What I find most revealing is that a few US politicians indeed want to try Manning for treason (which might even be correct) and have him executed as a traitor, and a few even spoke of assassinating Assange. Talk about some knee-jerk reaction there. I mean, to date, the CIA assassinating persons that are enemies of the US has been a dark rumor, but a politician demanding that in public? WTF are they thinking? Do they really mean they can do everything and get away with it? I don´t see much of a difference to the mindset of some totalitarian politicians from, say, Russia or China. If politicians can publicly state that they want their government to kill somebody and are not reprimanded for that, the democracy is in a sorry state. Universal Human Rights are only for US citizens, or what?
What I find most revealing is that a few US politicians indeed want to try Manning for treason (which might even be correct) and have him executed as a traitor, and a few even spoke of assassinating Assange. Talk about some knee-jerk reaction there. I mean, to date, the CIA assassinating persons that are enemies of the US has been a dark rumor, but a politician demanding that in public? WTF are they thinking? Do they really mean they can do everything and get away with it? I don´t see much of a difference to the mindset of some totalitarian politicians from, say, Russia or China. If politicians can publicly state that they want their government to kill somebody and are not reprimanded for that, the democracy is in a sorry state. Universal Human Rights are only for US citizens, or what?
This is not really a new phenomena. There have been US politicians that have stated that they think Venezuela's President should be assassinated as well and probably, if one goes back, one would find the same for such figures as Ho Chi Minh. I'd not go overboard with drawing to many conclusions from such talk. There are a lot of US politicians all told and some of them have extreme opinions on how one should deal with the enemies of the USA. Opinions that generally don't mesh all that well with actually acting like the leader of the Western World. Thing is nearly none of these kooks ever actually gain any important foreign policy positions no matter what side of the aisle is in control at any given moment. They are not the ones that become diplomats to important nations or anything like that. In other words its safe, and for the best, to ignore them.
In other words its safe, and for the best, to ignore them.
I hope so. If one of those madmen or -women were ever to gain a position of power, it would be bad news.
In other words its safe, and for the best, to ignore them.I hope so. If one of those madmen or -women were ever to gain a position of power, it would be bad news.
And I believe that the students protesting in the U.K. that were chanting "Off with their heads" while hitting the car of Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, really believed that they should decapitate the two.
Or just maybe people use stronger rhetoric than they would actually act on given the chance.
Or just maybe people use stronger rhetoric than they would actually act on given the chance.
Can we assume that's always the case? How can one tell?
Or just maybe people use stronger rhetoric than they would actually act on given the chance.Can we assume that's always the case? How can one tell?
Should we assume it is never the case?
Maybe we should worry about what people say when they are in a position to actually enact what they say. Some no-name representative the House saying, "We should kill the guy." Isn't the same as the President saying, "I have ordered the CIA to take him out by whatever means necessary." Let's not assume people have more power than they actually do. Let's not give people more relevance they actually have.
Should we assume it is never the case?
No. "All" and "never" are words that get thrown around far too often, and they rarely prove to be true.
Maybe we should worry about what people say when they are in a position to actually enact what they say. Let's not give people more relevance they actually have.
Agreed. But you've got to watch people who potentially can get that power soon. When Huckabee won that first caucus running on the "we need to rewrite the entire Constitution" platform, I think it was prudent that voters started to get a bit concerned... and it showed, when he didn't get much further. There was no reason to assume that, if we had elected him, he would have suddenly become a strict Constitutionalist.
Then again, whenever a candidate says "I will be bipartisan," or "No new taxes!" we can pretty much rely on a long history of past experience in assuming that they're lying through their teeth.
Should we assume it is never the case?No. "All" and "never" are words that get thrown around far too often, and they rarely prove to be true.
Which is why I didn't use them.
Maybe we should worry about what people say when they are in a position to actually enact what they say. Let's not give people more relevance they actually have.Agreed. But you've got to watch people who potentially can get that power soon. When Huckabee won that first caucus running on the "we need to rewrite the entire Constitution" platform, I think it was prudent that voters started to get a bit concerned... and it showed, when he didn't get much further. There was no reason to assume that, if we had elected him, he would have suddenly become a strict Constitutionalist.
Then again, whenever a candidate says "I will be bipartisan," or "No new taxes!" we can pretty much rely on a long history of past experience in assuming that they're lying through their teeth.
