So Bradley Manning got 35 years, minus roughly about 4 years credit for time served.
One the one hand, Bradley Manning got off easier than he could have and he leaked some stuff that he probably shouldn't have (he wasn't careful enough in filtering actual documented criminal activity vs. just random classified documents, from what I recall). So some sort of penalty for the portion of stuff he leaked that probably didn't need to be leaked is acceptable. However, it would only be acceptable if the criminals he pointed out in his leaks were also punished appropriately for their crimes too.
Well, that depends. For example, one of the things he leaked was the famous gun-cam video from the attack helo, Collateral murder. I've spoken at length about how the video points you towards a conclusion from the get go, and how reality is different from how they want you to take the video. The men in that helicopter were investigated, and found to have committed no criminal actions, and acted reasonably under the circumstances.
And yet, most people interested in this issue - maybe not you, but many others - still think of them as criminals who have escaped punishment.
While I agree that people who have committed actual crimes deserve punishment, we can't be hasty in assuming which people are and are not criminals, which is a recurring problem with people interested in this issue.
I haven't researched the details of the "Collateral Murder" video, though that was one of the crimes I was thinking of. Let's assume that it turns out it was an honest mistake for the sake of the argument (again, cause I haven't done the research into it that you apparently have).
There are still examples of other war/human rights crimes such as torture at Guantanamo Bay, detaining and beating of an Al Jazeera journalist, torture at Bagram, abuses committed by military contractors, and so on. I'm not sure these have been investigated or played up as much as "Collateral Murder."
There are still examples of other war/human rights crimes such as torture at Guantanamo Bay, detaining and beating of an Al Jazeera journalist, torture at Bagram, abuses committed by military contractors, and so on. I'm not sure these have been investigated or played up as much as "Collateral Murder."
Of course. I'm not saying there are no criminals involved, the point is that...well, basically we of the internet, particularly the intelligent and internet-using left, have a real problem with remembering the idea of "Innocent until proven guilty." At least, until it's our cocks on the chopping block, instead of someone else's, that's when we remember.
Of course. I'm not saying there are no criminals involved, the point is that...well, basically we of the internet, particularly the intelligent and internet-using left, have a real problem with remembering the idea of "Innocent until proven guilty." At least, until it's our cocks on the chopping block, instead of someone else's, that's when we remember.
True... I guess I should've clarified that any criminals revealed by Manning's leaks should be prosecuted and, if found guilty, then punished. To the best of my knowledge, none of them (except perhaps for the "Collateral Murder" folks, as you claimed) have even been prosecuted.
Manning broke the law. He was prosecuted for it, found guilty (and even pleaded guilty to some of the charges), and got punished. Okay, I can deal with that, even if I hope his sentence will be commuted, especially since the sentence he got was no where near as harsh as it could've been. However, the fact that many of the possible criminals he revealed weren't prosecuted is the real travesty here.
The Abu Ghraib investigation was significantly larger than Bradley Manning's.
True... but Abu Ghraib wasn't the only example of torture. There's a lot of scary stuff going down in Gitmo, in various extraordinary rendition sites around the world, etc., that no one is getting called out on. Some of this was also revealed in Manning's leaks.
True... I guess I should've clarified that any criminals revealed by Manning's leaks should be prosecuted and, if found guilty, then punished. To the best of my knowledge, none of them (except perhaps for the "Collateral Murder" folks, as you claimed) have even been prosecuted.
I should note, the pilot and gunner WERE NOT prosecuted, they were only investigated to see if they SHOULD be prosecuted. Semantics, yeah, but I feel it's an important distinction.
True... I guess I should've clarified that any criminals revealed by Manning's leaks should be prosecuted and, if found guilty, then punished. To the best of my knowledge, none of them (except perhaps for the "Collateral Murder" folks, as you claimed) have even been prosecuted.
I should note, the pilot and gunner WERE NOT prosecuted, they were only investigated to see if they SHOULD be prosecuted. Semantics, yeah, but I feel it's an important distinction.
Fair enough again. Investigation (ideally open with nothing behind closed doors to cover up), followed by prosecution (again, open), followed by punishment, with the later steps only if prior steps warrant them.
I wish more situations would end like this. You have both a gunman who is willing to talk to someone and a person there who is fearless enough and has the demeanor to talk them out of it. It won't always be like this but when it is everyone wins.
Its a strange state when France is saying that there needs to be intervention. I am slightly boggled why its taken this long for the UN to consider sacking up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23795088
France has some historical ties with Syria. I believe after WW1 and the fall of the Ottoman empire, Syria was actually French territory before being granted independence after WW2.
