Pentagon Seeking Out Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange 628
a user writes "The Pentagon is desperately seeking the 'cooperation' of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, in order to stop him from releasing over 250,000 pages of confidential foreign policy documents. The documents were allegedly provided to Assange by Bradley Manning, the same solider who leaked a video showing a US Army helicopter killing unarmed civilians and international press correspondents."
Re:As they should be. (Score:1, Insightful)
I might be defending the leaker, but in this case he leaked the videos under a false guise. The videos didn't show "murder". If they had, I would still be undecided. However, he found some videos which might prove his point, but in reality the guys they shot at had a rocket launcher. There will always be collateral damage in war, and that is all he showed us. He has indeed committed treason to the tenth degree.
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't get to make that determination yourself
Why the hell not? What, can only "experts" determine that? Funny how the experts are always government paid.
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
Leaking a video and foreign policy documents does not constitute "treason."
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you trying to claim that the people he gave the information to, who NEVER ASKED HIM FOR IT, should also be screwed?
No, if you'll read my post, I didn't claim that, but...
If so, what if he happened to have emailed the info to you? ...
Oh, I don't knpw...let me think: I probably wouldn't post it to the internet and protect the identity of the person who emailed it to me at all costs.
Re:As they should be. (Score:1, Insightful)
in response to your sig: It's entirely possible that we live in a democracy. We just won't live in a republic. Democracies are a tyranny of the mob which is why the founders deliberately did not create one.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your own personal view on whether something should or shouldn't be classified is irrelevant. There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.
I don't know where you live, but I still live in a democracy. So while my opinion on what should/shouldn't be classified might not be the definitive one, an important one, or even a good one.. it's always a relevant one. You presumably live in a dictatorship, so I can see how you might have a different opinion on it. Of course, your opinion on everything is irrelevant, since you live in a dictatorship.
Re:As they should be. NO RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hope this is a troll. If so, kudos - it is very well done.
If not, I weep that there are actually people who think this way. It is instructive to understand this kind of mindset. If the democratic will says it's ok, then it must be ok. Countless atrocities committed in the name of the majority have occurred on the basis of this mode of thinking. The Holocaust comes to mind.
I think I'm going to be sick.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As they should be. (Score:1, Insightful)
Because we the people delegated those decisions to the government "experts". Ain't that a bitch?
Re:This started over 12 hours ago (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there a reason political stories are never posted by Soulskill on Slashdot? I'm looking over what he has posted and I can't find any.
I love the guy all the more. Fire all other editors, I say.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
Really, did _you_ vote on it, will your vote be reaffirmed every generation or so to ensure its still what the people want ?
Perhaps you should have said, a previous generation let the powers that be keep secrets from everyone, and now we cant get them to give up their power.
Re:As they should be. (Score:2, Insightful)
A free and democratic society does not keep secrets. You mean something less than free and something less than democratic.
Also, the website in question is not a party to the agreements that make information "classified". They are, of course, not obliged to respect those agreements.
If we have a free press, then the information about government wrongdoing can, of course, be published without fear of reprisal. Why would you suggest anything less?
Why do you always reveal a pro-business, information can be criminalized bias in all your postings? What government projects do you work on?
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you just provide us your GPS co-ordinates? Thanks!
Better not do that. They are uncomfortably close to mine.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding right? Explosions are flashy, they get a lot of attention and everybody sees it. The last thing that a group interested in keeping their activities under wraps would want is for everybody to start looking at them because a critic just turned into a fireball.
Poisonings, "muggings gone wrong", character assassinations, etc. are all much more subtle ways to go about silencing a nuisance. They want a resolution where they can, reasonably, act just as surprised as everyone else. I'd be much more suspicious if he died of a sudden heart attack, or was murdered by an apparent Islamic terrorist than if he went out in a blaze of improbability.
Re:Love the guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Another 5000 name death list as used in 1965 Indonesia?
The names crossed off as killed or captured?
Direct color revolution support, not washed by pro democracy foundations?
Black sights in countries where people where promised never again?
Enough for this generations Daniel Ellsberg?
or a huge list of faith based contractors doing very bad things on endless sole source contracts?
