No he's not just any incarcerated person in any country--he's a convenient wedge that America haters have found useful to leverage, a stalking horse. I think it's incumbent on you to explain exactly why you think he is differently than the tens of thousands of incarcerated people around the world who complain about their predicament.
My point is why should there be one rule that applies to the United States that does not apply to any other country? One should not advocate a principle that is not universal.
On Wikileaks in general, I suspect that the U.S. State Department is no more incompetent or nefarious than any other nation's diplomatic corps. Again, what's the universal principle? Should all nations make public their diplomatic correspondence or only the U.S? Of course, in reality Wikileaks is incapable or uninterested in publicizing the diplomatic correspondence of despotic states.
Last edited by SteveMetz; 04-22-2011 at 02:05 PM.
I like the General. He spoke at a birthday ball for our division in Nov 2002, and despite having deep reservations about the pending conflict with Iraq, he wished us well. He has provided a considerable amount of steller service to his country and the Marine Corps.
You've keyed in on a sound byte from a terribly short article, and that is your right to do so, but it is only the General's stated opinion (actually more an observation than anything else) that offers sweeping generalizations. Even if he had said something more concrete and voluminous, he'd still be wrong. Go with what he 9and yes, he is a politician now) says if you must. I understand your frame of reference, and can see where you are being misled or why you misunderstand.
Now I know you are probably going to scour the intardweb to find additional articles with links and such to further argue your point, and that is your right as well. Have at it. Post those links at the outset though and allow folks to get a glimpse of what develops your position on matters we discuss here, not ex post facto.
As for my relevancy in the context of the ROE, considering the fact that the standing ROE in place has not changed for forever and a day, and that the Tactical Directive came out under Gen McChrystal and had two tweaks under Gen Petraeus during my tour, but no others have followed in the intervening time...yeah, I just got back. The ROE isn't even what folks are cited as having issues over. It is the Tactical Directive that tends to be highlighted as a matter of concern, which involves the application of force. Oh, but wait...wait...that's right...If I remember correctly (and it's just coming to me now ) the Tactical Directive that some folks enjoy getting up in arms over was issued by Gen McChrystal, a four star General, just like Zinni.
Casualty rates from IEDs account for just over half of the casualties incurred in Afghanistan, so there isn't a lot that can be done about altering the ROE to allow for pre-emptive engagement there anyway. I suppose folks wish we could be more proactive and less reactive in that regard And we have had a good number of good men lose their lives through turncoat actions by ANSF we thought were partners. I guess we should cease the partner mission because it puts troops at risk.
The so called "rules" of engagement:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/21-5
Gun down four civilians on a highway, and then call them "insurgents".
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/wo...ghan.html?_r=1
"American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but in no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops, according to military officials in Kabul."
We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who became the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties."
Stories like this a dime a dozen. Some of you boobs babble about "America haters" etc. while overlooking the virtual boasting from torture artist McChrystal. The US has revived the Phoenix Program in Afghanistan, and it's common knowledge.
William Calley led a massacre of 109 people in Vietnam. His most difficult condition of confinement was house arrest, both pre-trial and pending appeal. He was eventually given a Nixonian pardon. Manning is doing hard time right now. For releasing the truth.
It's your thread and definitely your opinion, as we can see here, but Manning is confined because he compromised classified networks and released information found on those networks. On the surface, it's still espionage. Views on the relevance of the material towards "the truth" are subjective.Stories like this a dime a dozen. Some of you boobs babble about "America haters" etc. while overlooking the virtual boasting from torture artist McChrystal. The US has revived the Phoenix Program in Afghanistan, and it's common knowledge.
William Calley led a massacre of 109 people in Vietnam. His most difficult condition of confinement was house arrest, both pre-trial and pending appeal. He was eventually given a Nixonian pardon. Manning is doing hard time right now. For releasing the truth.
Michael Walker was placed in pre-trial confinement for espionage committed in cahoots with his father.
I tend to think of Gen McChrystal as one well-intentioned commander. If the Phoenix Program is making a comeback, I'm curious as to where the details are that make you believe it is common knowledge.
The first sentence in the article is: 'NATO acknowledged Wednesday that four unarmed Afghans who were killed this week when a military convoy opened fire on their vehicle were all civilians, correcting an earlier claim that two of the dead were "known insurgents." '
Which contradicts your observation, unless your intended point was that NATO officials make mistakes, then correct them. Which would be something of a pointless point to make.
As for the rest, your hatred for the U.S. is tedious. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. In fact, you have lots of company in it. If your goal is to convince anyone here of ... something ... you're doing it wrong.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Ummm...
No.
Manning is in pre-trial confinement for compromising classified information. This action is treason. Treason is perpetrated by traitors.