Even if Huckabee had won, the president by himself can not change the constitution. So even in that case, it would have been giving him more relevance than he actually had the potential to have.
The Constitution can and has been violated in the past. It would be naive, given that history, to think that it can't be so again.
We were talking about "rewriting" it, not merely violating it. It is violated every day, that doesn't mean it is rewritten every day.
|
We were talking about "rewriting" it, not merely violating it. It is violated every day, that doesn't mean it is rewritten every day.The Constitution can and has been violated in the past. It would be naive, given that history, to think that it can't be so again.
I suppose the greatest Fear is that rewriting the Constitution of Any State will legitimize the conduct of those in power who violate it routinely for personal gain. Would you trust them to do anything than create a rubber stamp constitution where they can get away with blue murder?
If the US is to go down such a Path, it would fall to every Citizen to ensure that the basic precept that the state may not have authority without the direct and regular consent of every citizen and is strengthened with greater obligations of citizen participation in government for every citizen.
The Criminals in a Representative Democracy are those opposed the obligation of Self Representation.
We were talking about "rewriting" it, not merely violating it. It is violated every day, that doesn't mean it is rewritten every day.The Constitution can and has been violated in the past. It would be naive, given that history, to think that it can't be so again.
I suppose that depends on how busy the courts are on any given day, but it is certainly violated every day.
"If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear".
Well, if that were true, the US Govt. would not need to be as alarmed as they are about Wikileaks...
I have heard it so many times. As soon as someone documents and spreads military misconduct of the gravest sort, the military-huggers say two things: "You can't make that call if you haven't been there", always compounded by the mythical air conditioned room, and if this is not accepted, they launch into a tirade about "It's a war, a dangerous situation, tragic cockups happen", also always formulated as "tragic".
No.
I have seen the clip, unlike some discussing it, and I say this:
It is patently obvious that these people are NOT preparing to kill anyone. They are walking calmly down the street, in no particular hurry. They look quite relaxed, and they do not go near any sort of wall.
The camera in question is in a bag, probably. The guy has it slung over his shoulder. He doesn't aim it anywhere, he doesn't take it out of the bag, he is just carrying (not holding) it.
This doesn't change at all during the clip, except when he is shot dead. The chopper crew observe them in great big circles, the clip focused on them except when buildings block their view. Even so, the people in question keep walking in a relaxed fashion.
Further, the chopper crew doesn't at any point say that he is aiming anything anywhere. Feel free to tell me the time point in the clip where they do if you think I am wrong. Otherwise, do not repeat this.
The chopper crew does, however, after shooting the two guys, and seeing them getting aid from nearby people trying to get them to a hospital, fire again, killing the people trying to help their first victims, and say: "Look at those dead bastards".
No. It's not a panicked life-or-death split-second judgement. It's a culture where murder is okay if you see someone carrying a bag over the shoulder, where any sort of atrocity is acceptable, even good, if you happen to think that someone, somewhere, may ever in the future be threatened by the person in question. And it's not a tragic cock-up. It's routine, and an everyday occurrence. That's why it's so monstrous.
Well said, sissyl. If the chopper crew really did think that the people there were a threat, their training for judging these situations is crap. Especially when the van driver tries to rescue the wounded man - it was quite obvious that the driver was doing exactly that. Now, of course the crew was under stress and an error in judgment can always occur - but then, it is their job to deal with these situations, which are nearly always stressful. (and the radio communication did not sound overly stressed to me). I know that these soldiers are perhaps 19 or 20 years old when they are deployed - so what? Should I take that as an excuse? If so, I have to ask the commanders why they deploy green troops who seem to have had no adequate training for these situations. I admit that one of the men seemed to be holding a gun. So, is the tactic there to kill anybody who might pose a threat, even if it is far-fetched? Shoot first, ask questions later (if at all)?
