevere in the face of these global threats – and our willingness to continue to work together to harness the power of an international effort to face these threats to our way of life.
Perhaps my greatest concern is that we hold fast to maintaining the incredibly high standards that have made us the greatest country in the world. In doing so, I am confident that through hard work and diligence, we will meet any challenge and triumph over any enemy or obstacle in our path.
I wish I could take credit for those written words but I can’t. That distinction goes to General (ret.) Hugh Shelton 14th Chairman, Joint Chiefs of State.
It was taken from his book I am currently reading – Without Hesitation – The odyssey of an American Warrior.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
This is at the the second time this video has been brought up. Because of my lack of skill in searching the internet would you please help me find all pertinent unit information along with the mission reports. I have seen the video, and it is worth a 1000 words, but there is more to the story.
It would help if we had crew evals, unit history while in country, etc etc etc. The ENTIRE story is needed for context of the video.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
It seems to me that you are saying that the American system works. After all the Generals were fired and 'truth, justice, and the American system' won out.
Right?
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
That's what I'm talking about.
How about it Turtle can you give me a hand please.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I really, truly wish that had been the case - but, sadly, there was a little event that transpired on Friday, November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas that would seem to indicate that it did not.
You can read a little something more about that here:
My Files on the LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK
Whatever is was that won, it ain't the American system .... Amerikan system maybe .....
The names and faces forever change, but the criminal element remains the same ...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Shyeah, right .... good luck gettin' that .....
BTW, don't you think that if there was anything at all exculpatory in any of that, the Pentagon would have that whinin' little weasel spokesperson of theirs, Geoff Morrell, out there pushin' it at the top of his lungs to anyone that would listen ?
For a full, total understanding of what happened, yes - and I would be happy to view any of it with an open mind.
However, as I have pointed out above, the likelihood of that happening is probably about nil ....
So, we're left with what we have .... and based on that, while I am generally inclined to non-violence, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiments that I believe Turtle expressed at one point here on EO:
The gunship crew, and anyone up the chain of command, who knowingly allowed individuals, who were in a civillian environment and who posed no immediate, immenient threat, and were not acting in threatening manner to any specific US troop, to be targetted and murdered (because that is exactly what it appears to be) ...... ought to be taken out back and shot in the head.
This isn't a case of ".... oops .... our bombs malfunctioned and went astray ..." or ".... the gunner accidently punched in a wrong co-ordinate and a house got hit ... sorry ..."
It was intentional, deliberate murder ... as a consequence of failing to correctly PID the potential targets.
Last edited:
As RLENT stated, there's really nothing else to find, other than the video itself. There's no "more to the story" that anyone is willing to even hint at, much less explain. You can bet if there were any extenuating or mitigating circumstances at all, even a, "Whoops, we thought they were someone else," excuse, somebody somewhere would be all over it, whether it was Morrell or some general or something. Nope. Nothing. Instead, we get crickets.
The video stands on its own, for itself.
In a time of war bad things happen. Crazy bad things, and people get carried away and out of control, and will do things that they wouldn't otherwise do when they are thinking straight. We know this to be true. But that doesn't excuse the bad things, and when they come to light they must be dealt with. What happened in the gunship video should have been dealt with swiftly and severely, but it wasn't. Now the video has seen the light of day and it's much worse than if they had properly dealt with it at the time.
The gunship video shows gutless cold blooded murder, perpetrated with the joy and glee of mowing down orcs at the gates of Mordor. That action, and the actions of those superiors who allowed it to happen, directly aided the enemy in their cause, proving their cause is just, and is now a recruiting video for Al Qaeda. Those men swore an oath to protect you and me, and their actions have put your life and my life in more danger than if they had never taken the oath. Those who participated, and the immediate superior officers who allowed such men to fly in a helicopter are, in my mind, guilty of treason, and should be taken out back and shot.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yup - and those reading here should keep it well in mind that when the US military was initially confronted about this matter (before the release of the video), IIRC, they LIED and said the incident never happened.
Doing **** like that will absolutely just kill any shred of a claim that an organization has to a moral or ethical highground.
The citizens of this nation, and indeed any place in the world that we operate, ought to be able genuinely have true respect for our forces - not because they are armed (something which is more likely to engender scorn and contempt), but because they do the right thing - rather than viewing them as part of some immoral, unethical, lying group of murderin' scumbags ....
Whoever was involved in initially lying about this incident and or attempting to cover it up - from the guy through whose lips that lie passed, all the way up the chain of command to whoever knew about and/or authorized it, should have been immediately brought up on charges, with the appropriate punishment being a DD .....
I'd be willing to bet they got nada .... zippo ...
If that had happened, I suspect we'd be seein' alot whole lot less "collateral damage" ......
Just to be pedantic and obnoxious, I offer the following from Wikipedia.
- They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:
- Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.
- Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
- Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:
- They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
- They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as: