Wikileaks Hiring Lawyers to Defend Alleged Army Source?

[RedStarSQD]

The video i saw..the US did not "murder" civilians.

They identified gun carrying militants who the reporter just happened to be talking to. They mistook his camera for a weapon also.

This has happened quite a few times now in different countries. Reporters should realise the danger by now ...and seek to minimize their profile as they fraternize with the enemy.

The guy clearly did not dispense the info with altruism in mind. Until more is known, the word traitor does not yet apply though.

 

[Grahamkracka]

Lets say you work for DOW chemical and you come across a classified report that your company is dumping toxic chemicals into a small towns water supply and it's causing death, birth defects, etc, and instead of coming clean and fixing it, are just covering it up. Are you a company man who leaves it alone or do you have the courage to do what is right and expose the company, forcing them to take responsibility for their actions?

The traitors are the men and women who covered the accident up, not the man who exposed it.

And if you're ashamed to have been in the army because we're discussing our personal opinions, I don't know why you were a soldier to begin with.

Apples and Oranges


In this case Dow is intentionally doing something that can be easily prevented.

This is a war, shit happens. The two reporters were basically freelancing on their own to get the 'other' side of the story. The immediate area this happened in had several firefights throughout the day running up to the incident in question. There WERE people carrying weapons in that group. I have plenty of experience looking at full motion video in real time. My assessment would have been : "group of 10-12 military age males, armed..Rifles, possible IED materials and 1-2 RPGs."

Are we responsible for some reporters are hanging out with a suspect group in a suspect area where attacks on American troops were ongoing that day?


A very different situation. This is war, nothing is clear and ACCIDENTS happen. We aren't robots after all.

 

[Kaitian]

Lets say you work for DOW chemical and you come across a classified report that your company is dumping toxic chemicals into a small towns water supply and it's causing death, birth defects, etc, and instead of coming clean and fixing it, are just covering it up. Are you a company man who leaves it alone or do you have the courage to do what is right and expose the company, forcing them to take responsibility for their actions?

The traitors are the men and women who covered the accident up, not the man who exposed it.

And if you're ashamed to have been in the army because we're discussing our personal opinions, I don't know why you were a soldier to begin with.

Regarding the "traitors" you seem to be accusing of covering up the video, point out to a specific time on the video. I watched that video from beginning to back. I even read the investigation report on that engagement which had pictures to identify on the ground. The reporter even aimed his camera at a convoy and snapped pictures which that picture was also released to the public. Except the gun crew took that for an RPG being aimed at the convoy which they were well within the ROE for assuming that. They will not compromise their own men for the sake of being "careful". They did identify an RPG in that group which was clear as day in the video prior to going to the corner. They did a logical assumption as any soldier would make. That van coming to the aid of those workers is also against the rules even the geneva convention cannot sanction that action. It has to be marked clearly that it is an ambulance otherwise that would be a war crime. Instead it was not. Your judgement is obviously biased towards "wikileak". Fuck them. They do it for the sake of whatever their retarded belief is and it certainly isn't to benefit the world in general. If anything, it creates more chaotic situations especially in diplomacy. It's quite obvious you aren't that skilled at international relations which I'm sure your general impression is "Shake hands, make agreements and that's it, we're all great friends now!"

 

[vasta]

Accidents happen, get over it...not the first time and probably wont be the last

 

[ZenOps]

Man is hero.

How else are we in Canada going to know if there is a "kill switch" inside of each F-35, that will disable the fighter plane if it attempts to lock onto a US friendly target.

Blame Canada!

 

[BallerX]

Man is hero.

How else are we in Canada going to know if there is a "kill switch" inside of each F-35, that will disable the fighter plane if it attempts to lock onto a US friendly target.

Blame Canada!

How about you build your own shit? Servers Canada right for getting into bed with us anyway. If anyone knows better it should be Canada and Mexico. You guys have box seats to the stupid show yet you still buy the hype.

 

[anonmoniker]

All you mouth breathers who defend this piece of trash should never, ever breed.

