Does that mean you can't answer the question or you've gone all political speak and think that served as an answer? A yes or no to the question would be good. Trying again; Are you able to distinguish the difference between seeing war crimes and handing that information to the media as opposed to gathering the information and selling it to the enemy?
IMHO, you should have read further before commenting. Lets look at your post. A few questions: 1) Do you think Manning's quoted anecdotal experience, if it were true, constitutes a war crime by the US? 2) Would you mind providing me links to the specific wikileaks(from manning or otherwise) that show "clear instances of war crimes committed by U.S. troops"? Just because Chase Madar says it's so, doesn't make it so, wouldn't you agree? Regarding Iraq's torture of dissidents, etc, if Manning was a witness to such roundups, it is not his place, right, or duty to disclose classified documents because he doesn't feel the US Govt is doing enough to stop ithose activities. Most countries in that part of the world torture their citizens on a daily basis. Does that make it ok for US troops deployed there to start turning over miscellaneous US classified documents? Grab a clue.
1) Yes. 2) No. 1, 2 Absolutely. And, I found more than a clue, it's the motherlode. # The U.S. bombed the children’s hospital in Kabul and a hospital in Herat, resulting in 100 deaths. This violated the Red Cross Convention of 1864 that established even military hospitals as “neutral†and that must be “respected by belligerents.†# Clearly marked Red Cross warehouses were bombed on three occasions in the Afghan War during October 2001, a violation of the Geneva Convention of 1929 that protects “the personnel of Voluntary Aid Societies.†# During its 2001 offensive in Afghanistan, at least 1,000 civilians were killed by U.S. carpet bombing. This violates Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions prohibiting “indiscriminate attacks†against civilians. # While the Hague Convention of 1899 requires that prisoners be “humanely treated,†this was often not the case in Afghanistan where the conditions in the prisons were so shocking that Canadian forces stopped sending prisoners to the American-run prisons at the end of 2005, preferring to send them to facilities run by the Afghan government. # Although the Geneva Convention of 1949 forbids “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,†captives were murdered in Afghanistan’s prisons. Some were chained naked to the ceiling, cell doors, and the floor. One man, Ait Idr, had his face forced into a toilet that was repeatedly flushed. Another, Mohammed Ahmed Said Haidel, was hit with his arms tied behind his back until his head began to bleed. Another, Ahmed Darabi, was hung by his arms and repeatedly beaten, though he survived---unlike (a) taxicab driver (named) Dilawar, who died from the same treatment. # Prisoners of war “shall be lodged in buildings or in barracks,†says the POW Convention of 1929 but many cells at American-run prisons in Afghanistan lack windows and adequate ventilation. Some prisons lacked heat during cold weather so that prisoners died of exposure. What’s more, some prisoners have been held in solitary confinement for years. # Where the Geneva Convention decrees sick or wounded prisoners “shall not be transferred as long as their recovery may be endangered by the journey,†some prisoners transferred in Afghanistan were thrown to the ground from helicopters and badly injured. Still others were kicked or beaten en route and others died while stuffed into sealed cargo containers. Not surprisingly, the deaths of some Afghan prisoners have never been recorded, another war crimes violation. 3
Great News! We've found your problem! You think the US having dealings with countries that round up dissenting voices is a US war crime! I never figured it would be so easy, but your problem is you lack a basic understanding of what a war crime is! The even better news is, its fixable! www.dictionary.com would be a good start! By the way, neither you or Chase Madar read either of the two links that you lifted from his Salon article, or you would not be trying to pass those articles off as wikileaked evidence of US war crimes. Neither article even makes the allegation, despite the New Yorker article is an opinion piece(got to love when one opinion piece refers to another as "evidence"). What does that make the salon article? Pure crap. I can easily demonstrate that brand of journalistic integrity. One needs only to think of some good raw meat, and provide bogus links to it. For instance, if I were to say you lustfully sodomize small animals, and regularly abuse the elderly (see attached links).
