Slashdot Mirror
Bradley Manning Charged With Aiding the Enemy
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Washington Post reports that the army has brought twenty-two new charges — including the Article 104 offence of 'aiding the enemy' that carries a potential death sentence — against Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, a former intelligence analyst accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents to the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks. The new charges, filed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, include wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it will be accessed by the enemy, that US officials have asserted could put soldiers and civilians at risk. However the prosecution has notified Manning's attorneys that it will not recommend the death penalty and the charge sheet, like the original set of accusations, contains no mention by name of the enemy to which the US military is referring. Manning's supporters reacted to the new charges with dismay. 'I'm shocked that the military opted to charge Pfc. Bradley Manning today with the capital offense of 'aiding the enemy,' says Jeff Paterson, project director of Courage to Resist, which has raised money for Manning's defense. 'It's beyond ironic that leaked US State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in the Middle East, yet an American may be executed, or at best face life in prison, for being the primary whistleblower.'"
That "enemy" being the American people.
It'll be interesting to watch the prosecution try to weasel out of this simple question.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Yeah, because US people are way more important and deserve to be alive. The rest of us are less important and our lives are disposable.
If there's one thing the business of government will not tolerate, it's competition -- especially when that competition exposes government as the incompetent, self-serving elite which they are. The plain fact is that Manning and Wikileaks did what government could not -- and in the process exposed their corrupt objectives -- and now the elite at the top of the pyramid are absolutely fuming.
I don't know if there's anything I enjoy more than watching the power pyramid squirm with jealousy and embarrassment.
And his disclosures to wikileaks are arguably responsible for triggering the revolution in Tunisia, which set off Egypt and Libya. Maybe he should get a peace prize before you go and kill him.
Pretty sure that the GUY WHO SET HIMSELF ON FIRE was the catalyst for the revolution in Tunisia.
The law also forced Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus because of her skin color. Some laws are immoral and need to be broken for the greater good.
Befehl ist Befehl! You know the problem with the US? They haven't had a war on their own soil for too long. It's about time they get one. It will teach them that war is a bit less 'fun' when it's your kids that are being shot at from an apache. BTW: not following orders (or: befehl is befehl) was the nr. 1 argument that SS-soldiers had to say for themselves on the Nuremberg-trials.
He did the crime, and he's going to do the time.
What, no presumption of innocence? No due process? We've made so much progress!
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE THRUTH
Maybe not. But I can handle the 'truth'.
A camel is a horse created by a committee
The supreme law of the land is not the whim of the commander-in-chief or the doings of his underlings, or even that of the legislature. It is the Constitution. When those in power break that law, as they have done routinely since Lincoln, it is the DUTY of all citizens and service members to disobey their orders.
Jesus, get out of my country. (Briton here)
People like you are what gives retards in power the power they have.
Not only will he not get his arse kicked, he is likely going to be killed because America are embarrassed that such secrets got out to "the enemy" and want to make an example of him.
I bet you'd probably cover for cops abusive powers as well.
You are one sad example of a human. I hope you aren't in a position of power.
2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.
That is ridiculous. Ever read "Civil Disobedience"? Few would argue the American revolution wasnt a moral case of breaking laws, or that the civil rights movement wasnt a moral case of breaking the laws. I can think of several laws off the top of my head that should be broken regularly if it suites a person. Marijuana use, prostitution, and buying alcohol on Sundays.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
The People.
Ask an Egyptian
Ask a Tunisian.
Ask someone who marched in Selma.
The Digital Sorceress
Really? Even the feds admitted there were no tactical threats from his release, and that it consisted largely of embarrassing diplomatic emails. If you make this claim, you should back it up, because when even the feds admit there was no threat. Innocent until proven guilty, so you need to provide proof.
Rules are made for a reason.
Yes - but the fact that a rule exists doesn't make it a good rule or correct to use in every situation. How would you like a rule that had a dealth penalty for posting dumb comments?
Failing to name "the enemy" is standard military procedure. Referring to them by a name would humanize them more than a generic noun like "the enemy" would.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html#ixzz1FXksZKgb
A mere forty years ago a great whistleblower did his work and risked all, but did not get placed in brutal imprisonment and danger of death for putting his country's moral character to a test, and even a corrupt President would voluntarily resign upon the revelation of his lawbreaking. I speak of course of Danny Ellsberg and President Nixon.
