Private Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison

[Gandalf]

Could Manning's lawyer argue using the same justification that the US uses for when innocent people get killed by American (or allied) forces, by saying the innocent people affected are just collateral damage?

[Grumman]

While I believe the Iraq War was a gross error based on misleading intelligence and a disaster for the United States and for Iraq,

Iraq wasn't just cooperating with UN attempts to determine whether they possessed WMDs, they were being proactively helpful. There was no misleading intelligence except the deliberate lie that there was misleading intelligence.

[Thanas]

Could Manning's lawyer argue using the same justification that the US uses for when innocent people get killed by American (or allied) forces, by saying the innocent people affected are just collateral damage?

Of course not. Such clauses can only be enacted for the protection of valiant american warriors, not a commie-gay-traitor.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If you can shoot someone, you have power over them. Simple as that.

As long as they are in control of their weapons and persons they still retain power. While dropping the weapons at their feet and placing their hands in the air is relinquishing some of that power they still retain the power over their own actions. Once you leave they can recover those weapons and are in no different position then when you found them.

As for your example, they could easily have radioed infantry to come and get them and keep them under check by the occasional flyby. It is not as if people on foot can outrun a helicopter. Given the troop deployment in Iraq I very much doubt it would have been impossible for a few US troops to come and get them.

Well, in my scenario I said capture was not possible. I thought this would be obvious that ground troops aren't available to bring them in before the helicopter needs to refuel. If a helicopter has enough fuel to remain on scene until ground troops arrive to capture these soldiers then that's what should happen.

Malmedy massacre trial. Same principle. It wasn't impossible to take the guys into POW camps, it was merely impractical and exposed the SS to risk.

What kind of risk do unarmed men pose to the SS? In the scenario with the helicopter once it leaves those men can pick up their weapons immediately and get back into the fight. These POWs did not have their weapons. So, they could not immediately get back into the fight.

It would be one thing if the helicopter could destroy the weapons thrown to the ground by foot soldiers. However, that is not what this scenario entails.

[Thanas]

Well, in my scenario I said capture was not possible. I thought this would be obvious that ground troops aren't available to bring them in before the helicopter needs to refuel. If a helicopter has enough fuel to remain on scene until ground troops arrive to capture these soldiers then that's what should happen.

We agree here. Where do you get the idea that they had no fuel to remain from?

What kind of risk do unarmed men pose to the SS? In the scenario with the helicopter once it leaves those men can pick up their weapons immediately and get back into the fight. These POWs did not have their weapons. So, they could not immediately get back into the fight.

The guys getting shot clearly also posed no threat to the helicopter. In both cases the danger came from ancillary factors - allied air control and the need to rapidly advance vs the threat of them getting back to fight other forces in the future.

[Kamakazie Sith]

In order to exercise power over someone you must be able to control them.

Thanas already clarified this, but I can add something. These people did not lay down arms of their free will. They would not pick up and bear arms if their will and intent were not to fight an opposing force. When they are at barrel point and they lay down the weapons, they have submitted to another power, they are forced to do it.

No, they laid them down because they were faced with an enemy that they could not fight against. Not because they weren't capable of continuing to fight. Maybe in order to be logically consistent we should outlaw the use of deadly force against soldiers when they lack the ability to engage their attacker.

This conversation made me think about this next question. How do you justify the use of deadly force against military manufacturing? It is likely going to be staffed by civilians that have no weapons. So, how can we justify dropping bombs on this factory? They're just manufacturing property and don't pose a direct threat to any forces while the ground troops in this hypothetical with weapons at their feet do pose a threat unless they can be killed or captured.

At this very moment they are powerless (if they were fighting to the death, it is in their power to at least try to kill you). They are completely at the mercy of the other side.

And at this very moment specifically you say they should be shot to death since there's no way to stop them from resuming hostilities later.

Are you fully understanding this?

No later. Immediately upon the helicopter leaving. Their weapons are at their feet. Not destroyed. They do not have to return to base.

I understand what you are saying perfectly but I don't agree with you at this moment.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The guys getting shot clearly also posed no threat to the helicopter. In both cases the danger came from ancillary factors - allied air control and the need to rapidly advance vs the threat of them getting back to fight other forces in the future.

No, but they pose a threat to ground forces in the area until the chopper engaged them initially. After that initial engagement they no longer posed a threat to the ground forces and hostilities should have ceased. I also think firing on the van was absolutely wrong because it had not been identified as hostile. Just because someone stopped to help a wounded man does not make them hostile even if they are picking up weapons.