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
Yes. And Hitler was elected in democratic elections as well. (I know, I know, Godwin's Law) Just because we voted on it doesn't mean it's always the best case. We generally aren't informed on what exactly we're voting on. In this specific example, we're voting on who gets to keep things secret. Which means by definition we _can't_ know what exactly we're deciding. This is exactly _why_ we need people to leak things.
There's the famous saying about preferring that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished for a crime he did not commit. I consider this to be quite similar. I'd rather have a thousand national secrets leaked than have that one thing covered up. Just because it's not the next Holocaust doesn't mean it isn't something that needs to be released. Not enough people leaked what was happening in Nazi Germany until it was too late, likely because they were afraid of the consequences. The more tools to lessen the consequences, the better.
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
You've played this little switch to make it look like WikiLeaks is the custodian, the watchman...but your own logic proves otherwise. You even say that this is Pentagon information, that some secrets should be kept secret and that by just living in the US, we've agreed to that contract.
Wrong, sir. Simply wrong. I'm going to bypass most of what you said because it's simple double-speak. You frame this in a way that is cowardly. Unarmed civilians, collateral murder...both within quotes as if to say that killing unarmed people is okay, that it is a justification. I'm not going to wade into the situation of the battle, but I posit to you that we can and should do better.
The government makes mistakes and we have seen too many times that it tries to cover them up rather than owning up to them. As a country we should strive for that higher ideal. Then perhaps the need for secrets, especially of a botched military operation where civilians died, doesn't need to become a state secret.
Give him a Nobel Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama himself has threatened to arrest the wikileaker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM59bbp0Wsw [youtube.com]
I watched your video: Obama does NOT threaten to arrest the wikileaker in the video. If that isn't what you meant to imply you should make it more clear.
Just to be clear, I am an Obama supporter, but I also disagree with some of the things that he does. But let's have a debate that is focused on the facts and reasoned opinion, not innuendo.
Re:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
When are people going to realize that the differences between Republicans and Democrats exist only in rhetoric?
When are people such as yourself going to realize that assuming that if neither party doesn't agree with a certain view, that doesn't mean they're "both the same". Have you REALLY not being paying that much attention?
If the rather large differences between the two parties aren't what you care about, fine. But don't ignore the differences just because you don't care about them.
This guy Manning (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
Manning, 22 [...] As an intelligence specialist in the US army, Manning
I fail to see how a 22 year old guy can be an "Intelligence specialist".
(and get off my lawn BTW).
Re:This started over 12 hours ago (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As they should be. (Score:2, Insightful)
What the hell dream world do you live in?
"the Army had no reason whatever [mypetjawa.mu.nu] to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed""
Common people carry guns in Iraq. Not just pistols either, but assault rifles. I've read in many places that AK-47s are common. Simply carrying one does not make one an "insurgent" http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/12/earlier-this-we/
"the fact that he skipped out on a planned appearance at a panel today in Las Vegas, NV"
WTF would that prove?
"In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. "
Where did you pull this line, Glenn Beck? The democratic process depends on an educated society and a free media so that citizens can make educated decisions. Despotic societies depend on secrets and uneducated citizens. Not to mention the people in charge of the video were not elected.
"if you do, this kind of decision is a moral/ethical one which must necessarily be tempered with consequences. I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it."
If everyone thought the way you do, we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote, and any killer with connections would walk free.
Re:As they should be. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:As they should be. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope for intelligent responses to this post that actually acknowledge the need for some information to be protected, and for processes to protect that information, of which the government is the steward. Or, for any reasonable alternative other than any and all information should always be able to be indiscriminately leaked without fear of reprisal.
Well, I agree that some information needs to be protected.
In my opinion, most of the governments in the world use their control over information to the great detriment of their citizenry. They do this on purpose, with malice and forethought. I presume that most people who are in charge of making this happen rationalize it with thinking that they're somehow serving the greater good. In point of fact, they aren't. I can't state that emphatically enough. They are not serving any greater good, no matter what kind of excuses they think they have.