Plus, despite the whole "cheese eating surrender monkeys" joke, the French are more militaristic and capable as a military than most give them credit for. I believe they are the #3 exporter of military hardware after (in no particular order) the US and Russia.
We'd still have to provide the bulk of the troops and logistics, nevermind the air and sea support (and the money), but letting it be a coalition "headed" by France would keep all but the internal US politics out of it.
We'd still have to provide the bulk of the troops and logistics, nevermind the air and sea support (and the money), but letting it be a coalition "headed" by France would keep all but the internal US politics out of it.
Why? How about Australia provide the money since they haven't been hit so hard by the global recession. Just because we have a history of providing a bunch of shit doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
This is a separate issue from whether intercession is needed. I'm not saying we shouldn't intercede. Just that maybe, just once, we should consider that we really can't afford to tow the line here. There ARE other countries in the world.
Those other countries don't have force projection capabilities, so even if they fund it, we have to actually do much of it.
More importantly, most other countries are perfectly willing to ignore situations like Syria. We were trivially able to form a coalition to go into Afghanistan, but we squandered all the good will the world ever had toward us by then invading Iraq for no good reason. ;^)
So, hypothetical. Syria moves on to full scale genocide. The UN refuses to act (due to a Russia/China security council veto). No other nation steps up to form a coalition.
The bigger question might be why we took sides in the first place?
The US used to have a foreign policy of, "we don't care who is in charge as long as there is stability." It seems like our foreign policy has shifted to, "we don't care about stability as long as we see democracy."
We'd still have to provide the bulk of the troops and logistics, nevermind the air and sea support (and the money), but letting it be a coalition "headed" by France would keep all but the internal US politics out of it.
Why? How about Australia provide the money since they haven't been hit so hard by the global recession.
Well, for one thing, our economy is around ten times smaller than yours in size.
This is a separate issue from whether intercession is needed. I'm not saying we shouldn't intercede. Just that maybe, just once, we should consider that we really can't afford to tow the line here.
You can afford to.
So, hypothetical. Syria moves on to full scale genocide. The UN refuses to act (due to a Russia/China security council veto). No other nation steps up to form a coalition.
Do we intervene unilaterally, or let it happen?
Intervene unilaterally, though if and only if you have a reasonable chance of stopping the genocide, or at least a way to achieve a somewhat less terrible outcome.
This is a separate issue from whether intercession is needed. I'm not saying we shouldn't intercede. Just that maybe, just once, we should consider that we really can't afford to tow the line here.
You can afford to.
I'm glad you can understand all the complex financial shit our country is going through when our leaders can't. They seem to think we don't have the money to fund basic social services for our own people. (Of course we seem to be able to afford building tanks our army doesn't want just fine, so who the fuck even knows.) The "size" measure of our economy is laughable. It takes only gross generation into account, not expenses. That's like saying I make $50k a year, so I can afford a yacht. You're ignoring what I have to pay for in living expenses.
I hate to be the asshole here, but if you create a system where you are always the one who takes care of the problem, then everyone else will just depend on you to step in.
If the choice really is America does it or No One does it, WHAT THE FUCK. Aren't we supposed to be a team?
ETA: I have something else to add. If the rest of the world thinks America should step in, then maybe they should give Russia/China the finger and go in with us. Stop expecting somebody else to deal with the problem because you don't have the balls to confront the oppressive regimes on the security council.
I don't know if the US had to be involved in so many different engagements but it looks like the economic bump given with World War 2 was taken to heart and has been maintained to date.
Unfortunately it is done in a very ineffient manner.
All countries that are involved are doing so selfishly, whether to garner international respect, back economic alliances, get resources, control prices whatever. It just depends on how it is sold to the public, whether they care and if they have any control over their Government if they oppose decisions.
Unfortunately in the US it seems that voters have less power than the political campaign donors.
The "size" measure of our economy is laughable. It takes only gross generation into account, not expenses. That's like saying I make $50k a year, so I can afford a yacht. You're ignoring what I have to pay for in living expenses.
So you really think Australia can pay for everything just because we happen to have recovered from the global recession better than you did?
Sure, GDP is far from the only relevant indicator; I never claimed otherwise. However, discounting a 10x difference in size of economy to suggest the idea of "Australia paying for it" is the laughable idea here. For example, the spending on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq would have come to around 25% of Australia's GDP over that period, which is simply a ludicrous amount.
Also, the analogy between a country and a household simply does not hold up. It's almost always a mistake to bring it up.
I hate to be the asshole here, but if you create a system where you are always the one who takes care of the problem, then everyone else will just depend on you to step in.
Sure, it's a terrible system, but simply letting bad things happen is an even more terrible approach to fixing it.
If the choice really is America does it or No One does it, WHAT THE FUCK. Aren't we supposed to be a team?