Collateral damage will always be unavoidable. I don't care what you retards say, we do our best to avoid it. And trust me it's not easy when it does happen...even if you put on that bravado exterior...it kills all of us a little inside. But that is our burden to bear...something most of us do not take lightly. We classify videos such as these to keep them out of our adversaries hands so they can not use it as free propaganda.

Yes collateral damage makes the military (as an organization) look bad. But it also incites a great deal of hate against individual military members as well by the far left nut jobs who think that we live to kill innocents.

Have you ever been followed to work and home by someone...then have someone (or a group) vandalize your property periodically? Have you ever had someone spit in your face? Have you ever had your tires slashed and your car keyed (saying 'fuck you babykiller')? Have you ever had protesters outside your workplace throw objects at your car as you drive by? Do you frequently run into people treat you with general disgust?

In my 6 years in the military I have had all of these happen to me...I have heard of other things happening to others. It's all because I am in the US Military. Granted most of these are not very common, but it happens...and it gets more frequent the longer the wars go on (and the closer you get to California haha..).

Lets not forget that he supposedly leaked a quarter-million classified state department documents. That alone can seriously hinder our diplomatic efforts for YEARS.

The sad truth is that most people cannot handle the responsibility of keeping secrets. Even with all our efforts, not everyone that is granted a clearance will be up to the task. We classify things to keep them out of the hands of our adversaries. If you hold a clearance you are bound by law to keep that shit a secret, NO FUCKING EXCEPTIONS..PERIOD FUCKING DOT. You will come across things you may not personally agree with (most of us do), doesn't matter.... you signed your name on that dotted line and you know full and well what will happen to you if you are caught leaking classified material. You break the law, you pay the consequences.

Don't let these twats bother you, they're too stupid to realize that most past wars weren't fought in a 24/7 media coverage environment with leftist reporters doing everything they can to weaken the country's resolve. If WW2 had been fought in the current media environment we'd all be speaking German.

 

[IRSmurf]

No one here is arguing that civilians casualties are or are not inevitable. Nor is anyone attacking soldiers the soldiers that made the call. You're making up your own enemy, arguing with an imaginary adversary.

The topic of discussion is a guy blew the whistle on a cover-up by the US Army, where we (the US) lied about the accidental killing of non-combatants. He's going to trial and it seems almost certain he will serve time in prison for leaking classified info.

 

[Gnomepatrol]

Civilians with weapons? That just happened to be in an area that American soldiers had just taken fire from?

Yep im sure our army would have gotten wrecked but he camera crews audio equipment and HD cameras, oh and the pens and paper holy crap they might throw the pens and give someone a nasty paper cut.

Oh and if police take fire its okay to shoot up everyone in the area? I'm not in the military, but aren't there some rules of engagement or something. So, that the military doesn't shoot first ask later type deal

 

[Gnomepatrol]

for soem reason can't edit my comment to add something

As the United States we hold ourselves to a higher standard why is it that in times of war our values get flushed right down the toilet.

 

[Nemesis999]

for soem reason can't edit my comment to add something

As the United States we hold ourselves to a higher standard why is it that in times of war our values get flushed right down the toilet.

And what country is it that is capable of completely eliminating collateral damage?

The problem is not that collateral damage isn't being reduced, it's that the spine of the average American is disappearing far faster.

 

[IntelPatriot]

They will not compromise their own men for the sake of being "careful".

In which case they've got no fucking business being there.

 

[brycejones]

In a war zone bad things are bound to happen it is war after all. However that doesn't mean as a nation we try to cover it up or suppress those events when they happen. We as a nation are constantly telling other countries to open up and allow information to flow freely. When these things come to light it make us as a nation look like hypocrites gives strength to those who oppose us.

We seem to have forgotten that military dominance is usually a temporary thing at best. But in being wiling to use our military dominance to enforce our will through "hard power", we are weakening our ability to exercise "soft power" which ultimately gives us greater influence around the world.

 

[setekh]

And what country is it that is capable of completely eliminating collateral damage?

The problem is not that collateral damage isn't being reduced, it's that the spine of the average American is disappearing far faster.

Why would you say that?

 

[ZenOps]

Yup, technology is the hardest to keep secret.