Even if judging from this footage is of course questionable, I still come to the conclusion that something is amiss there - if the only answer to even the sightest provocation is to kill ´em all, this can´t be right.
|
Well said, sissyl. If the chopper crew really did think that the people there were a threat, their training for judging these situations is crap. Especially when the van driver tries to rescue the wounded man - it was quite obvious that the driver was doing exactly that. Now, of course the crew was under stress and an error in judgment can always occur - but then, it is their job to deal with these situations, which are nearly always stressful. (and the radio communication did not sound overly stressed to me). I know that these soldiers are perhaps 19 or 20 years old when they are deployed - so what? Should I take that as an excuse? If so, I have to ask the commanders why they deploy green troops who seem to have had no adequate training for these situations. I admit that one of the men seemed to be holding a gun. So, is the tactic there to kill anybody who might pose a threat, even if it is far-fetched? Shoot first, ask questions later (if at all)?
Even if judging from this footage is of course questionable, I still come to the conclusion that something is amiss there - if the only answer to even the sightest provocation is to kill ´em all, this can´t be right.
The issue isn't if they were right or wrong. It is the question of what will the outcome of this be.
If you are growing up in the Arab world, what perspective are you viewing this under? We are giving the soldiers the benefit of the doubt because they are on "Our Team".
And the division into teams is the problem. The belief that there is a winner and a loser, and that the sides are inexorably opposed.
Most of Western Europe went to war with each other for centuries. Now they share a currency. About 150 years ago our country was divided by Civil War. Now, the area that attempted to leave the Union claims the high ground in arguments over patriotism.
People backed into corners will entrench and link up with a side. If Maslov's hierarchy of needs isn't met, people will join together and do horrible things to attempt to satisfy these needs for their "side".
If people believe that we will shoot them if they don't act humbly toward us, that frightening us will lead to their death, can we be surprised if they fear our power?
Now there is no easy solution, a soldier has to protect himself and those on his "side". It is what you ask of a soldier, so when they do it you should say thank you.
But it is also why you don't put troops in harms way unless you have a specific achievable goal and exit strategy.
Now we seem to be arguing exit strategy=failure.
Some people learned nothing from Vietnam.
If you're in power in a situation, it is all too easy to make errors of judgement. You believe that the ones you're destroying and acting callous against will not be able to prevent you from getting what you want, so you act as you please and kill those in your way. And you may be right. Perhaps they can't get at you.
Properly put, they can't get at you RIGHT NOW. Let me explain.
Fighting with others to attain various goals is something we humans do. We accept it as a condition of life. Even if we're beaten to something we want, we can often accept it and move on. However, if we're beaten and lying down, and still get shot, hurt, forced or otherwise degraded, that's VERY hard to forget and forgive, no matter how much our different religions try to convince us that's the better way. When our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends and so on are wounded, killed, tortured, raped, and we can't see the point, we get angry. Forgiveness is no longer an option. The pain and hatred will live behind their eyes until the day they die.
And while the dominant part might be unassailable now, the world changes. Give it ten years, and the massive occupying army might have had to make serious cuts due to budget deficits. Their allies might have found better friends. A disaster might have struck, or unrest. None of these things are clearly predictable. During these years, the badwill garnered by the invading forces will have gained traction. New people will sit in the parliament, or a new dictator will have risen. New infrastructural conditions may have made a country immensely rich.
Hatred is a bad policy for all. History shows us that atrocities live on for far longer than political situations. A child growing up on stories of how her relatives were murdered by foreigners is a problem that will not go away for the entire life of that child. Sow a field with blood, and you will reap what you have sown.
Or: Don't be stupid enough to go to war for money. The cost is far more than you'll want to pay.
Intriguing.
Exactly. So, the first step to making sure this is fixed up is to refuse to just accept any jingoism, any apologetism about war misconduct, and any propaganda about new repressive laws as any sort of information worth having. The second is to make sure the leaks that do happen are spread enough to enforce a better sense of responsibility among our elites. The third is to make sure a new generation grows up with a better grasp on politics and human nature than this one has shown to have. The fourth is to engage politically - the two-party system is more questioned these days than ever before.
You sound bitter and seem like you have surrendered, Sieglord. Do not fall to that, please. This is the true Long War that Bush should have been preaching about, the war for a decent society and freedom from repression. And a change of attitudes is possible, we know how much worse things have been throughout history.
Exactly. So, the first step to making sure this is fixed up is to refuse to just accept any jingoism, any apologetism about war misconduct, and any propaganda about new repressive laws as any sort of information worth having. The second is to make sure the leaks that do happen are spread enough to enforce a better sense of responsibility among our elites. The third is to make sure a new generation grows up with a better grasp on politics and human nature than this one has shown to have. The fourth is to engage politically - the two-party system is more questioned these days than ever before.