[Thanas]

No, they laid them down because they were faced with an enemy that they could not fight against. Not because they weren't capable of continuing to fight. Maybe in order to be logically consistent we should outlaw the use of deadly force against soldiers when they lack the ability to engage their attacker.

No, because then war itself would be illegal. What we should do is go for the intent of the guys in question. At the time they were shot, they clearly intended to surrender. That the coalition was unable to secure their surrender is not something that should be weighed against the surrendering parties and to my knowledge it never has in any war ever. (See: machinegunning sailors in lifeboats by submarines).

No later. Immediately upon the helicopter leaving. Their weapons are at their feet. Not destroyed. They do not have to return to base.

I understand what you are saying perfectly but I don't agree with you at this moment.

Again, that does not give them the right to just shoot them. It is the failure of the coalition which is to blame here.

No, but they pose a threat to ground forces in the area until the chopper engaged them initially. After that initial engagement they no longer posed a threat to the ground forces and hostilities should have ceased. I also think firing on the van was absolutely wrong because it had not been identified as hostile. Just because someone stopped to help a wounded man does not make them hostile even if they are picking up weapons.

Agreed on all points.

[LaCroix]

Can you provide some examples of the US condemning others for doing exactly that?

While Thanas has beat me to the best example, I want to add another example, from the Japanese front...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laha_massa ... a_massacre

Basically the whole post-Nuremberg Trial series and the Japanese War tribunals against non-leading figures had been about mistreatment of civilians and/or POWs. 54 cases of "ordered, authorised, and permitted inhumane treatment of prisoners of war and others" in the Tokyo War Trial alone...

Which is exactly what the US currently does.

[Korto]

That the coalition was unable to secure their surrender is not something that should be weighed against the surrendering parties and to my knowledge it never has in any war ever. (See: machinegunning sailors in lifeboats by submarines).

I'll ask people to stop using that as a comparison. We shouldn't have allowed it to go on as long as it has, because the two circumstances are not the same.
1) The infantry have attempted surrender; the sailors have not necessarily. (Although I'm sure they will as soon as they get the opportunity)
But most importantly:
2) The sailors are totally ineffective at continuing fighting as they have lost a rather vital piece of kit. There is nothing they can do against enemy vessels and in fact they actively require aid. If the submarine was to leave, the sailors would be no threat to anyone. In comparison, the infantry's kit is still all within their ready reach, and as soon as the helicopter leaves they can resume at full combat effectiveness.
The sailors condition of hors de combat is more comparable to if they had been seriously wounded. They are out of the fight, and will not be able to return to it for some time.

So, considering this, I would request as a matter of honesty that another comparison is found.

As an ironic note, I think I remember that helicopter deliberately firing upon wounded. We certainly have plenty to charge them with.

[Dominus Atheos]

What the fuck difference do those make? What's going to happen to the sailors is they are going to be rescued by their comrades, assigned to another ship, and keep fighting. Just because it's a matter of weeks instead of hours doesn't change the fact the the sailors are just as likely to keep fighting than the infantry.

[Gaidin]

His point is that he's asking you which ship that is nowhere near them are the sailors going to immediately man and continue fighting in the same fashion that the infantry can immediately pick up their arms and continue fighting. That's why he's calling it a false analogy.

[Korto]

What the fuck difference do those make? What's going to happen to the sailors is they are going to be rescued by their comrades, assigned to another ship, and keep fighting. Or an enemy ship and a POW camp. Or a neutral ship and a neutral port (and whatever happens then). Or not at all and they die at sea. Just because it's a matter of weeks or months instead of hours minutes doesn't change the fact the the sailors are just as likely to keep fighting than the infantry.

Fixed it for you.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, Korto, I don't think it's unrealistic for an occupying army to say "use of gunship patrols in urban areas is too expensive, bloody, and deeply counterproductive to our mission of bringing an end to the insurgency."

I do think a reversion to swords and spears is unrealistic.

I think - and this may shock some - that gunships are just fine. What needs to be done is better training and better coordination aka "don't light everything up".

The problem is that there's not much point in having gunships patrol, unless the rules of engagement allow them to attack the targets they're likely to see while on patrol. In a conventional war, the helicopters will see plenty of obvious military targets that they are free to attack. In guerilla war, you will often have no way of telling from the air whether you're looking at enemy fighters or civilians.