Anyone who could become privy to what Pvt. Manning did, that is that the USA conducts thinly veiled torture with electric shock, waterboarding, psychological torture, and that it renditions prisoners to regimes like the recently deposed one in Egypt which engage in blatant torture including drills,
anyone who could see that this is a blatant exercise of power meant to subdue the disadvantaged of the world and mold the economics to the advantage of America's elite to the detriment of everyone else, including future generations,
anyone who could see the brutality of willful shoot-ups of civilians and journalists by snickering, racist Apache gunship crews,
anyone who could see the contravention of international law and agreements we are assigned to and to which our national honor is affixed by deliberate scheming,
anyone who could see that the nature of our government's policies is hidden, distorted, or misrepresented to its constituents
and hold their peace, working in silent assent to atrocities, and not speak out, would have been convicted at Nuremberg, would have made themselves directly share responsibility for monstrous crimes, and would be no guardian of liberty or law, but a tool to those who corrupt both. If the letter of the law is all that is right and Bradley Manning is a criminal for blowing the whistle on the corrupt exercise of power, then everyone who signed the American Declaration of Independence ought to have hung too, and apologies are due for this nation's existence altogether with its rights and wrongs, and a ridiculous and futile exercise - thus the powers that would have Manning punished are discredited.
They who would sacrifice essential freedom for a little security will gain neither, and lose both, quoth Ben Franklin.
They who would sacrifice basic humanity and law for obedience to tyrants are heirs to tyranny and the stain that brings, and none of the things that have ever made this country worth fighting for. We'll need more people like Manning to get our country back from the plutocrats and propaganda that have already plundered its wealth for their wars.
unless your smoking the same stuff which Krugman of the NYT is because he claims its because Obama is President and our audacity and courage to elect him empowered the people of the Middle East to revolt.
As for aiding the enemy, well, pick one. I am sure we can make one up if we need it. There were certainly documents and such that put the lives of many soldiers and civilians in danger but I understand how quickly many here dismiss them. Its far better to portray it as Us vs The Man even though half the place is willing to hand over all rights and money provided they think someone else gets the shaft.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The real defenders of a society are the people who are not afraid to stand against the ones that stain, lie, cheat and ultimately disgrace said society. Especially when their actions run against the will of the powerful or the law (which defends first and foremost the powerful).
Look into your own history - you greatest heroes were "terrorists". Jesus was terrorist too (to the Jewish priests). In the history of my people our greatest heroes were rebels and "terrorists". Hanged for treason and helping the enemy....
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) supersedes civilian law when dealing with members of the Armed Forces: Army, Air Force, Navy (Marines included here, even though they hate being told that they're in the Navy :P ) & Coast Guard.
When enlisting or accepting a commission, you swear an oath to uphold all of these laws and much, much more. You forgo your Constitutional rights -- this is one of the reasons that military service is considered making a sacrifice. You accept a new set of rights which are outlined in the UCMJ. What a Private First Class thinks is of no concern -- Privates are for doing, Sergeants are for making sure things are done, and Officers are for thinking (in a nutshell). His only obligation is to follow the lawful orders given to him by his seniors.
Whenever something is done by a Soldier, it is often covered by multiple Articles of the UCMJ. For example, mouthing off to a senior NonCommissioned Officer may violate the following:
Article 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation.
Article 117. Provoking speeches or gestures.
An interaction as simple as "Private Smith, take out the trash." -- "Fuck you Sergeant Jones!" is clearly more complex than one guideline, and is that NCO or Officer's duty to interpret and punish accordingly.
The same laws which protect the United States and its allies also protect each service member. He will receive a fair trial through Courts Martial, and may be found guilty or not. If he has been found to (intentionally or unintentionally) disclose sensitive or classified information, he will pay accordingly. Each charge will be looked at both individually and collectively as to its intent and results. The military takes care of its own.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Ask a KKK member in the 30s.
Oh, wait...
The absolute rule of majority is not democracy. It's tyranny. If popular support was everything needed to break laws you can call most populist South American dictators as heroes.