You sound bitter and seem like you have surrendered, Sieglord. Do not fall to that, please. This is the true Long War that Bush should have been preaching about, the war for a decent society and freedom from repression. And a change of attitudes is possible, we know how much worse things have been throughout history.
I think it's going to get much much worse.
I guess diplomats around the world are pissed off that Hillary Clinton wanted to steal their credit card numbers.
...and wanted biometrical data of diplomats. I have no idea what that should be good for.
I have seen the clip, unlike some discussing it, and I say this:
It is patently obvious that these people are NOT preparing to kill anyone. They are walking calmly down the street, in no particular hurry. They look quite relaxed, and they do not go near any sort of wall.
The camera in question is in a bag, probably. The guy has it slung over his shoulder. He doesn't aim it anywhere, he doesn't take it out of the bag, he is just carrying (not holding) it.
This doesn't change at all during the clip, except when he is shot dead. The chopper crew observe them in great big circles, the clip focused on them except when buildings block their view. Even so, the people in question keep walking in a relaxed fashion.
Further, the chopper crew doesn't at any point say that he is aiming anything anywhere. Feel free to tell me the time point in the clip where they do if you think I am wrong. Otherwise, do not repeat this.
Did you watch the full version, or just the edited version? The part I'm referring to is as clear as day.
Take a look at 4:10 on the 17 minute version.
I have seen the clip, unlike some discussing it, and I say this:
It is patently obvious that these people are NOT preparing to kill anyone. They are walking calmly down the street, in no particular hurry. They look quite relaxed, and they do not go near any sort of wall.
The camera in question is in a bag, probably. The guy has it slung over his shoulder. He doesn't aim it anywhere, he doesn't take it out of the bag, he is just carrying (not holding) it.
This doesn't change at all during the clip, except when he is shot dead. The chopper crew observe them in great big circles, the clip focused on them except when buildings block their view. Even so, the people in question keep walking in a relaxed fashion.
Further, the chopper crew doesn't at any point say that he is aiming anything anywhere. Feel free to tell me the time point in the clip where they do if you think I am wrong. Otherwise, do not repeat this.
Did you watch the full version, or just the edited version? The part I'm referring to is as clear as day.
Take a look at 4:10 on the 17 minute version.
Do you have a link handy?
Do you have a link handy?
The Wikileaks "Collateral Murder" site has their edited version, a full released version of the gunsight video, and a video featuring an ex-soldier speaking against the US presence in Iraq.
At about 2:08 in the unedited version, you can make out that three of the men on the street are apparently carrying weapons (The reporters were obscured by the building).
At about 2:30 in the unedited version, a reporter looks around the corner. The chopper crews think his camera is an RPG. At 2:45, one of the chopper crew reports "I have eyes on an individual with an RPG, getting ready to fire".
The Wikipedia page on the incident provides additional details.
Yes, it's probably true. The world will become a darker place. However, that will not last forever. Things happen faster nowadays, information spreads like wildfire, new generations grow up with different perspectives. Sure, the global elite might be able to achieve world domination, but that in itself is not written in stone. Tyrants come, and for a time they may seem invincible. But the world changes even so. What is important is the seeds of a different vision for tomorrow. Yes, some of them are utterly corrupt, but not everyone is. It's easy to see them as a monolithic mass.
Bitterness hurts only yourself. And getting shot is not the worst thing that could happen to you.
|
|
Before I get into this, I want to say that violating computer security is a crime in most every country in this world. The person who hacked computer security in order to get these documents committed a crime and Assange might be justifiably considered an accomplice (I said -might- be).
Having said that, the fact is that this will not be an isolated incident. Government computer security around the world is pitiful (I don't believe it really matters what government you're talking about), data mining technologies are getting better every day, and the fact that Assange has become a celebrity encourages other people to try to do the same thing.
I want to circumvent discussion of the morality of what he's done. However, I do want to point out that there are people on both sides of this argument (e.g. the US government vs. Journalists without borders). I point that out only to say that the moral aspects of this incident aren't so clean cut as that everyone agrees on one side or the other.
What I want to focus on is what I view as the central question in this whole issue, "what now?" To the extent that I view this not as an isolated incident but as one of the most notable, this is the cannon shot across the bow, so to speak. I believe this is a turning point in world politico-economics whether or not everyone is able to see it at present. So, like I said, "what now?"