Information about the activities of our government that should be secret should basically only be information that would pretty directly result in someone getting killed if it was public knowledge. Strategic plans, detailed specifications for key military equipment, identities of spies, that sort of thing. Also, in some cases, I would also accept that diplomatic negotiations should be kept secret for some relatively short period of time in order to avoid jeopardizing said negotiations.
Too often used is the excuse that information should be kept secret because it would give our enemies ammunition to discredit us. If that's the case, the information discredits us whether or not its secret. All you are doing by keeping it secret is fostering a false sense of self-righteousness in the populace, one that is ultimately incredibly dangerous and inimical to democracy.
So far Wikileaks discretion and judgement in these matters has been impeccable. Sure, you might think the video depicting the helicopter shooting up civilians is biased for any number of reasons. But those reasons should be up for public debate, not hidden behind a decision to make some piece of information secret. Nobody would be able to argue that the army couldn't have known the civilians were unarmed if the video weren't out there to argue about.
Re:They know not what they seek! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
I looked at the link you posted. It did not show Obama threatening to arrest the wikileaker. In fact, it shows Obama signing a law that is meant to protect journalists' rights. Perhaps you meant another link that actually showed what you said it would.
But in this case, the wikileaker would be Manning, the guy who swore an oath to abide by the Constitution and follow orders. The video of the killings was edited to remove scenes where the gunship did not shoot at confirmed hostile forces that was actively shooting at US forces due to the risk of harming women and children. This edit was meant to portray the gunship crew in a bad light, not to tell the truth. Now it comes out that he's leaking over 200,000 highly confidential diplomatic conversations, whose release would jeopardize diplomatic relations with our friends and foes alike. Releasing these documents without permission is a crime. That's different than a journalist being forced to name his sources, it's about punishing a man who broke the law.
Re:As they should be. (Score:3, Insightful)
Specifically, the new intelligence groups created by Bush/Chaney that were outside the regular chain of command should be investigated. If I remember correctly, these were in the Pentagon, and were staffed by neo-cons, and they reported primarily to Chaney.
All we know right now is that the name of an active serving CIA asset was revealed to the public, with the result of "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Clearly treason. We also know that Scooter Libby was convicted of obstructing the investigation. So a crime was committed and a successful cover-up occurred. We cannot let this treasonous act go unpunished.
Well, my right wing Slashdot readers, how does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot? Ready to see high ranking members of the Bush team spend the rest of their lives in jail, or be lined up against a wall and shot? Personally, I would volunteer to fire one of the guns, but I guess I just am the kind of person who holds a grudge.
UCMJ Article 106 (Score:5, Insightful)
Much more interesting to me is what will happen with the dummy that leaked the info. Article 106 of the UCMJ defines this offense as punishable by death. This soldier knew with absolute certainty that he was committing a grave offense. A court martial is not handled like your everyday court case, no amount of money is going to save his skin.
Treason is lying to the american public about WMDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Unarmed civilians? (Score:2, Insightful)
How did Wikileaks know that the people killed by the helicopters in the video were "unarmed civilians"? Did the other "unarmed civilians" who were carrying AK47's tell them?
Concerning the Reuters journalists, if an AP or UPI reporter had been in Dresden during the WW2 British air raid and had died in the firestorm, would someone have filed charges against the bomber pilots? Or Churchill?
War is war. When you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you die. It comes with the territory.
Intelligent Response (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed", and the fact that he skipped out on a planned appearance at a panel today in Las Vegas, NV...
Isn't it supposed to go the other way around? You shoot at people who you know are armed and actively dangerous. You often don't have perfect information in war and going on unfounded hunches and "innocent" assumptions can cost innocent lives.
In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so. When an individual, on his or her own, decides that some secret information should be leaked -- no matter the reason -- they subvert that process. It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities. Some might assert that information is overclassified, or classified such as to hide wrongdoing or illegal or questionably behavior. Fine, but: 1. You don't get to make that determination yourself. However...
Correct, the people who may have "classified it such as to hide [possible] wrongdoing or illegal or questionably [sic] behavior" make that determination. You are simply saying that is how it is, but is is not ought. Is that how it ought to be?