I'm a Brazilian. Brazil is an interesting country. In the 1700s Brazil had a very fast growth epoch, enough the scare Lisbon. Lisbon decreed a 20% tax on mining profits, a ban on all manufacturing industries and the use of military force to collect taxes, if needed (the derrama). A few bored intellectuals started an independence movement - but the population overall just supported the Portuguese Crown, being Catholics and the divine theory of the right of Kings. When the Portuguese discovered the movement they chose a scape goat, hang him, chopped him in little pieces and scattered him between Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais - like between New York to Boston.
The same population that then supported the Crown also supported the Vargas dictatorship in the 30s. The Vagas dictatorship started displaced the democratic (although elitist) government that ruled the country from 1889 to 1930s. After the Vagas dictatorship the country would only live a very troubled democracy between 1945 to 1964 - but with strong military interventions. The democracy has only been restored in the late 80s, after a lot of blood been spilled.
Popular support is a component of democracy but it's not enough to decide the fairness of laws.
But isn't that exactly the point - that the USA should not be stealing credit card numbers from visiting dignitaries in the first place? And this release of information will help prevent this sort of immoral thing from happening in the future.
He also swore an oath to uphold the ideals and the constitution of the USA. When he finds evidence that those ideals are being violated by those further up the chain of command, what is the correct response?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Contacting JAG
Manning is accused of creating pretty much all major US military leaks published in 2010. Within months of these leaks which focus on the Middle East to a great part, a cascade of popular revolts sweeps through most Middle Eastern nations.
Naturally, the promotion of actual democracy in these nations threatens the strategic position of the US as the sole bringer of Iraq-style "freedom". It's hard to force a regime change in democratic countries (well, the US did that during the cold war, but that was before the internet). Freedom in the Middle East is the enemy. Manning and Wikileaks aid the enemy.
That's news to me. Please enlighten us: exactly when did congress formally declare war as the constitution requires? Oh, that's right -- they haven't actually declared a war since WW2. Stop spouting bullshit.
Bread and games.
Keep people entertained (the more braindead the entertainment the better) and keep them fed and they won't give a damn about what you do. And they won't give a damn when you make those that do give a damn disappear in plain sight. Worked wonders for the Roman empire...
We (I'm from the U.S.) aren't officially at war with anyone. How could he be aiding an enemy that doesn't exist?
Put identity in the browser.
We are currently fighting two actual declared hot wars
No, neither of those wars was ever "declared". That is factually incorrect. Congress went to great lengths in the early 2000s to avoid actually "declaring" war because they are spineless and wanted to make sure that any blame if the things turned bad would rest solely with the president.
It's amazing that even after so much corruption in government has been exposed, the common man simply brushes it off and reverts to blindly trusting authority. If that doesn't illustrate the power of indoctrination, I don't know what does.
Right, because it's that much of a black and white issue. Either release everything, or release nothing. What was done, was irresponsible. Is there not a difference between releasing SOME information, and dumping so much stuff that people are put in harms way? The NY Times Magazine did a long , including talks about things they refused to do, including some interesting tidbits, such as:
The article (fascinating, really) goes on to talk about the Times eventually being in touch with the government, and agreeing to withhold certain documents that were mentioning too many specific details of ongoing operations, and disagreeing and publishing others that they felt were not endangering any lives. But throughout it all, the Obama administration was apparently not trying to strong arm the Times, and the article specifically cites: "The Obama White House, while strongly condemning WikiLeaks for making the documents public, did not seek an injunction to halt publication. There was no Oval Office lecture. On the contrary, in our discussions before publication of our articles, White House officials, while challenging some of the conclusions we drew from the material, thanked us for handling the documents with care. The secretaries of state and defense and the attorney general resisted the opportunity for a crowd-pleasing orgy of press bashing. There has been no serious official talk — unless you count an ambiguous hint by Senator Joseph Lieberman — of pursuing news organizations in the courts. Though the release of these documents was certainly embarrassing, the relevant government agencies actually engaged with us in an attempt to prevent the release of material genuinely damaging to innocent individuals or to the national interest."
So yeah, I think one soldier releasing hundreds of thousands of documents without any care to do so solely with a moral purpose, and taking care not to release things that are flat out dangerous, and giving them to a guy who just wanted to bulk publish EVERYTHING regardless of content is not only illegal, but also not morally defensible.
>>>Contacting JAG
Which means revealing classified information to the JAG ("I found documents that say...."), so Manning would still be in jail. Your solution is a non-solution.
This is the danger Eisenhower warned us about - an industrial-military that is unaccountable for its constitutional violations.