IMHO, You're more an enemy to the U.S. than Manning could ever be. Are you sure you're not Iraqi? You so remind me of the soldier in the French revolution who, when handed a surrender note from the governor, took it upon himself not to give it to the enemy (the citizenry). He then told the governor that the people did not accept the surrender meaning war was the only option left. Technically the soldier was correct but his underhanded actions of not giving them the note in the first place was of course the reason why. It was highly treasonous and caused more people to die unneccessarily. A relative of yours perhaps? Fortunately, the fact you identify as a Muslim thankfully shows your beliefs are totally against mainstream American beliefs. Though your usual tactic (check his posts folks, his BS started the day he joined DP) of pretending to be something you are not so the rest of us can hold your targeted victim to ridicule could also be in play here. I believe you are either a complete fool, are on the take, or a stooge for some government department. Your take on Mr. Assange is also complete BS. Full of the vitriol we would expect from someone on the take. I'll start by posting on this ONE subject and move on to your other delusional statements when I find the time, if i'm not banned first that is. Mr. Assange gave the documents to news organisations around the world who then worked through them then 'they' published and disseminated the information to the world yet you hold him accountable. You insist my first link that showed support for Mr. Assange in Australia was from some 'little biased rag' when in fact my link was from our one and only national broadcaster, paid for 100% by our government and respected by a huge majority of Australians. source Then you say 'he will go after private people's secrets' bringing my parents into the scene even though you know he has clearly stated on many occassions that public entities (governments & corporations) are his only targets. WikiLeaks describes itself thus; We are of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and institutions. We aim for maximum political impact. Mr. Assange point of view is governments & corporations are entities of the people using public money or assets & we, the general public that is, want to know what they're really doing in our name by rightly insisting we have open & transparent dealings when dealing with the public purse and assets. Government for the people, not the other way around that your stance suggests. Yet these are all agencies that are already happily digging up and collecting our own private and personal information and using them for their own needs, yet they cry foul when it's done in return for the greater good. Whilst people all around the world, are trying to get their head around corporate takeovers and continual rising prices yet lower wages (except government & corporates whose wage is indexed to go up & up & up automatically, independent of the economy), seemingly using trickery and greedy tactics to acheive it. Us lefties are all working hard to get out of the mess we've been thrust into simply by bringing honesty & integrity back to the table, something that should already be a given. With people all over the world, even Americans, cheering him on and Mr. Assange is nominated for the Nobel peace prize, there you are in your lonely little box calling 'unfair, the world hates him' in such a shrill little voice, the crowd of Mr. Assange supporters chanting 'hero, hero' all around you must really feel like a bee fart in the wind! Time's poll - Mr. Assange won the Time 'man of the year' poll but, as many corporations have had to cow tow to your government, Mark Zuckerburg was instead given the prize. Big corporations understand Wikileaks will be going after them soon. Source And, no matter which page you go to, even if it's a biased organisation, check the comments. Strangely, even though the media outlet itself is saying everyone wants Mr. Assange arrested, the comments on the pages are overwhelmingly in favour of Mr. Assange. Bit strange that no? You argue against the release of these 'secrets' yet the documents in question were never secret because 1 in 100 Americans already had access to them and were probably already in the hands of the enemy. Source If it wasn't for the hero Manning allegedly releasing them to WikiLeaks the Taliban would have been able to cull their enemy in quiet. We all know 'some Americans' won't keep secrets long when there's profit to be made. It's also important to note once again that not one person has been harmed by the release of the WikiLeaks documents but thousands of innocent people have been killed by Americans seemingly concerned for the welfare of their informants. Source Support for WikiLeaks: Absolutely: 71% No: 14% Yes 14% Source Uninstalling dictators SE
I'll take your lengthy topic switch as an admission you have no evidence of US War Crimes exposed by wikileaks. Regarding the rest of your diatribe, it always concerns me when I see blind cheerleading, in spite of the facts. Seriously, another idiotic web poll? Time man of the year conspiracy theories? You are off your nut my friend. The only tidbit worth salvaging in that entire post was the link to the UMR poll showing Australian men slightly support Assange, while Australian women are evenly divided. Perhaps I can pat myself on the back for that, since I finally got you to dig up a single peice of legitimate evidence to stand behind one of your claims. Good job me.