They marked down the space shuttle from $40 million to 28.8 million, still no takers to my knowledge. It might have to go on sale for $9.99 million before someone makes a bid.

In this day and age, you can store a couple hundred thousand secrets on a piece of flash memory smaller than your fingernail. How in the world does anyone expect to keep things secret like that?

LED's will soon be talking to each other too, nothing will be secret anymore.

 

[Gorankar]

In which case they've got no fucking business being there.

Actually the reverse is true.
If they are not capable of putting their men and mission first, they don't belong there.

 

[Gorankar]

Why would you say that?

Because it is true. My fellow Americans get more panzy ass with each passing year.

Look, the US goes thru an incomparable amount of money and effort to reduce civilian casualties. Aside from taking no action at all, or just allowing your soldiers to be killed, which military could do better in that department?

 

[setekh]

Because it is true. My fellow Americans get more panzy ass with each passing year.

Look, the US goes thru an incomparable amount of money and effort to reduce civilian casualties. Aside from taking no action at all, or just allowing your soldiers to be killed, which military could do better in that department?

I don't think you're looking at it the right way. I would say that your fellow Americans are as panzy ass now as they were 20 years ago.

The big difference I see is in the media coverage of wars. If you see the pain and suffering that a war causes, you start thinking hard on if you find that war to be legitimate or not. It is not a matter of cohones, IMO.

 

[trooper11]

i think its quite simple. this guy should be put on trial where everyone gets to hear the FACTS in this case. if he released classified info illegally, then he has to pay the price, it doesnt matter what your opinion on his motivation is. i want to know exactly how much info he leaked beyond just that video.

im tired of these things being tried in the court of the media/public opinion before we even have all the facts.


as far as the video itself, it doesnt look like anything intentional happened here. It was an unfortunate tragedy no doubt, but i cant blame the soldiers for having to make a quick decision or risk the lives of themselves and the rest of their group.

our military goes out of its way to reduce the chances of things like this happening, sometimes to the point of delaying real progress and putting more risk on our soldiers, and yet they still happen simply becuase its impossible to eliminate. I certainly feel bad for the families of those civilians, but that doesnt make me angry at what the soldiers were doing. We need to finish the job over there so that we can secure things back home.

As far as the war itself, the only thing ill say is that the motivation is not to setup a democracy over there, at least not directly. Im sure we would rather they have one as that could lead to a more stable area, but i think our objective is pretty clear, clear out those terrorist groups. Unfortunately, doing that is not easy and it seems like we have no choice but to try and stabilize the governments over there in order to permantly solve the problem. So yeah, i dont agree with the notion that we should go in under the guise of spreading democracy. Democracy will come to those that choose to make it happen. Just like our own country, we had to do it ourselves.

 

[trooper11]

I don't think you're looking at it the right way. I would say that your fellow Americans are as panzy ass now as they were 20 years ago.

The big difference I see is in the media coverage of wars. If you see the pain and suffering that a war causes, you start thinking hard on if you find that war to be legitimate or not. It is not a matter of cohones, IMO.

thats why during the hieght of the iraq war, you had the media posting soldier/civilian death counts everyday, which slowly started eroding support for the war. its interesting that you dont have that kind of coverage now, even though we are still in a similar war. i guess its just inconvenient for them now.

thats the real problem. i dont care what the media reports as long as its factual and treated the same regardless of who is president at the time. unforutnately, that hasnt happend for a long time.

courage is certianly neccesary in alot of things we do, part of that is, just as you say, deciding for yourself whether the negatives are worth the effort. Once you decide that, its courage that helps you stick to your principles.

 

[setekh]

thats why during the hieght of the iraq war, you had the media posting soldier/civilian death counts everyday, which slowly started eroding support for the war. its interesting that you dont have that kind of coverage now, even though we are still in a similar war. i guess its just inconvenient for them now.

thats the real problem. i dont care what the media reports as long as its factual and treated the same regardless of who is president at the time. unforutnately, that hasnt happend for a long time.

courage is certianly neccesary in alot of things we do, part of that is, just as you say, deciding for yourself whether the negatives are worth the effort. Once you decide that, its courage that helps you stick to your principles.

