Private Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison

[Dominus Atheos]

Yes to all of those, since part of surrendering is putting down your weapons and staying in one place. I don't know where you get this "let them go" idea from. If they throw down their weapons and don't run, no you can't shoot them anyway.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes to all of those, since part of surrendering is putting down your weapons and staying in one place. I don't know where you get this "let them go" idea from. If they throw down their weapons and don't run, no you can't shoot them anyway.

What if you don't have resources in the area to capture them?

[slebetman]

Yes to all of those, since part of surrendering is putting down your weapons and staying in one place. I don't know where you get this "let them go" idea from. If they throw down their weapons and don't run, no you can't shoot them anyway.

What if you don't have resources in the area to capture them?

Under the terms of the Geneva convention killing them would still be a war crime. Remember, when the Japanese did this and used the same excuse in WW2 the US et. el. executed the perpetrators.

[Dominus Atheos]

Yep, japanese subs famously machine gunned allied sailors in lifeboats after their ship sank on many occasions.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboa ... eakill.htm

So yes, it's a war crime to kill surrendered soldiers even if capturing them is impossible.

[Korto]

Yes to all of those, since part of surrendering is putting down your weapons and staying in one place. I don't know where you get this "let them go" idea from. If they throw down their weapons and don't run, no you can't shoot them anyway.

Did you fail to read the previous posts, or just fail to understand them, since in the hypothetical there is just one helicopter, no ground support, and the men have surrendered to the helicopter.
Fine. They've dropped their weapons and they're standing still. They sincerely fully intend to stay there, standing still, while you watch them. Your ground support is, let's say, 20 minutes away.
Now what?
Do you land, and load them into the chopper? Even assuming there's space, does that strike you as a wonderful idea?
Do you hover around in the area, keeping an eye on them, waiting for backup to arrive, and all the time praying that the backup that arrives is for you, and not for them?
Can you think of any other reasonable options for a helicopter than "Shoot them or let them go"?

[Dominus Atheos]

What part of "shooting them is a war crime" do you not get?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yep, japanese subs famously machine gunned allied sailors in lifeboats after their ship sank on many occasions.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboa ... eakill.htm

So yes, it's a war crime to kill surrendered soldiers even if capturing them is impossible.

From the Geneva Convention;

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

Seems quite clear to me.

[Korto]

The bit where I accept your authority on the intricacies of the Geneva convention on surrendering infantry on the battlefield.

Shall I consider that a concession that for a lone helicopter a decision to not shoot them is, de facto, a decision to let them go?

Although yes, KS, that does seem clear. I wouldn't mind hearing how it's used in practise, for instance, are they considered surrendered if you can't detain them?
The sailors at sea could be well considered hors de combat, not surrendered.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The bit where I accept your authority on the intricacies of the Geneva convention on surrendering infantry on the battlefield.

Shall I consider that a concession that for a lone helicopter a decision to not shoot them is, de facto, a decision to let them go?

Although yes, KS, that does seem clear. I wouldn't mind hearing how it's used in practise, for instance, are they considered surrendered if you can't detain them?
The sailors at sea could be well considered hors de combat, not surrendered.

Yeah, I'm curious about that as well. If a helicopter isn't able to remain in the area until ground troops secure the prisoners I think it is quite likely that they would pick up their weapons and leave the area once the helicopter was gone.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

To elaborate, this is what I read: http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/femi ... ey-manning

There's that, which is why I'm not suggesting people go with "Brianna" or feminine pronouns. But there's also an earlier quote that Manning fears being seen by the world as a man more than death. Maybe that's water under the bridge now that Manning's name is already world knowledge, but I feel it introduces enough ambiguity that putting similar ambiguity in language discussing them is probably the best choice.

[wautd]

Worst figure of the Abu Ghraib scandal, who tortured people to death: 10 years, six served.
Leaking information on US abuses: 35 years in prison, with at least 12 having to be served.

Glad the US got its priorities straight.

I hope the next Nobel Peace Price goes to Manning. Would be a nice Fuck You to the current American regime.

[slebetman]

Shall I consider that a concession that for a lone helicopter a decision to not shoot them is, de facto, a decision to let them go?