It is also worth noting that the Al-Qaeda manual found in Britain directs their members to claim abuse at the hands of captors at the first chance they get.
This is al-Qa'eda Rule 18: 'You must claim you were tortured'
Terrorist Training Manual
Manning has disgraced the uniform and country we represent and hold dear.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
On the 1/10 of 1% chance that jcustis was serious:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=phoenix+program+in+afghanistan
Included in the sumptuous buffet:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/07/28/ci...m-flies-again/
a treatment otherwise characterized by its gross dishonesty in describing what Phoenix actually was.
Or:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Terrain_System
describing “mercenary anthropology” as another term for identifying local respected citizens and then murdering them. To win an ally!
Or:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/valentine4.1.1.html
describing the incredibly bungled Phoenix and Chieu Hoi programs, and concluding with:
One of you described a press release after a murder of 4 Afghanistan civilians as a "mistake". Do you really not understand that a "mistake" is always what is offered first, and then withdrawn after somebody finds out what actually happened? I suppose you think the Iraq runup was a "mistake".And while the CIA relies on cartoons to sell itself, the Taliban go from person to person, proving that technology is no substitute for human contact. Ultimately the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam for just this reason.
The Taliban defector buyout program heralds just such a development in Afghanistan – defeat – and nothing more.
Another one of you said that Manning had some involvement with "treason". Here is what Manning is charged with:
http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/r...radley-manning
Manning was later charged with "aiding the enemy". Ha ha. I'm sure there is somebody here who can tell us which enemy is that.
The little Bush administration decided they didn't like Valerie Plame Wilson. She had been working on counter-proliferation of nuclear weapons for many years, specializing in the Iranian and Iraq programs. So they blew her cover, endangered any assets she had recruited, and caused her operation to be shut down.
How many of you want to argue that Bradley Manning did more harm to the national interest than the Bush criminal cartel in the Plame case?
Last edited by Jedburgh; 04-26-2011 at 11:13 AM. Reason: Tone it down.
Let's all take a deep breath and tone down the attacks, shall we? If that proves impossible, this thread will be locked for a "cooling down" period. Thanks.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Fact: Somewhere along the line the soldier in question signed an oath.
Most of us have done it and many of us still do.
There is no gray line with foggy misunderstandings abound. The acts committed are just wrong regardless of how we decide to label them.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
True. But don't do things during his detention that feed the nut-case conspiracy theories. Try and convict him for the 20 years or so that he deserves. If you hang around the U.S. Armed Forces long enough their institutational reputation for exercising probity and good judgement become very important things in the long haul. We went though some blips in Korea and Vietnam but if the basic integrity of the service shines through during thick and thin most of the opinion of the world will have confidence in us.
Last edited by Pete; 04-26-2011 at 10:51 PM. Reason: Grammar.
I'm thinking this might be relevant. Needless to say, I agree with Steve Blair at this point.
What Manning did has no relevance on how he is currently--that is, prior to his trial--being treated. By that I mean Manning's crimes do not make it okay to punish him without a trial. Punishment before trial is not justice; in fact, it's injustice, contrary to the entire point of having trials in the first place.
It is very much in the US's interests to publicly torture Manning. It sends a very clear message: Manning is a soldier, and soldiers are pretty highly regarded by most of the US. The message is, if we're willing to do this to a soldier, imagine what we'll do to you--"you" being anyone, soldier, civilian, or foreign national, who wants to try to leak sensitive material.
The idea that Manning is being held under prevention of injury protocols solely for his own safety (even recognizing that ensuring his safety is necessary to bring him to trial) is naivete at best and willful ignorance at worst. We have a pretty poor track record when it comes to the rights of people we decide are enemies. If it looks like we're acting heinously when we deal with an enemy, it's probably because we're acting heinously.
If you want to see Manning tried and shot, well, okay--let's do that. Personally, I'm not sure the death penalty is warranted in this case, but that's a different argument; at the very least, shooting him after trying him for treason would be the proper execution (no pun intended) of justice as this nation subscribes to the concept. But to hold Manning under his current conditions and claim it's justice is to be either appallingly unaware of political reality or appalling unwilling to accept those realities.
It's not punishment -- though it may be punishing. It's pre-trial confinement, similar to being held without bail before a civilian criminal trial (LINK). I have no idea how many civilians are being so held due to being a perceived flight risk but I'm sure you object to their confinement as well.
Most military offenders are not placed in pre-trial confinement but those with major offenses (of which Manning is accused) and who are deemed flight risks (Manning's UK connection. Extradition is expensive...) will almost always be confined until all the investigations are complete. The Judge Advocates discourage pre-trial unless it really seems necessary in order to avoid creating sympathy for the accused by the Court Martial boar or Military Jury -- that because of the protections afforded the accused, the investigations typically take far longer than would a comparable civilian effort.