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
The problem I have with your argument is the lack of discrimination Pfc Manning displayed on what constitutes "evidence that those ideals are being violated". Had Manning leaked only things that tend to show some sort of wrong doing I might have agreed with you. But a great deal of what was released was secret yet not sensitive information that had no bearing on any ideals. From wikipedia:
The diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and revelations: critiques and praises about the host countries of various U.S. embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East, efforts for and resistance against nuclear disarmament, actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the world, dealings between various countries, U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, U.S. support of dictatorship and other diplomatic actions.
The leaked cables expose that British official revealed that diplomats of the U.S. and Britain eavesdropped on Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, even though international treaties prohibit spying at the UN.[47] Further, they reveal that U.S. diplomats told an Afghan government official to keep quiet after they learned that a major U.S. government contractor firm was pimping little boys to be auctioned off to be raped by Afghan policemen in parties organized by the contractor
While there was information in the cables that should have been exposed, there was a lot that should not have been like what US ambassadors thought of French President Sarkozy. I don't know why Pfc Manning disclosed the information and I don't know why he didn't limit it to revelations of wrong doing. But I don't share your view of his actions.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The cables weren't the reason, but they *were* the catalyst.
The unrest started in Tunisia as protests against the ruler's immediate family who were making out like bandits. The corruption had long been known about (it wasnt subtle) but the spark was the wikileaks release which showed a bunch of cables from US embassy in Tunisia that detailed the corruption. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/02/wikileaks-exclusive-book-extract
The government responded by shutting down wikileaks access which resulted in Anonymous group taking action against official Tunisian government sites and defacing them (with the same cables, amongst other things) which also had a pronounced and under reported effect on people's urge to actually protest.
So, Bradley Manning has probably done more to unleash the wave of democratization hitting north Africa than any other single individual. That doesn't make what he did legal but if everyone stuck to what was legal, we would all be living as serfs to feudal barons.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Aiding the enemy was a law created to stop soldiers from doing things like giving guns to the Germans during World War 2. The sort of thing that directly will get Americans killed.
In this case "Aiding the enemy" is being broadly interpreted as exposing anything that our military doesn't want exposed. We're not even talking about detailed attack plans or other secret information that provides genuine strategic advantage, and the documents themselves show that the "enemy" already has a good understanding of US patterns.
We've gone from "Aiding the Enemy" as direct action to directly help the enemy kill Americans, to broadly releasing information to everyone in an attempt to expose misinformation. In other words, actual direct intent to help the enemy is no longer a requirement. QED, anything viewed as negative to the US military effort can also be viewed as a capital offence. That should *not* be applied to Manning.
The ______ Agenda
Posts like this, however "insightful" they are deemed to be, are part of the reason the US of A is no longer quite so globally revered as it was in, say, post WWII europe. The "knowledge" the "enemy" gained was knowledge of things that already happened. Not secretive military strategy documents, but evidence of clear breaches of the rules of engagement, the murder of civilians, which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has said is the right of every American citizen to know.
Its easy to sit in front of your PC munching doritos, calling everybody else dumb, and classifying the potential execution of a person who tried to do what he felt was the right thing as "reasonable" and a potential life sentence "generous", knowing that your oh-so-distant removal from the situation means you can just browse on to the next slashdot article and forget about everything in a few minutes.
It might be the right thing to not follow order sometimes, at least when you're asked to do something morally wrong such as killing innocent citizens. Was this the nature of Manning's refusal to follow orders? In any case, if you don't follow orders, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences, even if not following orders was the right thing to do.
Manning is suffering consequences.
Furthermore, where do you draw the distinction between murder, killing, and letting others die? The leaked information, especially the helicopter video, has led to increased scrutiny concerning how the U.S. is conducting itself in these military operations. I would argue that this has saved innocent lives. If one has the opportunity to save innocent lives and does not, how is that different from killing? If someone is drowning and you, a capable swimmer, doesn't attempt to rescue them because you don't want to get wet, have you not just killed them? Or, worse, have you not just murdered them?
Another example: If you're driving drunk (and to keep you, in this example, on morally safe ground, you're only a tad bit over the legal limit after consuming three beers) on a lone country road and come across a car wrecked into a pole. The driver is seriously injured and dying. Staying will result in a drunk driving charge, fleeing will result in the other driver's death. You could just call 911 and leave, but the victim needs immediate first aid services which you can provide. Sometimes doing the right thing has consequences.