2. ...if you do, this kind of decision is a moral/ethical one which must necessarily be tempered with consequences. I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it.
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences (unless they stupidly out themselves, as Manning did). This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of legitimately protected or sensitive information -- indeed, the rule of law -- in a democratic society.
Your own personal view on whether something should or shouldn't be classified is irrelevant. There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.
Just about the only thing WikiLeaks believes should be protected from leaking is negative information about WikiLeaks itself.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I hope for intelligent responses to this post that actually acknowledge the need for some information to be protected, and for processes to protect that information, of which the government is the steward. Or, for any reasonable alternative other than any and all information should always be able to be indiscriminately leaked without fear of reprisal.
Clearly our nuclear launch codes should not be leaked. However, revealing truth about human rights abuses ultimately leads to our being a healthier nation. Imagine if the abuses at Abu Garib were classified and still continued to this day without the public knowing any better. Sure, revealing those abuses hurt our propaganda efforts in the Middle East somewhat, but I don't think an America that routinely abuses human rights is one worth living in or dying for.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [Latin for: "Who watches the watchers?" or "Who polices the police?"]. Whistleblowers do. Watchdog journalists do. We the people in order to perfect a union do.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They know not what they seek! (Score:2, Insightful)
What a Hero (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This started over 12 hours ago (Score:1, Insightful)
The information is old, stale, and discussed to death by the time it hits Slashdot.
If 12 hours is a long time for news to you, then you are spending far too much time in idle banter. Don't you do... anything? I work diligently on something, and 12 hours goes by before I can blink. In fact, that describes every day for me.
Do people like you actively read three to ten forums or something? How do you do that and still have a life? Why are you so caught up in discussing things as they happen? Are you retired?
Re:As they should be. (Score:1, Insightful)
Can we spend our time, money and energy on identifying our "enemies" that you speak of, and see how we can avoid having these "enemies" in the first place rather than having an elaborate system of creating "enemies" which has this nasty side effect of our government doing things behind our back? Please really, does this ever occur to anyone one here who says "our enemies"?
I am sincerely disgusted by the use of construct "our enemies" that doesn't address the root cause of why do we have these, or other "enemies" in the first place.
I know I am not going to make many "friends" with such blunt questions but that is me.
How about Bush, then? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about Bush, then? Outing an agent in cover for political reasons. Why isn't he being taken to task? Because that would embarrass the US. That's why they have all these confidential/classified documents: not because of safety of their people or their operations, but because they would be embarrassed if they got read.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As they should be. (Score:3, Insightful)
Every 4 and 6 years I elect representatives that ideally can adjust policy to suit the desires of current generations.
Re:Unarmed civilians? (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone know that peoples will die in war. That is not what is the matter here. These leaks are proofs of what really happening. The public need to be informed of what is been done, in their names, for there is no democracy without a informed public.
Re:Give him a Nobel Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't generally post on Slashdot... but couldn't resist. Post them. Now. Please. No doubt it'll hurt US relations with who-knows-who... but the truth is always the best way to create the best change. One day, this man should be nominated, and win, a Nobel Peace Prize.
And you sir should please promptly provide your name, SSN, birthday, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, place of residence, and any PINs or passwords you may use.
It could be that you will not reply with this information as requested, because your purported reverence for "truth" does not extend to disclosing information which would enable others to do you harm.
Well, welcome to the world of classified information, where if operatives get outed, they get a bullet in the back of the head. I'm not sure what's contained in the yet-to-be-released documents, and maybe indeed some or all of it is information that should be brought before the public eye. But I have a feeling (as will be evidenced by your lack of compliance with my request) that your gungho damn-the-consequences attitude to disclosure is based strictly on the supposition that you aren't going to be one of the direct sufferers if things turn out poorly.
I would like everything our government does to have oversight, but in many cases (witness protection, undercover investigation, battleplans, etc.) the correct mechanism for oversight is to create overseers (judges, internal investigators, et al.) who can answer to the public without compromising their safety and well-being by letting any hostile person have the same information. If that system fails then intentional leaks may be a justifiable recourse.
God help us if there was anything, that, say, put crazy little Kim Jong Il in a missile firing mood.