Best re-read the post above that then where I provided ten instances of US war crimes. Good job you...hahaha...I told you you're delusional.
lol 10 instances? Links please. And no, breathing, stepping on ants, and foul language do not constitute war crimes
Oooo! Look at you squirm! I would have the debate with you regarding whether any of the things mentioned in that article would actually be war crimes(A debate you would lose btw), but that would be a topic shift. Let me bring you back. You made the claim wikileaks exposed US war crimes. The link you just provided is dated March 2009, predating Manning/Assange mass document dump, and therefore not relevant to your claim. Do you have any evidence to back your claim? Any evidence at all? Still waiting.
Manning was following his own conscious in revealing the events recorded without personal gain but as a motivation for simple Justice. Manning is not a Criminal is the problem the Military and Civilian Authorities will not be able to overcome and eventually will decide the case in a manor far less significant than Treason or Aiding and Abating.....Political zealots are a dime a dozen.
My point entirely and that's why I believe Obamanation is either a complete fool, is on the take, or a stooge for some government department.
In fact, Manning 'could' be executed. The prosecution is not asking for the death penalty but that option will be left for the judge to decide. The concensus seems to be a sentence of '52 years' unless Americans stand up for him like they did Ellsburg.
dumbass should have kept his gob shut. Gaol is full of people that cant keep their gob shut. they just have to brag and wonder why they find their ass in gaol when someone collected the reward.
LoL. Manning is as likely to get a lifeline from the American people as Qadhafi is to get one from the Lybians. Maybe we can grant him a Darwin award as a consolation prize. Assange will be a bit more difficult, but he is already shut down. Assets are frozen, his "Bank of America" release never happened, and he awaits trial for sexual assault charges. After all that, I suspect he will face charges in the US which, if nothing else, will keep him occupied until he is not just irrelevant, but practically extinct.
Too little, too late. He is already irrelevant to the cause now that he's busy, the world is helping him do his work. That's why there's hundreds of new sites springing up. It doesn't matter what happens with Mr. Assange. Once the information is out, there's no stopping it. http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html
Living a life sustained by the convictions of year 0 of the intent to do harm is not the prescription for atonement people of faith endure in accomplishing the Remission as prescribed by the Almighty. The above "charges" are an indictment that has no meaning - the innocence of Manning's motives is all that people of faith need be willing to endure for its accomplishment.
"Excuse"? that doesn't sound like a legal term to me. What, exactly, was the "irrefutable proof" of war crimes? What document? I fail to see how releasing thousands of UNRELATED confidential diplomatic communications has anything to do with Manning being asked to perform an illegal order. My position is that Manning was being asked to perform an illegal order. I said nothing about war crimes. Look, @Bushranger, I'm willing to see your point but not if you make things up. If Manning thinks he is being told to perform an illegal order, there are procedures he can go through and those procedures allow him to be protected against prosecution. Can you tell me if Manning followed any of those procedures? Can you tell me if each and every classified document Manning released was related to the illegal order? Or, if not, what exactly is the "war crime" you are inventing? See, in a trial, the Court wants facts. If Manning had bothered to go through the official procedure of protesting an illegal order ( on the grounds that if he followed the order, unarmed civilians would have been subjected to cruelty or death) he would not be in jail and his life would be a whole lot easier than it is now. @Bushranger, you are throwing around terms without knowing exactly what they mean. Exactly what war crimes are you talking about? Please don't answer by referencing a huge document and ask me to read something you can't bother to. Show some credibility and explain it in a post. Please don't ask me to make your own point because you are too lazy to make it yourself.
What an abolute load of codswallop Corwin! A rant without substance, is becoming a habit for you. You ever heard of 'mitigating circumstances'? That's the legal term for 'excuse'. I guess that's your way of saying I am right! Why, thanks. Firstly, I quoted the document with source linked. I did not make anything up myself therefore as your words suggest, you see my point. If something was false then see the author. You are talking shit. You are not willing to see any point. You have made up your mind that he is a traitor based on your false impressions so you decide to talk shit in the hope that people will believe you. When you keep asking me to do your research it makes me think you're the lazy one here. No answer from me then because I have no need to fix your ridiculous interpretation. If you want to find the truth you must look for it and not make excuses why others must do your work. Do your own learning kid. See previous answer. One thing you can guarantee. It will ALL come out in the wash