Media in USA is wrotten. I agree. It can be a shameless propaganda machine. For either side, I mean.

Still, in their defense, you can only cover the same subject and report the same things so many times. After years of war, I can see that happening - it's not news anymore. Much the same way, many of the people that got carried away and supported the wars in the beginning start coming to their senses. Visual aids like this one help a great deal towards that end.

The real issue is that people forget that they actually supported the war in the first place, so when they feel disgust over footage like this one and crucify the military, they should keep in mind that it was them who sent them there in the first place. It does take courage to own up to that.

The bright side I see in leaks like this one is that it might give people food for thought for next time they are considering engaging on another senseless war halfway across the world. War is horrible. People have to know that.

 

[setekh]

I should stress that, if I have trouble condeming the soldiers, I find the cover-up absolutely unacceptable. I am adamant about that.

 

[Bash]

His mistake was trusting a rat like Adrian Lamo. His only goal it to appease his Government overlords and to beg for scraps from the FBI.

Unfortunately civilian deaths will happen in a time of war, I am not condoning it but its reality.
I never agreed with the original reason(WMD) we went to war and I certainly don't agree with the new one(Spreading Democracy).

Bring back the draft, Maybe the public will pay attention more when everyone has skin in the game.

 

[RumpleForeSkin]

Any of you who are actually defending this soldier: have you ever served even ONE day in the military? Rules, regulations and classifications of material are all very serious matters. I only had a Secret clearance and handled very few classified documents, but took each and every one of them very seriously. The penalties for leaking or abusing classified information are harsh and just. Classified is classified, even if you feel it's not earth-shattering. Same thing in the corporate world.

Can't believe any of you would defend this turd. I'm ashamed to have been in the Army, when you have people like this.

Yes I have served. Proudly and on Active duty, in a time of war, with a secret security clearance and WILL defend this soldier regardless of his background. If the government was actively trying to silence this information they they MUST be held accountable.

This soldier did not embarrass our military or the nation. The actions of those in the video embarrassed the military and the nation. Keeping the public's eye away from these things is more of a disservice to our fighting men and women than trying to bring those at fault to justice.

get off of you soapbox.. the killing of civilians is WRONG no matter what. Honestly if he is outing this for noble reasons then the guys deserves a fucking MEDAL not your ire.

US ARMY 90-94
Second to NONE

 

[srangara]

And how, exactly do you know the rules of engagement? Were you in that AO? Ill bet you weren't. So unless you were, you can stfu...ROE differs depending on situation. And in this case they were well within ROE for that AO and time period.

Were the crews unprofessional on the radio? Yes (but I challenge you to find anyone that de-sensitizes themselves in battle...its a coping mechanism)
Operated outside of thier ROE? No

Because the rules of engagement were clearly stated IN THE VIDEO. They lied to support continued fire (or were incompetent--I think they were just eager). Here's an excerpt from an NPR interview in April (emphasis mine):

But we have a hint about the rules enforced that day because of what one of the helicopter's crewmembers said after the first volley of gunfire from the helicopter and one of the men is down on the ground, crawling.


Let's listen.

Unidentified Man #1: Come on, buddy. (unintelligible)

Unidentified Man #2: All you got to do is pick up a weapon.

BOWMAN: Now, the key here is when he said pick up a weapon. That suggests that if the person was not armed, he could not be targeted. And that's important to understanding what's becoming the most controversial part of video, which happens just a bit later.


NORRIS: Now, you're talking about this portion of the video where the van comes in to pick up that wounded man. And I guess the question surrounding that would be: Is the helicopter permitted to shoot at people who are actually coming in to apparently help the wounded?


BOWMAN: That's right. That's a key point. Helicopter crew say they were picking up wounded and weapons. Some said it in sworn statements later to Army investigators. One crewmember said it on tape. This is happening as the van is driving up. Let's listen to that.

Unidentified Man #3: Now, Bushmaster, we have a van that's approaching. It's picking up the bodies.

Unidentified Man #4: Where's that van at?

Unidentified Man #3: Right down there by the bodies.

Unidentified Man #4: Okay, yeah.