So if you are making any serious attempt to protect civilians in the urban-guerilla warzone, I doubt it's even possible for a helicopter patrol to operate effectively. They would very rarely actually get an opportunity to engage the enemy, unless the enemy was actively shooting at them, in which case the gunship patrols become largely irrelevant as soon as the enemy figures out "don't shoot at the helicopter gunship flying overhead, and it won't attack you."

I believe I expressed more or less the same opinion back when the gunship attack we're now talking about first came to light.

[Metahive]

Considering I don't advocate invading regimes simply because we dislike it[...]

Stop right there, what else does "Regime X that doesn't have an arbitrary moral right to exist may be invaded at will" amount to? How about you actually define what constitutes a "moral right to exist" and who gets to decide who has the "moral right to topple regimes that lack a moral right to exist", Kipling?

[General Mung Beans]

Considering I don't advocate invading regimes simply because we dislike it[...]

Stop right there, what else does "Regime X that doesn't have an arbitrary moral right to exist may be invaded at will" amount to? How about you actually define what constitutes a "moral right to exist" and who gets to decide who has the "moral right to topple regimes that lack a moral right to exist", Kipling?

Just because an overthrow of a regime is morally justifiable doesn't mean that the overthrow is morally obligatory especially in a case such as Iraq where there be disastrous consequences from an invasion.

And by moral right to exist, I mean the of the regime not to be overthrown. I don't have an exact criteria but I believe in general that the commission of genocide, or other forms of mass murder by the government (such as Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds) results in the loss of the regime's moral right to continue its existence.

[TimothyC]

Even if we ignore the gender issues with Manning (which have only served to complicate the situation), Manning, not the people who 'leaked the key' was the one who shotgunned it onto the internet, allowing everyone to read the shared US diplomatic cables. Diplomatic correspondence has been seen as sacrosanct for no less than centuries, and sharing it with the world was a treasonous act, and one that violated the oath taken when one enlists in the US armed forces. No mater what you think of the reasoning for the release (and if you don't think that the encryption would have been eventually broken you're naive), you need to accept that under any legal system - especially a military one - there has to be a punishment for breaking such an important oath.

I would also like to re-iterate my statement that I do think that the NCOs and officers that did not respond to the issues that Manning had should likely be cashiered out of service, as should the moron who gave the Top Secret clearance in the first place.

The sad part about this is that there does need to be a discussion about the status of trans-gendered individuals in service. The majority of society is built around binary gender, and any attempts to change that on anything other than a glacial time scale are more likely to cause a backlash than move the situation forward.

Manning's attempt to use gender identity issues as a defense against criminal charges is a disservice to that discussion. By using that as an excuse or mitigating factor, Manning implied that someone who don't know what gender they are was incapable of making correct judgements. This does further disservice to the individuals out there who don't shotgun classified material all over the Internet, despite being transgender, having top secret clearance, and/or not liking their jobs.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

If the issue is that it's getting so complicated, why bother with all that bullshit about legal names and whatnot and just go with the right thing and since she's said she's a woman named Chelsea you call her Chelsea and she?

I do appreciate you avoiding misgendering Manning outright in this post but are you ever going to apologise for your previous stuff?

[Metahive]

Just because an overthrow of a regime is morally justifiable doesn't mean that the overthrow is morally obligatory especially in a case such as Iraq where there be disastrous consequences from an invasion.

We are not talking about moral obligations, you weasel, but about moral rights. You say it's morally OK to invade nations that don't meet your arbitrary and poorly defined standard, obligation doesn't enter it. Also, stop talking about practicability, that's got nothing to do with morality and is just a Red Herring. If the US had their invasion well-planned and their occupation didn't result in chaos, would you have supported it? Even though it was based on lies and false accusations?

And by moral right to exist, I mean the of the regime not to be overthrown. I don't have an exact criteria but I believe in general that the commission of genocide, or other forms of mass murder by the government (such as Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds) results in the loss of the regime's moral right to continue its existence.

That would cause both the US and the UK to lose their "moral right to exist" since they both committed murderous atrocities at one point or another and still profit from them. Heck, most larger nations have black spots somewhere in their history. Also, since Germany is defining itself as a successor to the Third Reich, does it mean it doesn't have the "moral right to exist" either or did they succeed in their saving throw and regain it at some point in time? Japan isn't acknowledging most of its WW2 atrocities, does that mean they have no "moral right to exist"?

How about you put some thought into your moral maximes?