It's been true that governments have needed their secrets in order to operate, but it is also a fact that "secret" is becoming an out-dated concept (whether or not it should, it is). We've been lucky for the most part up to now because politicians don't understand technology (e.g. "the Internet is a series of tubes" - a quote from a Republican Alaskan politician - no, not that one). But we all understood that, one day, there would be a breed of politicians who understood technology. The alarm clock just went off.
The reality is that the government won't just take up a new structure - one without secrets. They'll try to create...
I Identified this problem a few years back with the US History Teaching Textbook 'Why We Fight' - the 'Official History of the United States' is decreasingly based on the responsibility of the State to inform its citizens that they can effectivly participate in the Republic and defend it from the criminals within the State.
What is Replacing it is either 'Press Release' based History or 'Leaks'. Wikileaks represents that part of the new Mechanism of Failure Government that 'balances' the 'Press Release' Culture at the Centre.
Yes, it's probably true. The world will become a darker place. However, that will not last forever. Things happen faster nowadays, information spreads like wildfire, new generations grow up with different perspectives. Sure, the global elite might be able to achieve world domination, but that in itself is not written in stone. Tyrants come, and for a time they may seem invincible. But the world changes even so. What is important is the seeds of a different vision for tomorrow. Yes, some of them are utterly corrupt, but not everyone is. It's easy to see them as a monolithic mass.
Bitterness hurts only yourself. And getting shot is not the worst thing that could happen to you.
We may get a different band, but the song and dance will be the same.
Human nature doesn't change.
Blind hope is just an opiate.
I'm not sure if I've stated where I stand on this so I'll give it a shot.
I think the US government has far, far too many secrets for a republic. A representative constitutionally limited democracy requires a citizenry informed by a free marketplace of ideas independent from the state. While I am troubled my some aspects of how this came out I believe we benefit from more information and fewer secrets. At some point it becomes impossible to be an informed electorate in a state that is shrouded in state secrets. At some point the state stops serving the people and the people start serving the state. The more the state controls the information available to the people the more the state controls the people.
I suppose that information is power, and the more we decentralize information the more we decentralize power. I deeply believe that the more we centralize information and power the the more we strip power from individuals, so I must conclude that the free exchange of ideas and information (with VERY few limits) is indispensable to a people who believe in self determination.
Information is indispensable for freedom. When in doubt I choose to err on the side of freedom.
|
|
My opinion: if you cannot hold on to your secrets, your fault.
Assange isn't a hero, he isn't a crusader for anything other than his ego, but he isn't a criminal, either (sorry, Sweden has some pretty unenlightened laws if a broken rubber = rape).
The soldier in intelligence that let his DADT opinion affect his oath of service? He should be thrown in Fed prison for life. Sorry, as an ex-soldier, I think if you have a problem with policy, vote, be an activist, whatever, but don't do anything that puts fellow soldiers at risk. Period.
Assange? He should be left alone. He's no different than anyone else that uses a source.
It troubles me that the government didn't go after him for releasing information that could put our troops in danger, but only after he started releasing documents that embarrass Obama and Hilary. I'm more concerned about our government's priorities, frankly. When his leaks fit their narrative, he was ok, but when his leaks make them look foolish, all of the sudden he's a criminal and a terrorist.
Meh.
|
|
The soldier in intelligence that let his DADT opinion affect his oath of service?This is uneducated hate-mongering of the most prurient form serving only to debase any poster bileful enough to post such stupidity. While we know that Manning is gay, there is no evidence that Manning did what he did because of DADT. It doesn't make any kind of sense to anyone capable of even the most basic ability to reason to argue such stupidity. The military has overwhelmingly supported the repeal of DADT. If Manning wanted to do something in retaliation to the neanderthal troglodytes who have support DADT, he would have attacked those who hate our nation's support for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The military, by contrast, is overwhelmingly on his side.
The best clue to Manning's motivation comes from his own question,
"If you had free rein over classified networks for long periods of time ... say, eight-nine months ... and you saw incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, D.C. ... what would you do?"
Fair enough.
As to the question, I'd say you remember your oath of service. He still deserves life in prison. Small factoid:: if you're a soldier, the UCMJ covers you, not the Constitution, not whistle blower laws, none of that.