Unidentified Man #3: Bushmaster, Crazy Horse, we have individuals going to the scene. Looks like possibly picking up bodies and weapons.

BOWMAN: Now, the problem is that was not the case. On the video, you cannot see any weapons. Yet they were given permission to open fire.

Unidentified Man #5: Request permission to engage.

Whether or not you believe any of that was a *purposeful* violation of the RoE, it was a violation of the RoE! Forgivable, possibly. Grounds for a cover-up?

 

[bezant]

Hopefully he dies a proper traitors death, with his neck around a noose.

What you said could have been said by people like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc. Why would you put your name to that distinguished list?

There is something called the Bill of Rights that you need to brush up on. I would point directly to the Sixth Amendment.

You don't know the facts, so don't jump to conclusions.

 

[bezant]

The rat fuck should be slowly tortured to death. It's exactly what that kind of steaming piece of shit deserves. He broke up with his girlfriend, then got pissed off after he got demoted for hitting another soldier, so the steaming human shitpile stabs his own country in the back,

There is no torture too cruel for him.

And people wonder why freedom in this country is a thing of the past...

 

[bezant]

Any of you who are actually defending this soldier: have you ever served even ONE day in the military? Rules, regulations and classifications of material are all very serious matters. I only had a Secret clearance and handled very few classified documents, but took each and every one of them very seriously. The penalties for leaking or abusing classified information are harsh and just. Classified is classified, even if you feel it's not earth-shattering. Same thing in the corporate world.

Can't believe any of you would defend this turd. I'm ashamed to have been in the Army, when you have people like this.

I guess you forget why the US has military forces and what those forces are supposed to protect.

The information we have so far is one sided and those people who judge someone based on what the government says are stupid.

 

[bezant]

All you mouth breathers who defend this piece of trash should never, ever breed.

Wow!

 

[Kaitian]

Because the rules of engagement were clearly stated IN THE VIDEO. They lied to support continued fire (or were incompetent--I think they were just eager). Here's an excerpt from an NPR interview in April (emphasis mine):



Whether or not you believe any of that was a *purposeful* violation of the RoE, it was a violation of the RoE! Forgivable, possibly. Grounds for a cover-up?

Uhh where? Who says it was a violation of the ROE? The rules of engagement says when a person has a weapon, they become susceptible to being attacked by anyone. The Geneva Convention even talks about this. They didn't shoot first before picking up the weapon. They shot at the van which was not a clearly marked ambulance at all and if you watched the entire video, a similar van or the same van dropped off those men. The gun crew was focusing on those men on the ground, not following the van leaving the area. That van had no business being in the middle of combat. Especially with two kids in the back of the van which the infantry on the ground rushed to get them immediate medical attention. Assange doesn't point this out because he's a tool with an agenda of his own but it was obvious by the hurried state of the soldier carrying the child also mentioned in the investigation report too. People keep saying that the military lied to cover it up like IRS up there but he never shows his proof, he just takes the crap from Reuters and Assange, says they lied and that's it.

The US Military never lied about the accidental killing of those reporters. They did confirmed it but they never released the video accompanying it and they already had done their own investigation report which was released a long time ago to Reuters. Reuters not being satisfied demanded more, attacked the military crying coverup and etc. These same men were embedded with these guys for quite some time and there is proof from these same photographers out in the public domain that they were indeed doing that. Just because the press can be in a combat zone, they have to be clearly marked as "PRESS", "TV" with blue clothing and actually not being integrated. This is public knowledge.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...n-identity-journalists-are-warned-593103.html is an example. Plus they chose to integrate themselves with a hostile force which that safety just goes out the window. Being a member of the press is not a shield. Reuters just likes to pretend it is.

 

[nimbyfaygo]

Any of you who are actually defending this soldier: have you ever served even ONE day in the military? Rules, regulations and classifications of material are all very serious matters. I only had a Secret clearance and handled very few classified documents, but took each and every one of them very seriously. The penalties for leaking or abusing classified information are harsh and just. Classified is classified, even if you feel it's not earth-shattering. Same thing in the corporate world.