Although yes, KS, that does seem clear. I wouldn't mind hearing how it's used in practise, for instance, are they considered surrendered if you can't detain them?

Technically yes, the only legal thing to do was for the helicopter to let them go. Killing them is a criminal act regardless of weather the combatants pose a threat to the helicopter pilots in the future.

In practice so far, the rules of war as established by the Geneva convention are only really used by one side to point out that the other side is morally wrong. And as an excuse to execute enemy officers. So, unless AQ somehow wins the War on Terror and set up a war crimes tribunal it's historically unlikely that war crime charges would be brought against US soldiers.

But the US is a bit funny in this regard. Like the British before them there is a desire to at least appear that they have the moral high ground in the "war" so there are instances where violations of the Geneva convention, as codified by the UCMJ, are actually investigated and the perpetrators punished.

Still, I believe the helicopter incident remains one example of the US refusing to apply the same rules to itself that it applies to enemy soldiers.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The bit where I accept your authority on the intricacies of the Geneva convention on surrendering infantry on the battlefield.

Shall I consider that a concession that for a lone helicopter a decision to not shoot them is, de facto, a decision to let them go?

Although yes, KS, that does seem clear. I wouldn't mind hearing how it's used in practise, for instance, are they considered surrendered if you can't detain them?
The sailors at sea could be well considered hors de combat, not surrendered.

Yeah, I'm curious about that as well. If a helicopter isn't able to remain in the area until ground troops secure the prisoners I think it is quite likely that they would pick up their weapons and leave the area once the helicopter was gone.

It does not really matter. The crux of the matter is, once a person finds themselves in the gunsights of those choppers, they are dead. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to show that they are not a combatant, and even if they are, if they lay down their arms or are in some other way unable to take part in hostilities--such as people fleeing on lifeboats, the mere fact that they will be able to engage in combat later does not alter the fact that at that point, they are not engaged in hostilities and thus cannot be killed under the auspices of Geneva.

Of course, the US has been ignoring the Geneva Conventions pretty regularly for the last 50 years (and the Convention Against Torture since the day it was ratified).

Something I was just thinking about, actually, with respect to that Apache crew killing journalists (and children). Why the fuck is "we mistook camera equipment for an RPG, during the day" even a fucking excuse? My point-and-shoot digital camera has optics sufficiently well put together to be able to make that distinction during the day at hundreds of meters. Given the obscene amount of money spent on those things, you would think they would have a decent lens assembly. What the fuck are they using? Digital zoom, or perpetually high ISO settings? I can see it happening at night, when resolving power drops to shit, but during the day? No. That this is even a defense that is semi-credible is just inexcusable.

[Metahive]

I think it is quite likely that they would pick up their weapons and leave the area once the helicopter was gone.

American troops would be expected to do the same, but you know as well as I that insurgents massacring captured Americans out of convenience would be touted as a major crime in all American media.

Yep, japanese subs famously machine gunned allied sailors in lifeboats after their ship sank on many occasions.

Their american counterparts did the same, most infamously Dudley Walker "Mush" Morton. You do kinda' lose your justification to be outraged if you adopt their tactics.

[Ralin]

I'm not suggesting people go with "Brianna" or feminine pronouns. But there's also an earlier quote that Manning fears being seen by the world as a man more than death. Maybe that's water under the bridge now that Manning's name is already world knowledge, but I feel it introduces enough ambiguity that putting similar ambiguity in language discussing them is probably the best choice.

Not really. He's flat out said what he wants to be called. If that changes I'll change what I call him, but I don't see any ambiguity there.

Besides which, I know a fair number of trans people, and I'm pretty sure half-assing it and referring to them by the third-person singular would piss them off about as much as using "he." So I don't see how that's an improvement.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course, the US has been ignoring the Geneva Conventions pretty regularly for the last 50 years (and the Convention Against Torture since the day it was ratified).

The US has a habit of ignoring conventions it signs - just one year after it signed the Hague convention in 1899, troops slaughtered women and children wholesale in the Philippines, as an example.

[Ralin]

Well, I guess that was bad timing on my part.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It does not really matter. The crux of the matter is, once a person finds themselves in the gunsights of those choppers, they are dead. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to show that they are not a combatant, and even if they are, if they lay down their arms or are in some other way unable to take part in hostilities--such as people fleeing on lifeboats, the mere fact that they will be able to engage in combat later does not alter the fact that at that point, they are not engaged in hostilities and thus cannot be killed under the auspices of Geneva.