Re:As they should be. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way releasing classified information on foreign policy gives aid and comfort to a nation's enemies is if it exposes some egregious wrongdoing on the part of the nation having its information leaked, in which case moral obligation to expose unlawful practices comes into play
I don't think that this is the case (not that I'm implying the U.S. military isn't innocent or anything). I think this is a case of some pissed-off loser wanting to exact some sort of revenge against his superiors for the slights he feels he's been given.
In either case, treason, as defined by the U.S. Constitution, does not apply here.
Sorry Mr. Moron... (Score:1, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever [mypetjawa.mu.nu] to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed"
Geneva convention et al are quite clear in this regard. They are to be treated as unarmed civilians.
You appear to have attracted your desired 'intelligent responses' to your post, but they don't seem to back up your position.
Re:Give him a Nobel Prize (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As they should be. (Score:0, Insightful)
Subject of the article: Julian Assange
Citizenship: Not the USA
Loyalties: The World
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it astonishing how willingly people will swallow bullshit handwaving out of the desire to avoid conscious guilt.
Let's get the facts straight: The civilians didn't have a rocket launcher. It has been shown that the initial reports were clearly fabricated lies. It shows us a policy of prioritizing military propaganda over professional thoroughness. As such, we have no reason at all to believe their other claims and can only draw conclusion from the raw material we have.
Re:As they should be. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. The people haven't delegated anything for a long time. The state of "democracy" in the US is a joke. We're given a choice between sock puppet A and sock puppet B, and the same person has their hands in both of them. Then once we have chosen which sock puppet is more entertaining, the actual business of governing is then further removed from actual choice because laws are written not by our "representatives" but by special interest groups and unelected bureaucrats. When was the last time congress declared war? Yet somehow we've been in a perpetual state of war for many decades now. Apparently those "experts" that we delegated authority too have further delegated their responsibilities to god knows who.
Re:As they should be. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure which asshole mod modded this redundant. This is an excellent post. Particularly "the information discredits us whether or not its secret."
If the information is embarrassing to the US, then perhaps we should stop doing things that embarrass us.
Right to know when government acts in your name (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
And what if You were driving your daughters somewhere through your hometown and came upon what to you looked like an explosion with dying people crawling to safety?
To Americans it's the 'warzone' but to people that live there it is 'home'.
This is called "journalism" (Score:4, Insightful)
How to know you're doing real journalism: when the powers that be are this pissed off.
The shiny-assed poltroons of the New York Times and the Murdoch press can just fuck off. Really. Whining shits that people aren't giving them free money for rewritten press releases any more. Useless fucks.
Boycott the shitty, shitty press. Tell them why. Give money to Wikileaks [wikileaks.org].
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way releasing classified information on foreign policy gives aid and comfort to a nation's enemies is if it exposes some egregious wrongdoing on the part of the nation having its information leaked, in which case moral obligation to expose unlawful practices comes into play
Really? There are no other ways releasing documents could do that? It couldn't for example have details of spies within enemy groups, or details of surveillance techniques, or details about the resolution of spy satellites and their orbits. There are lots of very damaging things that could be here that have no moral problems associated with them at all.
Again wikileaks needs to be totally decentralized (Score:4, Insightful)
Fully and completely. I say it in every wikileaks article here or anywhere. I always draw responses of either "it already it" or "it's fine as it is" and that is bullshit. Wikileaks is one of the most important outlets the world has, to not do everything possible to keep it that way is sheer stupidity.
Re:Unarmed civilians? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Didn't you know that the war in Iraq was won in 2003? Or maybe you've forgotten Preseident Bush's speech declaring victory on a certain aircraft carrier about a certain mission whose goals were considered accomplished? [bbc.co.uk] He very clearly stated that is was the "end of major combat operations."
While I'm being facetious here, the point is that you claiming that "war is war" is directly contradictory to the official government stance, which is that the operations in Iraq are a police action. Does the killing of unarmed civilians sound like a valid police action to you? Does that sound like something that will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis? I'll admit that yes, even in police actions sometimes mistakes can be made but there should be an investigation and if warranted, a trial, not a cover-up.