Can't believe any of you would defend this turd. I'm ashamed to have been in the Army, when you have people like this.

^^^^^^^^ It does hurt to see what some people opinions are. I don't give a damn what the motives behind the scenes are, I joined the Army to serve my country, and I served it well!

Freedom of speech and all that, and everyone is free to have their own views.
I think those files were classified for a reason "even if people don't agree with those reasons".
The disclosure of those files regardless of Manning's feelings was wrong. He needs to be accountable for his actions. I truly hope some weaselly lawyer isn't able to find a loophole to get him out of trouble,

 

[Monkey God]

Uhh where? Who says it was a violation of the ROE? The rules of engagement says when a person has a weapon, they become susceptible to being attacked by anyone. The Geneva Convention even talks about this. They didn't shoot first before picking up the weapon. They shot at the van which was not a clearly marked ambulance at all and if you watched the entire video, a similar van or the same van dropped off those men. The gun crew was focusing on those men on the ground, not following the van leaving the area. That van had no business being in the middle of combat. Especially with two kids in the back of the van which the infantry on the ground rushed to get them immediate medical attention. Assange doesn't point this out because he's a tool with an agenda of his own but it was obvious by the hurried state of the soldier carrying the child also mentioned in the investigation report too. People keep saying that the military lied to cover it up like IRS up there but he never shows his proof, he just takes the crap from Reuters and Assange, says they lied and that's it.

The US Military never lied about the accidental killing of those reporters. They did confirmed it but they never released the video accompanying it and they already had done their own investigation report which was released a long time ago to Reuters. Reuters not being satisfied demanded more, attacked the military crying coverup and etc. These same men were embedded with these guys for quite some time and there is proof from these same photographers out in the public domain that they were indeed doing that. Just because the press can be in a combat zone, they have to be clearly marked as "PRESS", "TV" with blue clothing and actually not being integrated. This is public knowledge.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...n-identity-journalists-are-warned-593103.html is an example. Plus they chose to integrate themselves with a hostile force which that safety just goes out the window. Being a member of the press is not a shield. Reuters just likes to pretend it is.

You STFU with your facts and reason. I WANT TO BLAME THE MILITARY FOR KILLING BABIES

 

[srangara]

Uhh where? Who says it was a violation of the ROE? The rules of engagement says when a person has a weapon, they become susceptible to being attacked by anyone. The Geneva Convention even talks about this. They didn't shoot first before picking up the weapon. They shot at the van which was not a clearly marked ambulance at all and if you watched the entire video, a similar van or the same van dropped off those men. The gun crew was focusing on those men on the ground, not following the van leaving the area. That van had no business being in the middle of combat. Especially with two kids in the back of the van which the infantry on the ground rushed to get them immediate medical attention. Assange doesn't point this out because he's a tool with an agenda of his own but it was obvious by the hurried state of the soldier carrying the child also mentioned in the investigation report too. People keep saying that the military lied to cover it up like IRS up there but he never shows his proof, he just takes the crap from Reuters and Assange, says they lied and that's it.

The US Military never lied about the accidental killing of those reporters. They did confirmed it but they never released the video accompanying it and they already had done their own investigation report which was released a long time ago to Reuters. Reuters not being satisfied demanded more, attacked the military crying coverup and etc. These same men were embedded with these guys for quite some time and there is proof from these same photographers out in the public domain that they were indeed doing that. Just because the press can be in a combat zone, they have to be clearly marked as "PRESS", "TV" with blue clothing and actually not being integrated. This is public knowledge.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...n-identity-journalists-are-warned-593103.html is an example. Plus they chose to integrate themselves with a hostile force which that safety just goes out the window. Being a member of the press is not a shield. Reuters just likes to pretend it is.

I'm glad we agree that possession of a weapon was a prerequisite for hostilities. But then why didn't they start firing when they first noticed the men carrying small arms? Is it possible that's not sufficient to open fire? Hostile intent has to be demonstrated? So that one misidentification of a camera as an RPG tagged everyone on the ground as hostile and allows us to dismiss anyone who showed up later as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their mistake.