And,considering the contents of a majority of the documents, I doubt his motivation. Exposing that a State Department official thinks a world leader is a buffoon, or is easily swayed by sex, or whatever, hardly qualifies as "incredible" or "awful". Neither is the revelation that *gasp* countries spy on one another.
If he had only released documents that might show war crimes, or serious breaches of the public trust, I'd tend to agree. But considering the broad, unfocused nature of the documents, I have to wonder if he just wanted to embarrass the nation based on a personal agenda.
|
|
At what point does "I was just following orders" become acceptable/not acceptable when a soldier sees things he considers to be, "..incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, D.C."?
Fair enough.As to the question, I'd say you remember your oath of service. He still deserves life in prison. Small factoid:: if you're a soldier, the UCMJ covers you, not the Constitution, not whistle blower laws, none of that.
And,considering the contents of a majority of the documents, I doubt his motivation. Exposing that a State Department official thinks a world leader is a buffoon, or is easily swayed by sex, or whatever, hardly qualifies as "incredible" or "awful". Neither is the revelation that *gasp* countries spy on one another.
If he had only released documents that might show war crimes, or serious breaches of the public trust, I'd tend to agree. But considering the broad, unfocused nature of the documents, I have to wonder if he just wanted to embarrass the nation based on a personal agenda.
When he doesn't only leak the "incredible" and "awful" things that could be justified, and leaks a bunch of stuff that is simply embarrassing and irrelevant to his stated reason.
That suggests a degree of CMA. If he truly were only interested in exposing war crimes, that's all he would have released. Releasing State Department communiques suggests a deeper agenda. Sorry.
At what point does "I was just following orders" become acceptable/not acceptable when a soldier sees things he considers to be, "..incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, D.C."?
Fair enough.As to the question, I'd say you remember your oath of service. He still deserves life in prison. Small factoid:: if you're a soldier, the UCMJ covers you, not the Constitution, not whistle blower laws, none of that.
And,considering the contents of a majority of the documents, I doubt his motivation. Exposing that a State Department official thinks a world leader is a buffoon, or is easily swayed by sex, or whatever, hardly qualifies as "incredible" or "awful". Neither is the revelation that *gasp* countries spy on one another.
If he had only released documents that might show war crimes, or serious breaches of the public trust, I'd tend to agree. But considering the broad, unfocused nature of the documents, I have to wonder if he just wanted to embarrass the nation based on a personal agenda.
I don't think Manning is much of a hero or villain. While I feel some sympathy for him he's totally screwed. He may be a struggling conflicted young man, but we surrender most of our rights when we take the oath to defend the constitution ironically. DADT may have played into this, but that doesn't give him a pass.
In HD's defense I don't think he gives a crap about who sleeps with whom. He's basically libertarian, so i don't think he hates homosexuals by any means. If he thinks DADT played a role in Manning's choice I don't see any way to attribute this to some base motive.
My 2 CP.
|
|
What, specifically, do you believe falls into the "embarrassing" rather than "awful" category? I'm looking for specific examples here.At what point does "I was just following orders" become acceptable/not acceptable when a soldier sees things he considers to be, "..incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, D.C."?
Fair enough.As to the question, I'd say you remember your oath of service. He still deserves life in prison. Small factoid:: if you're a soldier, the UCMJ covers you, not the Constitution, not whistle blower laws, none of that.
And,considering the contents of a majority of the documents, I doubt his motivation. Exposing that a State Department official thinks a world leader is a buffoon, or is easily swayed by sex, or whatever, hardly qualifies as "incredible" or "awful". Neither is the revelation that *gasp* countries spy on one another.
If he had only released documents that might show war crimes, or serious breaches of the public trust, I'd tend to agree. But considering the broad, unfocused nature of the documents, I have to wonder if he just wanted to embarrass the nation based on a personal agenda.
When he doesn't only leak the "incredible" and "awful" things that could be justified, and leaks a bunch of stuff that is simply embarrassing and irrelevant to his stated reason.
That suggests a degree of CMA. If he truly were only interested in exposing war crimes, that's all he would have released. Releasing State Department communiques suggests a deeper agenda. Sorry.
Anything dealing with Israel, as none of it fits the global dialogue of Israel as an oppressive state practicing apartheid. This embarrasses the Obama administration, as its public policy is more in step with a Eurocentric view of Israel as a rogue state to be slapped down whenever possible.