In my experience and observation, the system goes to great lengths to insure they have a solid case before charges are preferred. The military justice system gets wrongly slammed for having a high conviction rate. It does but that's due to the fact that the Judge Advocates won't charge people unless they have a really solid case. Most people look at the Charged:Tried ratio (civilian Indictment:Trial). A better assessment would be crimes committed versus offenses charged -- that ratio is low, far lower than most civilian venues.That has not deterred previous leakers, most of whom don't get caught -- Manning apparently did get caught. You run across a lot of folks in the service who are about a tenth as smart as they think they are and who do dumb stuff. Happens all the time...It is very much in the US's interests to publicly torture Manning...you" being anyone, soldier, civilian, or foreign national, who wants to try to leak sensitive material.That sentence you wrote is the reason for my suggestion. That's just not correct. If there's any justice system that is more slavishly overprotective of the rights of the accused than the US Military Justice system, I'm unaware of it (LINK).The idea that Manning is being held under prevention of injury protocols solely for his own safety (even recognizing that ensuring his safety is necessary to bring him to trial) is naivete at best and willful ignorance at worst.We do heinous occasionally, mostly we don't. Though we do stupid a lot...We have a pretty poor track record when it comes to the rights of people we decide are enemies. If it looks like we're acting heinously when we deal with an enemy, it's probably because we're acting heinously.I doubt a Treason charge would stick and to my knowledge, no one other than a few folks here and there are interested in that. I strongly doubt the death penalty will be sought though I do not doubt some folks will wish for that.If you want to see Manning tried and shot, well, okay--let's do that. Personally, I'm not sure the death penalty is warranted in this case, but that's a different argument; at the very least, shooting him after trying him for treason ...May I suggest it is you that appears unwilling to accept realities. Manning hasn't been subjected to much more hassle than most armed forces Recruits are subjected to for weeks at a time and not nearly as much as many 'endure' in more advanced training. There is no official claim of 'justice' in his current detention -- he's in pre-trial confinement, no more.But to hold Manning under his current conditions and claim it's justice is to be either appallingly unaware of political reality or appalling unwilling to accept those realities.
Also note, he's currently at the USDB at Leavenworth and the Army has a much more benign concept of incarceration than do the Marines so your fears may well be misplaced.
Pete,
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, and Ken has done yet another fine job of explaining why Manning is still being held, I think the military spends little time entertaining nut-case theories and generally ignores mass media. I've hung around the military all my life and find that our system needs to remain strict and I see no lack of integrity.
Sam put things into perspective for all of us having worked in the prison system. If Manning was in general population several very unpopular things would have happened and we wouldn't be having this conversation nor would we be concerned at all over the outcome. For some reason what takes place among inmates seems OK and never makes the headlines.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Just a couple of points of information:
1. Manning would not be put into "general population" while in a pretrial status. Personnel in pretrial confinement are generally required to be held separately from convicted prisoners and in a large brig (like quantico) there is a separate area for just that purpose.
2. A few months before Manning arrived at the Quantico Brig, a Marine in pretrial confinement committed suicide at the brig. To me it seems only natural that brig personnel would take no chances of a repeat so soon after a suicide, especially a high-visibility confinee like Manning.
Of course, there's a risk in that. Whatever one's opinion on Manning, I think he will have a case for an article 13 violation. It's going to get brought up in court for certain and will be decided there and it will also be looked at on appeal should he be convicted. There's some appellate case history (PDF file, article 13 stuff begins on page F-10) that indicates to me (as a non-lawyer) that he might receive some credit.
Edit: Adding this from Manning's lawyer's blog:
"not on my watch" sounds to me like they aren't going to take any chances on another suicide....The order to keep PFC Manning under these unduly harsh conditions was issued by a senior Quantico official who stated he would not risk anything happening “on his watch.” When challenged by a Brig psychiatrist present at the meeting that there was no mental health justification for the decision, the senior Quantico official issuing the order responded, “We will do whatever we want to do.” Based upon these statements and others, the defense was in the process of filing a writ of habeas corpus seeking a court ruling that the Quantico Brig violated PFC Manning’s constitutional right to due process.
Last edited by Entropy; 04-28-2011 at 05:32 AM. Reason: Added stuff
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
*
Meanwhile, back in the holding cell...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=USFORT LEAVENWORTH, Kan. (AP) -- Army officials are opening the doors to the military prison in Kansas where they are holding an Army private suspected of illegally passing U.S. government secrets to the WikiLeaks website.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
Bookmarks