Reuters had already seen the video. The video was not released to them under the Freedom of Information Act. That's not a cover-up? The video shows that the event was instigated and exacerbated by mistakes and eagerness, not that mistakes were made during the course of battle. It's an important distinction.

And that's what this is all about. The evidence was known but not released because of the embarrassment it would cause. Now, this guy is being accused of something actually dangerous: Releasing hundreds of thousands of additional classified documents, which WikiLeaks has denied receiving. The trial will be important. I just hope the truth comes out of it.

 

[Kaitian]

I'm glad we agree that possession of a weapon was a prerequisite for hostilities. But then why didn't they start firing when they first noticed the men carrying small arms? Is it possible that's not sufficient to open fire? Hostile intent has to be demonstrated? So that one misidentification of a camera as an RPG tagged everyone on the ground as hostile and allows us to dismiss anyone who showed up later as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their mistake.

Reuters had already seen the video. The video was not released to them under the Freedom of Information Act. That's not a cover-up? The video shows that the event was instigated and exacerbated by mistakes and eagerness, not that mistakes were made during the course of battle. It's an important distinction.

And that's what this is all about. The evidence was known but not released because of the embarrassment it would cause. Now, this guy is being accused of something actually dangerous: Releasing hundreds of thousands of additional classified documents, which WikiLeaks has denied receiving. The trial will be important. I just hope the truth comes out of it.

No, Command gave them approval to open fire after they requested permission in which they took that camera for an RPG. I've already explained that the camera man's photo records of his camera being pointed at the convoy is already in the public domain.

From Ahmed's camera

They did already identify an RPG in that group so there was no misidentification of any kind. These men were all gathered up at that corner in the vicinity of a firefight that just recently took place with multiple AK-47's and 1 RPG on their bodies (investigation report). There is no mistake here, they were in the right for taking them out regardless if it was a camera or RPG.

RPG identified by Crazy Horse 1-8.

I've already explained that the combat video were never released to Reuters. Big fucking deal for Reuters. They don't deserve the combat video as they already got the operations report of what happened which was made specifically for them and Reuters was not satisfied. You're calling intentional cover up over mistakes and eagerness? There were none. Point out to me in the minutes of the video or hell the transcript.

The AWT accurately assessed that the criteria to find and terminate the threat to friendly forces were met in accordance with the law of armed conflict and rules of engagement. Fundamental to all engagements is the principle of military necessity. This was clearly established and supported by the friendly forces inherent right to self defense and the ground commander's obligation to ensure all necessary means were employed to defend or protect his Soldiers from hostile acts. In this case, the AWT was employed to destroy insurgents attempting to kill friendly forces. The attack weapons team:
(1). Positively Identified the Threat: The AWT, with reasonable certainty, identified military aged males both in a location and with weapons consistent with reports of hostile acts conducted against friendly forces. While observing this group of individuals, the AWT satisfied all requirements to initiate an engagement.

(2). Established hostile intent: Hostile intent was exhibited by armed insurgents peering around the corner of a home to monitor movement or activities of friendly forces an

Last of all, the redacted photos matches the exact scene of the video you and I've seen

 

[KaiserWarrior]

What the US needs is a good, long war taking place on our own soil and in our own towns.

Maybe then I'll stop seeing the ending of innocent human lives being referred to as "just an accident, accidents happen". Maybe when it's their own friend or family member lying in the dirt covered in blood, they'll wake the hell up and stop treating war like some video game we need to get a high score on.

The greatest crime of the 21st century has been the desensitization of the public due to remote war with deferred debt. People are far more willing to go to war when they don't have any immediate consequences of it; when killing thousands of people costs them nothing personally they don't even give it a second thought.

 

[Monkey God]

What the US needs is a good, long war taking place on our own soil and in our own towns.

Maybe then I'll stop seeing the ending of innocent human lives being referred to as "just an accident, accidents happen". Maybe when it's their own friend or family member lying in the dirt covered in blood, they'll wake the hell up and stop treating war like some video game we need to get a high score on.

The greatest crime of the 21st century has been the desensitization of the public due to remote war with deferred debt. People are far more willing to go to war when they don't have any immediate consequences of it; when killing thousands of people costs them nothing personally they don't even give it a second thought.