EDIT:
@TimothyC

I say that a regime that's engaged in criminal activities doesn't have a right to loyal servants. I'd even further say there's a duty to rebel against such a regime. Or do you belong to the sort of people who condemn Stauffenberg because he broke his oath of loyalty? Or in fact any general who disobeyed murderous orders like Rommel? Why do you ignore the "new" paradigm that was supposed to come out as a result of Nuremberg?

[General Mung Beans]

Just because an overthrow of a regime is morally justifiable doesn't mean that the overthrow is morally obligatory especially in a case such as Iraq where there be disastrous consequences from an invasion.

We are not talking about moral obligations, you weasel, but about moral rights. You say it's morally OK to invade nations that don't meet your arbitrary and poorly defined standard, obligation doesn't enter it. Also, stop talking about practicability, that's got nothing to do with morality and is just a Red Herring.

If the US had their invasion well-planned and their occupation didn't result in chaos, would you have supported it? Even though it was based on lies and false accusations?

No because I don't believe it was in America's national interest to do so and I wouldn't have had hindsight that the invasion would turn out well. Although if that had happened, I certainly would be pleased by the results.

And by moral right to exist, I mean the of the regime not to be overthrown. I don't have an exact criteria but I believe in general that the commission of genocide, or other forms of mass murder by the government (such as Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds) results in the loss of the regime's moral right to continue its existence.

That would cause both the US and the UK to lose their "moral right to exist" since they both committed murderous atrocities at one point or another and still profit from them. Heck, most larger nations have black spots somewhere in their history. Also, since Germany is defining itself as a successor to the Third Reich, does it mean it doesn't have the "moral right to exist" either or did they succeed in their saving throw and regain it at some point in time? Japan isn't acknowledging most of its WW2 atrocities, does that mean they have no "moral right to exist"?[/quote]

Which is why I always used the term "regime" rather than "country" or "nation". Obviously neither Germany nor Japan has the same regime it did in World War II.

In the United States and United Kingdom has abandoned the policies that were immoral in the past (ie slavery, government-enforced racism and segregation, mass murders, ethnic cleansing etc.) with most of the perpetrators dead or at least retired with the governments of those respective countries attempting to make amends in some cases.

Similarly if Iraq hadn't been invaded, Saddam had died, and his successor had liberalized the government it wouldn't be regime without the moral right to exist anymore.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just because an overthrow of a regime is morally justifiable doesn't mean that the overthrow is morally obligatory especially in a case such as Iraq where there be disastrous consequences from an invasion.

We are not talking about moral obligations, you weasel, but about moral rights. You say it's morally OK to invade nations that don't meet your arbitrary and poorly defined standard, obligation doesn't enter it. Also, stop talking about practicability, that's got nothing to do with morality and is just a Red Herring. If the US had their invasion well-planned and their occupation didn't result in chaos, would you have supported it? Even though it was based on lies and false accusations?

And by moral right to exist, I mean the of the regime not to be overthrown. I don't have an exact criteria but I believe in general that the commission of genocide, or other forms of mass murder by the government (such as Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds) results in the loss of the regime's moral right to continue its existence.

That would cause both the US and the UK to lose their "moral right to exist" since they both committed murderous atrocities at one point or another and still profit from them. Heck, most larger nations have black spots somewhere in their history. Also, since Germany is defining itself as a successor to the Third Reich, does it mean it doesn't have the "moral right to exist" either or did they succeed in their saving throw and regain it at some point in time? Japan isn't acknowledging most of its WW2 atrocities, does that mean they have no "moral right to exist"?

How about you put some thought into your moral maximes?

EDIT:
@TimothyC

I say that a regime that's engaged in criminal activities doesn't have a right to loyal servants. I'd even further say there's a duty to rebel against such a regime. Or do you belong to the sort of people who condemn Stauffenberg because he broke his oath of loyalty? Or in fact any general who disobeyed murderous orders like Rommel? Why do you ignore the "new" paradigm that was supposed to come out as a result of Nuremberg?

What do you mean by rebel? Are you advocating violence against the government of the United States?

Comparing the situation to Stauffenberg's revolt against Hitler gives the impression that you are.

And if you think America is like Nazi Germany, you are a moron.

[K. A. Pital]

And by moral right to exist, I mean the of the regime not to be overthrown. I don't have an exact criteria but I believe in general that the commission of genocide, or other forms of mass murder by the government (such as Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds) results in the loss of the regime's moral right to continue its existence.