Everyone knows camera's come with rocket launchers (Score:4, Insightful)
Afterall, why wouldn't you add a rocket launcher to a camera? You know you would if you could.
And the 8 million civilians killed in Vietnam alone were all legitimate targets because you liberate a country by doing a holocaust.
The US does not do introspection. They are right they must be because else they would be wrong and that does not fit with the American way of thinking.
Did YOU watch the video? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well did you? Or did you watch wikileaks carefully edited short version?
The US troops who were being shot at and who arrived on the scene moments after the Apache attack found AK's and RPG's and photographed them in situ.
And they shot the van because according to the rules of engagement giving aid to an insurgent made you a target. War isn't a video game, they didn't have a hit box pop up showing there were children in the van. It was a bad call but understandable in the context.
And yes comparing this to WWII is an insult because the allied powers in WWII did not give a shit about civilian casualties* and continued bombing cities knowing full well it had no significant impact on enemy morale. The Nazis were bad guys but the Soviets were worse and the Western allies handed all of Eastern Europe over to them.
* In fact they deliberately targeted the areas to which civilians were fleeing.
Re:As they should be. (Score:1, Insightful)
Your opinion on what should and shouldn't be classified has no direct relevance to the situation, if this isn't want you want you should exercise your democratic rights by participating in the same democratic process that established the current classification processes.
Talk to your representatives about your opinion, become informed about local candidates so that you vote for the one that best represents you.
Outside these channels your opinion does not count in a representational democracy.
Re:Give him a Nobel Prize (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give him a Nobel Prize (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, welcome to the world of classified information, where if operatives get outed, they get a bullet in the back of the head.
Maybe they should stop doing things that make them deserve getting shot in the head?
Re:Censorship in times of war (Score:4, Insightful)
It used to be common to engage in pretty wide-ranging censorship of the media for fixed, relatively short periods, while a war was being conducted, such as during World War I. But to do that requires that wars actually end within a few years. If we institute similar censorship for the "War on Terror", when will we conclude that the war ended and censorship can be lifted? My guess is never.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're welcome to use the insult. Just for info, a "push-button" in the Navy is any technician who got to sit around in a nice cozy classroom for a couple years, then sewed a Petty Officer's insignia on, just for graduating. Not a terrible insult, but somewhat derogatory when used by men who had to EARN their ratings the hard way. A "shitbird" in any branch is the worthless little turd who never manages to do anything right, and is consistently more trouble than he is worth. Shitbirds are more often discharged with a "convenience of the government" reason, than any other type of discharge.
Re:Did YOU watch the video? (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of bad decisions are "understandable" in the sense that the people who made them weren't simply crazy, but that doesn't justify them. All the gunners on the helicopter saw was somebody with a van trying to help someone else who's lying on the ground in a pool of blood. This is a thing that good people do, not just enemies, and a policy that doesn't take this possibility into account should be described as inhumane.
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have an Apache helicopter, everything looks like a rocket launcher.
Watching the full video myself, I'm left with the impression that the pilot and/or gunner failed to adequately assess the situation and jumped to conclusions as to the nature of the object being held. Getting into a "firing-style position" i.e. crouching behind a corner with a large rounded object pointed out at a helicopter is a good way to get that person antsy and trigger-happy.
I'm not condoning the event, I think that military should have a strict liability in civilian casualties. Namely, if a civilian dies as a result of your fire, then you're screwed, it doesn't matter what conditions surround the matter.
Re:Unarmed civilians? (Score:4, Insightful)
War is war. When you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you die. It comes with the territory.
The problem with that view of this "war" is that anywhere can be the wrong place, and any time can be the wrong time. So you are talking about a world where summary execution is always acceptable, so long as it is done by a US soldier.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your opinion on what should and shouldn't be classified has no direct relevance to the situation, if this isn't want you want you should exercise your democratic rights by participating in the same democratic process that established the current classification processes.
This discussion we're having right now is a big part of that process. Speech is obviously a necessity in a democracy. This idea you have that democracy is sitting in isolation, calling up your representative and having a little chat with him/her is utterly ridiculous. Democracy happens by people forming opinions, and voting for people who hold those opinions. Peoples opinions are influenced by discussion. Giving your opinions to elected officials is part of the process, but it most certainly isn't the only part. Does this really have to be spelled out for you?