As a person, when morality conflicts with legality, morality always wins. The severity of the legal/moral issue doesn't matter. You can't just say, "Well, legality trumps morality until they tell you to start rounding up Jews and systematically killing them." When you say legality trumps morality up to a certain point at which morality takes precedence, then you open the door for that certain point to be arbitrary, debatable, and ultimately meaningless. Ethics always trump the legal system.
I think Manning was ready to face the consequences and is facing them now. But just because he should be ready to face the consequences doesn't mean he should actually be punished. Is China right in their punishment of Liu Xiaobo? He broke the law, after all. Or does he deserve his punishment because he knew the risks he was taking by voicing dissent?
It's just sad that Obama hasn't pardoned Manning. I give Obama a free pass on that one until he gets reelected. It could be political suicide. But once the second term comes around he will have no excuse.
I'll tell you who deserves to be punished: that filthy rat Adrian Lamo. Why Anonymous hasn't gone after his head is beyond me.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
And the founders of the US were all traitors to the crown of England. What are you saying?
Even in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) the notion of conscience is recognized in the course of the execution of one's duty. If a service member is witness to criminal actions by his superiors, he is compelled by duty, honor and conscience to report it.
Are the actions of the US Military and Department of State criminal? Some would say so. And do you think it is "appropriate" for diplomats to also serve as spies? Not only is this simply "wrong" it is quite probably also illegal under international rules and law.
What Manning did was most likely driven by a sense of righteousness and justice. Would I have the courage to act similarly in the same situation? I can say that I would be tempted to but I doubt I would have the balls to carry it out. Manning deserves our admiration for his courage and conviction. He knew he was laying his life on the line and that it would create international news and awareness. He did it anyway. Think on that. This is no "ego trip." This goes way beyond ego.
Your handle succinctly described your position. Simple and unthinking obedience to the state. If 13% of the country thinks Bradley Manning is a hero do we execute him? Is Bradley Manning a traitor who should be executed if 37% of the citizenry support him? If 51% of the people in this country think Bradley Manning is a hero can we execute you as an enemy of our constitutional democracy?
Some here feel that Manning is a traitor and hanging's too good for him. Some here feel that the guy is a hero, and should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
There are many arguments for and against. Regardless, Manning is only so far CHARGED with various "crimes". I haven't seen that the prosecution has any actual evidence to convict.
Consider the financial meltdown for a moment. Do you realize that NO ONE has gone to jail for that? Nobody. Nada (don't reply about Madoff, that's not related).Sure, there were some guys from Bear Stearns that were charged, but the convictions didn't happen because the prosecution couldn't convince a jury, because they just didn't have enough evidence.
Lately, prosecutors haven't even been pursuing charges unless they are sure they can make it stick. Of course, the military is different in that they think they can railroad anyone they like, to make an example and keep the rest of us in line. But the truth is, when Manning comes to trial, the prosecution may have a hard time making the case stick.
In the meantime, put the noose away and give the dude a little more breathing room. After all, we are supposedly living in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. Unless you guys with the noose in your hands want to change that about the "land of the free" as well.. Yeah America. You're number one.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Because that clearly would have accomplished oh so much. They didn't prosecute that helicopter crew even when the entire world saw a video of them opening fire on an unarmed, civilian vehicle attempting to collect dead and wounded after their first attack...you really think they would have done something if only they saw it? You can argue all day long about whether the first attack was "justified," but there's no getting around those pesky Geneva Conventions when it comes to engaging medics and wounded enemies.
I note that opinions expressed in support of the charge are marked as trolls, while opinions expressed in opposition to the charge are modded up.
Good.
Perhaps if there were actually some good arguments for punishing Manning, they wouldn't be marked as troll. "Hang the bastard" and "he got what he deserves" aren't arguments, they're ignorant and inflammatory claims.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Secret murder. The US government killed people in Yemen and paid off the Yemeni government to take the blame for it. No declaration of war by Congress, just some drone attacks with the usual undisclosed "collateral damage" via a high-pressure freedom dispersal unit (some call them missiles). That's one really obvious one. Need more examples? I'll say it again: It's not legal just because the government is doing it.
