*Edit**Updated* Nominate Pfc Bradley Manning for a 2013 Citizens' Medal

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Will you do it?

  • yes

  • no


Results are only viewable after voting.

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,132
93
91
While your argument is better than pony boys it still has flaws.

We can definitely pick and choose with todays technology much more so than in wars past like Vietnam. Simply carrying something in your hands does not magically make them weapons. Some of them were and I'll agree that the reporter was doing what any other good journalist does in war and thats getting in the action. I'll grant you "collateral damage" happens in war and no you cannot remove it completely. Did you see the "insurgents" with the van? You know the one that stopped to help a wounded "insurgent"? What about the "insurgent" children? This is where the discretion goes out the window. Put yourself in their shoes in their country. To do this imagine it is China perusing our skies with gunships. Several "insurgents" had been killed and injured. You happen to see the aftermath, the blood, dismembered bodies and one lone man struggling for survival. You stop to help and maybe get him to a hospital. The "good guys" won't let that happen because you are helping the "enemy". Red China opens fire on you, your van and your children inside it. What recourse do you have? None. Its just a casualty of war right? Some wont get it until its on their own doorstep.

You're dreaming of a clean war which won't exist in our lifetime. I still stand that the first shoot in a wartime context was completely fine - they had no idea this guy was a journalist, there were confirmed weapons in the group he was with (including an RPG), and they took them down. In the aftermath from what I saw, the crew made another acceptable decision in real-time, without the luxury of magnified video. Clearly the crew did not see children in the front seat of the van. I don't expect our forces at war to let wounded enemies be rescued by non-allied forces.

I am glad we don't have to use the tactics of WW2 - carpet/fire bombing entire cities to ash, killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatants. But even today war is horrible which is why I strongly feel we should only go to war as an absolute last resort which is why Iraq as a whole is so horrendous. But once in that position, I expect our forces to use every advantage to come home alive.

When we're at open war with China, then yes them doing the same would be part of war. As would our opposing attempts to shoot every one of their gunships out of the sky and return the favor to their ground forces.
 

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,132
93
91
I could see how you can form that conclusion that Manning must've released the documents indescriminately, but it's wrong. Manning took care into releasing only documents that he believed would bring transparency to the government and was absolutely certain it could not harm the United States.

Here is a statement from himself on how he selected the cables that he released:
"Up to this point,during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.
In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.
The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.
The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS [missed word] caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.
The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.
The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.
I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.
I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations."
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/03/help-spread-bradley-mannings-words-across-internet

Also included in that link is the rest of Manning's transcript from his testimony on his intents on his release, including very detailed depictions of torture and corruption that violated international law that he felt that he had the civil duty to report to the American people.

But then again, according to AT'ers here, he did it in vain and for recognition, and betrayed our country in the process and deserves to be executed.

What a sick perversion of virtue and justice do people have here. :mad:

So his argument was information which thousands of people had access to couldn't be dangerous to the US, so it's fine to release to the open? These are thousands of people with security clearances which are far more invasive than anyone in the civilian sector can relate to.

Sorry - he's not in the position to make that judgment call on behalf of the United States. At best, his logic on 'what absolutely couldn't bring harm to the US' was simply wrong. Him believing it doesn't make it true.

Now if he *personally* reviewed everything he released, then I might have an ounce of sympathy for him. But he didn't and clearly didn't review hundreds of thousands of documents.
 
Last edited:

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
You're dreaming of a clean war which won't exist in our lifetime. I still stand that the first shoot in a wartime context was completely fine - they had no idea this guy was a journalist, there were confirmed weapons in the group he was with (including an RPG), and they took them down. In the aftermath from what I saw, the crew made another acceptable decision in real-time, without the luxury of magnified video. Clearly the crew did not see children in the front seat of the van. I don't expect our forces at war to let wounded enemies be rescued by non-allied forces.

I am glad we don't have to use the tactics of WW2 - carpet/fire bombing entire cities to ash, killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatants. But even today war is horrible which is why I strongly feel we should only go to war as an absolute last resort which is why Iraq as a whole is so horrendous. But once in that position, I expect our forces to use every advantage to come home alive.

When we're at open war with China, then yes them doing the same would be part of war. As would our opposing attempts to shoot every one of their gunships out of the sky and return the favor to their ground forces.

So wait, you are claiming that it was okay to shoot when they had weapons and agreed if they didn't it would have been a mistake. Yet that's who the people in the van were, unarmed and only trying to help a wounded human being. Do you see the double speak here?

No I am not dreaming anything. I'm merely taking what I saw, what we know to be true, and stating such.
 

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,132
93
91
So wait, you are claiming that it was okay to shoot when they had weapons and agreed if they didn't it would have been a mistake. Yet that's who the people in the van were, unarmed and only trying to help a wounded human being. Do you see the double speak here?

No I am not dreaming anything. I'm merely taking what I saw, what we know to be true, and stating such.

You can't take the entire scene in individual parts - it was a chain of events. The initial shooting was done on armed individuals. The same armed individuals had apparent friendlies come to assist their wounded. In a wartime situation, I'm saying it's horribly unfortunate but the chain of events are not the result of evil Americans wanting to get their jollies off to kill civilians. Within their ROE - they adhered to it.

If the helo had fired on a van with no apparent arms the next day, or the initial group if no arms were seen, then yes it's absolutely wrong. Killing unidentified civilians is outside the US ROE.