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Insightful)
The camera that the reporter was carrying was mistaken for a rocket launcher. The reporter's fate was sealed when he aimed that thing in the direction of our troops on the ground.
There were no allied troops in the area. It took about 10 minutes for US Bradley vehicles to show up after they were ordered to the site. The helicopters were just blowing people up they thought looked suspicious, on open city streets. The pilot states that there are AK-47s and rocket launchers, but in the video (purported to be higher quality than what the gunner sees), I can make no such identification.
The fate of the occupants of the van later driving by, two adults and two children, was also sealed when they saw the Reuters cameraman's driver badly injured on the sidewalk (by a previous volley of American bullets from the sky). They stopped, got out to assist, carried him to their van, and then were repeatedly blasted by another hail of bullets from the Apache pilot.
They arrested a hero whistleblower, at least for revealing this video. The government lied, and denied Reuters FOIA requests for information regarding how their reporters were killed, to continue the coverup. The pentagon probably wants to contact Assange to get a statement or any evidence about receiving '260,000 pages' (perhaps a fantasy) so they can throw Bradley in prison for life for the embarrassment, while the Apache gunner gets his GI bill to live another life (and probably become a police officer).
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Insightful)
What video did you see?
The "group of armed man" was actually a group of around 12 guys, all in a pretty relaxed attitude, none of them was pointing their guns at anything. Only a few of them had guns. Some of them where reporters.
They fired mercilessly destroying the whole place. They stayed to check if anyone was moving, when they saw a few still alive, wounded, agonizingly crawling on the ground, the shoot them again.
Then a minivan appeared, carrying UNARMED CHILDREN AND ADULTS, to clean up the mess, help the wounded, bury the dead. They where all shot dead. They guys in the helicopter new there were kids. And they said (over the radio) "It's their own damn fault for carrying kids to a war zone".
Well, damn, that wasn't a war zone until the US military arrived. And guess what? They had no reason whatever to be there. They made up a war because they needed to sell weapons. Try defending that.
Also, you guys need a good derogatory slang for "military". In Spanish, we say "milicos de mierda". That's the only way anyone here refers to anyone even remotely linked to the murdering machine that is the military.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
META Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhhhh - I didn't see the same video you saw. I saw an Apache firing on a group of armed men, located in an area from which our ground troops took fire.
The thing that I find most interesting about this argument is that the predominant sides of the argument consist of the side that says, "These guys were irresponsible/criminal Rambo-types. They/we need to do better!" versus the side that says, "These were good soldiers doing the best they could in trying circumstances. Bad things happen in war."
Now, considering that the fighting in Iraq is an anti-insurgency campaign, and the U.S. military is supposed to be winning "hearts and minds," dead civilians, dead reporters, wounded/dead children foster hatred of the U.S. and undermine the mission. Therefore, the people defending those soldiers and saying that mistakes happen are essentially saying this:
"This war cannot be won."
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're commenting on the politician who sent the troops there, or the troops? There is a difference. I have no use at all for George Dubya Bush and his cronies. I thought the reasons given for invading Iraq were bullshit - and I hate the Bush administration for giving people like you ammunition to use against the military. But, if you're honest, you'll admit that the troops and the politicians are easily distinguishable. The politicians, to a man, are cowards hiding behind the guns held by the troops.
I respect the troops, for doing the dirty jobs they are sent out to do.
I have no respect for the politicians who can't figure out when and where the troops should be used.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you really believe what you just wrote? Did you even see the video? I'd like to see source stating there were weapons. As far as the heli pilots are concerned, they only saw the reporter's camera holster, you can clearly see that in the recording. The cameraman, at NO POINT, took his camera and aimed for something. He actually was talking on his mobile phone when they striked. Then black van comes, tries to save the wounded and gets shot too. But yea, there could have been weapons in there, too!
I just don't understand why they didn't burn down all adjacend houses. I mean, they could have the feared WMD in there!