Unless the soldier thinks it's "awful" that Israel gets a bad rap in the global community. Which is unlikely, as he gave the docs to someone who is a vocal anti-Semite and Israel hater, and whose contact for giving the Russian press is a Holocaust denier and rabid anti-Semite.
Anything dealing with an ambassador's opinion of a world leader (and, apparently, there are tons of documents like this the guy leaked to Assange). What we think of, say, the President of Argentina isn't a war crime or anything close. It just embarrasses the government and puts a chill on relations.
That we find Eritrea's leader "unhinged". How is this "awful"?
That we support democratic reform the government of Kenya is resisting? How is this a war crime?
That we think the former president of South Africa is "thin skinned and shrill"? How does this save lives and end a war? (Oh, by the way, our diplomats hold this opinion because he was actively combating the spread of correct info on HIV and AIDS - and he's not Catholic, btw).
And, this is all going by what Assange says he has.
Like I said, if the guy had just released stuff about, say, torture, or civilian casualties caused by negligence or malice on the part of U.S. (or any nation's) troops, stuff like that, I'd believe he was sincere. But when he releases documents that just show we may think poorly of various world leaders, I think he has a broader, politically motivated agenda.
I would post more, but apparently my nation has decided access to Wikileaks is verboten.
[sarcasm] The ministry of truth has spoken! We must obey our masters! [sarcasm]
|
|
I would post more, but apparently my nation has decided access to Wikileaks is verboten.Mirrors.
Thanks, now all I have to do is figure out what I want to delete of the hard drive so I can download the torrents.
I find it seriously incredible that someone would leak all that, and then choose to confess his sins to someone who was a very established member of the intelligence community. Even worse, the evidence of this was simple logs, i.e. text files. Has the veracity of those logs been questioned, and if not, why not? If logs are admissible, do you guys want to see a log of mother Theresa discussing how she detonated an atomic bomb in Houston last year with George Washington? Just give me a while and I'll wri... uh, fetch them from my hard drive. Yeah, fetch. If I remember correctly, it is said that he leaked the collateral murder clip, but I don't see why this means that he also leaked the cablegate documents. Admittedly, I have not studied that part of the discussion in detail, but any insight is welcome.
|
|
I find it seriously incredible that someone would leak all that, and then choose to confess his sins to someone who was a very established member of the intelligence community. Even worse, the evidence of this was simple logs, i.e. text files. Has the veracity of those logs been questioned, and if not, why not? If logs are admissible, do you guys want to see a log of mother Theresa discussing how she detonated an atomic bomb in Houston last year with George Washington? Just give me a while and I'll wri... uh, fetch them from my hard drive. Yeah, fetch. If I remember correctly, it is said that he leaked the collateral murder clip, but I don't see why this means that he also leaked the cablegate documents. Admittedly, I have not studied that part of the discussion in detail, but any insight is welcome.
So, this guy basically accused Manning of leaking, offering only as proof a few text files he might have written himself, right? And he just happens to be heavily involved with the intelligence community, giving him ample opportunity to study Manning's life.
So if they chose Manning to take the fall, fabricated some logs we have no idea if they're true, then Manning could be facing an obscene amount of time in jail because he seemed like a good fall guy. You know, of course he's frustrated and ready to blow up, he's a gay in the military.
Until I see some data that actually shows me that this story is true, I will assume it's nothing more than a fabricated evidence story. As I said, I have some seriously impressive evidence in some text file logs if anyone needs to prove anything.
This story makes me sick.
|
|
So, this guy basically accused Manning of leaking, offering only as proof a few text files he might have written himself, right? And he just happens to be heavily involved with the intelligence community, giving him ample opportunity to study Manning's life.
So if they chose Manning to take the fall, fabricated some logs we have no idea if they're true, then Manning could be facing an obscene amount of time in jail because he seemed like a good fall guy. You know, of course he's frustrated and ready to blow up, he's a gay in the military.
Until I see some data that actually shows me that this story is true, I will assume it's nothing more than a fabricated evidence story. As I said, I have some seriously impressive evidence in some text file logs if anyone needs to prove anything.
This story makes me sick.
Wow, I've seen tin hat fashonistas, but you take the cake.