You understand of course that if a past genocide means no right to exist, American government should be exterminated and hanged like Hussein. It is a continous government from the same one that slaughtered the Natives like animals.

So unless you are willing to go down that road with me, you better think about a better criterion.

And if you think America is like Nazi Germany, you are a moron.

Please stop for a moment and think about this. A war of agression is a crime. It does not matter if your country is in all aspects equivalent to the Reich. Absolutely not. Actually, Italy was quite different from the Reich. But it's agressive war in Africa was nonetheless a crime, much like other wars of agression.

In the United States and United Kingdom has abandoned the policies that were immoral in the past

That is irrelevant. In 2003 Hussein's government was not killing Kurds. However, you say it lost the right to exist because it killed them in the past. Same logic.

[General Mung Beans]

And by moral right to exist, I mean the of the regime not to be overthrown. I don't have an exact criteria but I believe in general that the commission of genocide, or other forms of mass murder by the government (such as Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds) results in the loss of the regime's moral right to continue its existence.

You understand of course that if a past genocide means no right to exist, American government should be exterminated and hanged like Hussein. It is a continous government from the same one that slaughtered the Natives like animals.

So unless you are willing to go down that road with me, you better think about a better criterion.

In the United States and United Kingdom has abandoned the policies that were immoral in the past

That is irrelevant. In 2003 Hussein's government was not killing Kurds. However, you say it lost the right to exist because it killed them in the past. Same logic.

This isn't comparable, since as I indicated above, 1) any US government official involved in Indian massacres are long dead (unlike Saddam Hussein who was alive in 2003) and 2) not only are the policies of mass murder no longer in effect, they also have no chance of being brought back (whereas the Iraqi government still engaged in repressive policies and would have engaged in campaigns against Kurds were it not hemmed in by foreign air power).

"Regime" implies that there's the same ideological orientation even if not the same people in government and its absurd to think that is the case between the United States of 1890 and that of 2013.

[K. A. Pital]

This isn't comparable, since as I indicated above, 1) any US government official involved in Indian massacres are long dead (unlike Saddam Hussein who was alive in 2003)

Irrelevant. The government is continous.

2) not only are the policies of mass murder no longer in effect, they also have no chance of being brought back (whereas the Iraqi government still engaged in repressive policies and would have engaged in campaigns against Kurds were it not hemmed in by foreign air power).

I already asked on last page but you did not care to answer, how was Saddam's Iraq different from America's long-time allies like Saudi Arabia or the Egyptian Sadat-Mubarak regime?

"Regime" implies that there's the same ideological orientation even if not the same people in government and its absurd to think that is the case between the United States of 1890 and that of 2013.

Actually, US in 1899 and 2003 are very much similar in some regards. The US invaded the Philippines and commited acts of genocide, breaches of the laws of war and the recently signed Hague convention, killing of children, women and complete eradication of villages. US in 2003 invaded Iraq in a war of agression - itself a crime - and proceeded with war crimes, among which were massacres, torture and murder of prisoners.

Of course I'm just making these parallels for the sake of the argument. But it is also true that changing ideological orientation after a genocide has been completed does not, in any way, remedy the fact that the victims are dead.

Moreover, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not actively pursuing ethnic cleansing in 2003. So I am asking you again - why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia? Egypt?

[Metahive]

@Romulan Republic

It still amazes me that so many people don't get analogies. No, the two situations don't have to be completely similar, they just have to convey the same principle or point and the point here is that "I swore an oath" and "I have my orders" are not sufficient reason to excuse or justify blind loyalty. Also, are you saying that a regime has to be as bad as the Nazis before rebellion is permitted?
BTW, with rebellion I don't mean just huge popular uprisings, coup d'etats and civil war, I mean also things as small as disobeying orders and leaking information. You know, as Manning did.

@General_Mung_Beans

Look at the map of the US. Most of it used to belong to other people and those people are now rotting in squalid, poverty-ridden ghettos in the middle of nowhere. The US is clearly benefiting from the atrocities it committed in the past. It doesn't matter at all if the perpetrators are long dead or if their policies aren't in place anymore (which is wrong anyway re: rotting in squalid, poverty-ridden ghettos in the middle of nowhere), it's still affecting people negatively to this day.
If the US were so concerned about the atrocities of Saddam, why did they keep mum when those were happening in the 80's? The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. Only deciding to avenge the victims 10-20 years later down the line just smells of rank hypocrisy and double standard.

Your criteria are just self-serving, imperialist horseshit. How's that burden, Mr White Man?