>>>But that doesn't mean there aren't secrets being kept right now that aren't necessary
Like the slaughter or journalists, cameramen, and children by US Soldiers. That *definitely* has to be kept secret, or else the american public might decide that "war sucks" and demand the killing be ended immediately. "Lock up that video damnit!!!" George Duh Bush (stamps Top Secret on tape). "Gotta keep fighting and killing!"
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
releasing sensitive classified documents onto the internet is certainly, in layman's vernacular, "aiding the enemy"
It amazes this layman to learn from you that I would naturally use the phrase "aiding the enemy" to refer to any release of sensitive classified documents. You argue that when the US is at war, there is an enemy, and any violation of US official secrets acts could aid that enemy, and thus does constitute "aiding the enemy". But since the policy of the US's ruling elite is to be perpetually engaged in undeclared or semi-declared (i.e., funded) wars, there is always an enemy. If you are right, then what an added benefit redounds to those rulers from their policy of perpetual warfare! Not only can they abuse the classification system to protect themselves from embarrassment, but they can execute any military official secrets violator.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They voted to fund it, that's plenty enough for them to share responsibility.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
If you engage in an illegal war, invade a couple of countries, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, break US law, violate the constitution, and completely ignore international law, including the Geneva convention treaties put in place after the atrocities of WWII, and you THEN proceed to cover it all up, there's nothing wrong with what you're doing, and you are even considered heroic and patriotic, and nothing happens to you except maybe getting more funding.
However, if you BLAB about it and release documents that PROVE it, THEN you're a horrible, horrible person who needs to die.
God, the people in this country are fucking stupid.
Its easy to say things in hindsight, especially when you aren't familiar with how such sitituations work. There was an investigation and it was found to be an accident. And really, when you think about it clinically its easy to see why it happened:
1.) Unknown vehicle comes in during an engagement. The enemy is known to use civilian equipment.
2.) The helicopter crew isn't able to stare closely into their cameras for an extended period of time like you are post facto; the images aren't all that clear especially if you watch it through in full the first time.
3.) With adrenalin flowing and their training kicking in they respond to a potential threat to their lives accordingly.
Accidents happen in war. Tensions are high, everyone is scared, and with guerrilla/insurgency warfare you don't KNOW who the enemy is since they look like everyone else. After you lose a few friends to "civilians" who were really guerrillas, its easy to either A) start hating the civilians (see some of the atrocities in Vietnam) or B) be jumpy/trigger happy when its you and your buddy's life on the line.
It is really easy to sit safe in your home, watch a video clip over and over 50 times, and then make commentary of how "wrong" someone's behavior was. You weren't there. You weren't feeling the fear, anxiety, excitement... You don't know what its like to have your days filled with boredom, just wishing you could go back to the World, when suddenly you are pulled into an incredibly tense and frightening situation. You don't know how you'll react after you've been trained so that when your mind shuts down you will hopefully still do what needs to be done.
This is Slashdot. There are comments every day about people making emotional judgements about situations, and how that is wrong. How people should use logic, and try to figure out every possible factor and then work out what the best solution is. Maybe you should try that, the old "put your self in their shoes" method, before rushing to conclusions like the "sheeple" you so profess to hate.
There were certainly documents and such that put the lives of many soldiers and civilians in danger but I understand how quickly many here dismiss them
Got a decent fer'instance? Even one single solitary document containing even one fact that you can demonstrate might have even theoretically endangered a single life?
Seems nobody else has managed that challenge yet. There were one or 2 half hearted attempts months ago, but the best they could do was documents showing where troops were many months before the release. They couldn't seem to find any cases where the troops were still where the documents said they were.
So there it is, show us here a single solitary instance where even one life might reasonably be believed to be endangered and we'll all quit dismissing the endangerment argument so easily.
>>>Contacting JAG
Which means revealing classified information to the JAG ("I found documents that say...."), so Manning would still be in jail.
You've never been in the military or you would know that your answer is incorrect. If indeed Manning had felt there was some moral issue involved, a violation of law or orders, the proper place to take that complaint would be the local offices of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) or the Inspector General (IG). They are expected to deal with evidence which may be classified in nature. WikiLeaks is not part of that solution.
And for those who are eager to elevate Manning as responsible for rebellion around the globe, while I strongly debate whether he had anything to do with that, you have to be prepared to also lay at his feet partial responsibility for the deaths of civilians caught in the crossfire between factions.