Well, I don't think that's the choice in front of us; it was a hypothetical from Rym, after all.
Also, what the fuck is the point of the enormous military capability the U.S. has if not this kind of action?
The "size" measure of our economy is laughable. It takes only gross generation into account, not expenses. That's like saying I make $50k a year, so I can afford a yacht. You're ignoring what I have to pay for in living expenses.
So you really think Australia can pay for everything just because we happen to have recovered from the global recession better than you did?
I was just pointing at someone at random. I'm not saying one country should finance the whole operation. In fact, I think exactly the opposite. I think everyone should kick in and help. And tell Russia/China to fuck off.
Comments
One the one hand, Bradley Manning got off easier than he could have and he leaked some stuff that he probably shouldn't have (he wasn't careful enough in filtering actual documented criminal activity vs. just random classified documents, from what I recall). So some sort of penalty for the portion of stuff he leaked that probably didn't need to be leaked is acceptable. However, it would only be acceptable if the criminals he pointed out in his leaks were also punished appropriately for their crimes too.
And yet, most people interested in this issue - maybe not you, but many others - still think of them as criminals who have escaped punishment.
While I agree that people who have committed actual crimes deserve punishment, we can't be hasty in assuming which people are and are not criminals, which is a recurring problem with people interested in this issue.
There are still examples of other war/human rights crimes such as torture at Guantanamo Bay, detaining and beating of an Al Jazeera journalist, torture at Bagram, abuses committed by military contractors, and so on. I'm not sure these have been investigated or played up as much as "Collateral Murder."
Manning broke the law. He was prosecuted for it, found guilty (and even pleaded guilty to some of the charges), and got punished. Okay, I can deal with that, even if I hope his sentence will be commuted, especially since the sentence he got was no where near as harsh as it could've been. However, the fact that many of the possible criminals he revealed weren't prosecuted is the real travesty here.
This happened with someone I knew, and about 30 feet from the classroom I was in at the time. He was able to return to school the following year. Not every situation with someone bringing a gun to school ends in a shooting. But I believe it shows that "gun free zones" don't really work to prevent anyone bringing one in who wants to.
Plus, despite the whole "cheese eating surrender monkeys" joke, the French are more militaristic and capable as a military than most give them credit for. I believe they are the #3 exporter of military hardware after (in no particular order) the US and Russia.
We'd still have to provide the bulk of the troops and logistics, nevermind the air and sea support (and the money), but letting it be a coalition "headed" by France would keep all but the internal US politics out of it.
...
This is a separate issue from whether intercession is needed. I'm not saying we shouldn't intercede. Just that maybe, just once, we should consider that we really can't afford to tow the line here. There ARE other countries in the world.
More importantly, most other countries are perfectly willing to ignore situations like Syria. We were trivially able to form a coalition to go into Afghanistan, but we squandered all the good will the world ever had toward us by then invading Iraq for no good reason. ;^)
So, hypothetical. Syria moves on to full scale genocide. The UN refuses to act (due to a Russia/China security council veto). No other nation steps up to form a coalition.
Do we intervene unilaterally, or let it happen?
The US used to have a foreign policy of, "we don't care who is in charge as long as there is stability." It seems like our foreign policy has shifted to, "we don't care about stability as long as we see democracy."
I hate to be the asshole here, but if you create a system where you are always the one who takes care of the problem, then everyone else will just depend on you to step in.
If the choice really is America does it or No One does it, WHAT THE FUCK. Aren't we supposed to be a team?
ETA: I have something else to add. If the rest of the world thinks America should step in, then maybe they should give Russia/China the finger and go in with us. Stop expecting somebody else to deal with the problem because you don't have the balls to confront the oppressive regimes on the security council.
Unfortunately it is done in a very ineffient manner.
All countries that are involved are doing so selfishly, whether to garner international respect, back economic alliances, get resources, control prices whatever. It just depends on how it is sold to the public, whether they care and if they have any control over their Government if they oppose decisions.
Unfortunately in the US it seems that voters have less power than the political campaign donors.
Sure, GDP is far from the only relevant indicator; I never claimed otherwise. However, discounting a 10x difference in size of economy to suggest the idea of "Australia paying for it" is the laughable idea here. For example, the spending on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq would have come to around 25% of Australia's GDP over that period, which is simply a ludicrous amount.
Also, the analogy between a country and a household simply does not hold up. It's almost always a mistake to bring it up.
Sure, it's a terrible system, but simply letting bad things happen is an even more terrible approach to fixing it. Well, I don't think that's the choice in front of us; it was a hypothetical from Rym, after all.
Also, what the fuck is the point of the enormous military capability the U.S. has if not this kind of action?
I think most of the nuke symbols should be missile drops.