Well, I think there is a distinct difference between people on a lifeboat in the sea and ground forces with weapons nearby. Those in the lifeboat need to be rescued by friendly forces or make it to land where they can regroup with friendly forces. Ground forces can immediately pick up their weapons and resume whatever operation they were engaged in.

Of course, the US has been ignoring the Geneva Conventions pretty regularly for the last 50 years (and the Convention Against Torture since the day it was ratified).

Something I was just thinking about, actually, with respect to that Apache crew killing journalists (and children). Why the fuck is "we mistook camera equipment for an RPG, during the day" even a fucking excuse? My point-and-shoot digital camera has optics sufficiently well put together to be able to make that distinction during the day at hundreds of meters. Given the obscene amount of money spent on those things, you would think they would have a decent lens assembly. What the fuck are they using? Digital zoom, or perpetually high ISO settings? I can see it happening at night, when resolving power drops to shit, but during the day? No. That this is even a defense that is semi-credible is just inexcusable.

How do you know this? Have you taken your camera into a combat zone and tried to distinguish the quality of your optics?

That Apache crew that killed the journalists the engagement range was roughly 800 meters. Here are some pictures. I can't tell what those objects are but carrying such things in a combat zone without some type of color coded marking seems unwise to me. Source

Another way of looking at it is to consider that hunters wear orange vests. A person and a deer look nothing alike yet that is just common sense safety because sometimes a person is mistaken for a deer and shot. In a war zone a long black object could be mistaken for a weapon.

[Grumman]

Well, I guess that was bad timing on my part.

I'd call it bad timing on his part. It's a distraction from more serious matters that might actually let him live life as a woman. Snowden had the right idea, trying to get out of the way so people would focus on the message and not the messenger.

[K. A. Pital]

I think after Manning was subjected to degrading and cruel punishments Snowden was simply acting as any normal person would.

[Thanas]

But the US is a bit funny in this regard. Like the British before them there is a desire to at least appear that they have the moral high ground in the "war" so there are instances where violations of the Geneva convention, as codified by the UCMJ, are actually investigated and the perpetrators punished.

I hate to defend the British Empire, but at least many of the influential people driving their policies were brutally honest about their points of views. Heck, Fisher once famously scuttled a conference which tried to formulate rules of war on the high seas by stating that a) He considered such rules nonsense and b) If such rules were enacted he would disobey them regardless of the consequences as long as the actions gave the British even the smallest of advantages and c) that he would consider it the duty of every British officer to do so.

(In the irony of history he was supported in this by the Kaiser, whose nation then suffered the most from British naval tactics in WWI).

[Zaune]

Do unto the other side's prisoners as you would have them do unto yours, that's all I can say.

[Serafina]

Well, I guess that was bad timing on my part.

I'd call it bad timing on his part. It's a distraction from more serious matters that might actually let him live life as a woman. Snowden had the right idea, trying to get out of the way so people would focus on the message and not the messenger.

First, given that this is a clear statement of her gender identity - use proper pronouns!

Second, i fail to see how there's anything to be done now. She's been sentenced already, and as far as i am aware theres no chance for appeal.
In fact, "focusing on the message" and "trying to get free" are probably part of the reason Chelsea decided not to out herself publicly so far. What is she supposed to do, never out herself at all unless she gets free because the USA miraculously find some moral backbone?

[Ace Pace]

Worst figure of the Abu Ghraib scandal, who tortured people to death: 10 years, six served.
Leaking information on US abuses: 35 years in prison, with at least 12 having to be served.

Glad the US got its priorities straight.

I hope the next Nobel Peace Price goes to Manning. Would be a nice Fuck You to the current American regime.

How is Manning deserving of a Peace Prize? Exactly what did he do that encouraged peaceful relations between nations?

The fact the Prize has previously gone to jokes does not mean you need to continue proposing to do so.

[Serafina]

How is trying to prevent war crimes not deserving of the peace nobel prize?


Oh, and could we please change the thread title to "Private Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison" or somesuch, so that its at least gender neutral?