Excuse me, I have relatives and good friends that have experienced the direct consequences of the wars going on...as in some of them didn't come back and some came back in wheelchairs, so STFU about what people do and dont know about it. Just because you live in an isolated basement bubble dont assume the rest of us do.

 

[Nemesis999]

What the US needs is a good, long war taking place on our own soil and in our own towns.

Maybe then I'll stop seeing the ending of innocent human lives being referred to as "just an accident, accidents happen". Maybe when it's their own friend or family member lying in the dirt covered in blood, they'll wake the hell up and stop treating war like some video game we need to get a high score on.

The greatest crime of the 21st century has been the desensitization of the public due to remote war with deferred debt. People are far more willing to go to war when they don't have any immediate consequences of it; when killing thousands of people costs them nothing personally they don't even give it a second thought.

Do you think first? or does this kind of idiotic crap just sorta dribble out?

Find me any war before 1950 in which people were regularly outraged over a few civilian deaths.

 

[piscian18]

Hate to necro a thread but I was reading a pretty interesting story on the Manning-Lamo situation with an actual audio taped interview with Lamo. This guy seems to be a complete scumbag and Manning never had any intention of gaining reputation for releasing the video.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks/index.html

If one assumes that this happened as the Wired version claims, what Lamo did here is despicable. He holds himself out as an "award-winning journalist" and told Manning he was one ("I did tell him that I worked as a journalist," Lamo said). Indeed, Lamo told me (though it doesn't appear in the chat logs published by Wired) that he told Manning early on that he was a journalist and thus could offer him confidentiality for everything they discussed under California's shield law. Lamo also said he told Manning that he was an ordained minister and could treat Manning's talk as a confession, which would then compel Lamo under the law to keep their discussions confidential (early on in their chats, Manning said: "I can't believe what I'm confessing to you"). In sum, Lamo explicitly led Manning to believe he could trust him and that their discussions would be confidential -- perhaps legally required to be kept confidential -- only to then report everything Manning said to the Government.

Worse, Lamo breached his own confidentiality commitments and turned informant without having the slightest indication that Manning had done anything to harm national security. Indeed, Lamo acknowledged to me that he was incapable of identifying a single fact contained in any documents leaked by Manning that would harm national security. And Manning's capacity to leak in the future was likely non-existent given that he told Lamo right away that he was "pending discharge" for "adjustment disorder," and no longer had access to any documents (Lamo: "Why does your job afford you access?" - Manning: "because i have a workstation . . . *had*").

 

[Gorankar]

Hate to necro a thread but I was reading a pretty interesting story on the Manning-Lamo situation with an actual audio taped interview with Lamo. This guy seems to be a complete scumbag and Manning never had any intention of gaining reputation for releasing the video.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks/index.html

So we have a serviceman on his way out due, at least in part, to mental health issues that was tricked, lied to, and finally betrayed.

This reinforces my belief that the serviceman should spend a little time in prison for his crime. (less than five)
Now, however, I feel that Lamo, should spend plenty of time in prison as well. He sounds like the type that will be well liked for his backside tricks.

 

[marylandman]

I guess we should have handed copies of all the classified material leading up to and including Desert Shield/Storm to Saddam? Because that is what you seem to be intimating at...

And for those bringing in strong opinions concerning classified documents, this soldier doesn't sound like he was in any kind of command position or figure of authority to be making decisions about the validity/morality of classified documents. Having a conscience, good or bad, doesn't excuse the mishandling of them. Why the hell do we even have such tight locks on secure stuff, might as well just put it up on Yahoo/CNN for the enemy/world to see...

And declassification of documents is completely off topic and another issue altogether.

i thought technology was supposed to make war more accurate and less civilian casualties. from the video i saw, these soldiers were highly unprofessional and incredibly sloppy and i am proud to be from maryland now. also, morality and ethics should never be confused and what he did was highly unethical by exposing them but couldnt be more moral. and as far as everyone defending him watch the video and tell me how you can justify their actions? if a cop unleashes fire on a crowd of people because one has a gun, his ass is grass, but this shit is justified in war?