Go ask the Iraqi people how they like it, beeing shot without any chance to clear misunderstandings. Not much different from our feared terrorists, if you ask me.
And Manning, he seems to care about people and their rights. You obviously don't. Stop talkin FUD.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:1, Insightful)
I just want to reiterate the point... If unarmed means carrying assault rifles then yes they were unarmed. Did you watch the video? Being post military I probably would have shot them too.
Re:META Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
And, your translation is probably on target. You don't win hearts and minds in an occupied territory. A nation that is only ~200 years old, is certainly not going to do much "nation building" in a region whose history goes back ~5000 years. We've shot ourselves in the foot on this one. No matter when, or how, we finally pull our last troops out of Iraq, within two decades (at the outside) Iraq will probably have a theocracy in place, AND be aligned with Iran. (Keep in mind that the US toppled a perfectly legitimate democratic government in Iran - Iraq will identify with them once they tire of our puppets!)
But, again, we are discussing two different things here, one being the politics of the war, and two being the actions of the troops. Based on what I can see in the video, I can probably justify some Extra Military Duty for some of the troops, to be used for an ass chewing for getting it wrong, and for training, and review of the rules of engagement. I certainly don't see anyone doing anything "WRONG", in regards to the rules of war.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to be a combat veteran to comment on what should be common sense.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can try and justify this all you want, but I'm still not sure how it is anything less than cold blooded murder.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
Damned shame that a veteran who has a clue feels the need to post as AC in a discussion like this, on /.
How is it that liberals seem to dominate a tech board? Did most of you graduate from Berkeley, or some such?
Whatever - I'll post my opinions however unpopular, under my own name, and let karma take care of itself. ;^)
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen to the fucking audio. They were dying to murder those guys. They knew there were children in the minivan (the minivan that came by to pick up the wounded and bury the dead) and they said "it's their own fault for bringing the kids to a war zone", and proceeded to open fire on them. They killed childs, knowingly.
This is not WWII. This is not a war at all, it's an invasion. The US invaded another sovereign nation. Also, this guys are full of technology. This wasn't some guy with a shitty riffle shooting through the jungle and hitting the wrong target. The only reason most people join the military is because they are murderers.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's false, however. There were American troops a few blocks down the street. The part in the video where the photographer leans out and snaps some shots? He was taking pics of the Bradleys sitting down the street. (they recovered the cameras and those were the last pictures taken) Of course it took 10 minutes for troops to get there. You don't just rush headfirst into a waiting potential ambush. If you didn't see the rockets/AKs, you weren't looking hard enough because I spotted at least one of each without any kind of "ambiguity". Then let's discuss the idea that that exact location had been used as an ambush/RPG launch point for running battles over the past few days. There's a lot of context you're missing from the video alone.
Re:META Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, considering that the fighting in Iraq is an anti-insurgency campaign, and the U.S. military is supposed to be winning "hearts and minds," dead civilians, dead reporters, wounded/dead children foster hatred of the U.S. and undermine the mission.
Exactly. If you really want to win hearts and minds, taking the risk that you might be shooting unarmed civilians is absolutely the worst thing you can do. If you want to win hearts and minds, you need to trust people, and in return show that you can be trusted. Paranoia does not win you any hearts and minds. It just breeds more hostility, more violence, and more enemies.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all of them are filled with high explosive. The M230 chain gun on the Apache can use either the M788 Target round (non explosive,) the M789 HEDP (Dual-purpose explosive round) or the M799 HEI (Explosive Incendiary.)
And at 30mm, you really don't need explosives to rip the human body apart.
Re:They know not what they seek! (Score:3, Insightful)
Iceland needs money but not that bad, they are a small country that is fiercely protective of their way of life. You could invade and take over their country in an afternoon though. Iceland has no standing army [wikipedia.org], LA county has more police than them and any town in West Virginia over 100 people has more guns. I think the point is that killing someone in Iceland would have grave diplomatic and strategic consequences, we rely pretty heavily on Iceland for their position between Europe and the the US for shipping and flying.
Well of course LA has more Police, That's why we call the us a police state.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
It has never been established that the dead were all innocents. SOMEONE in that area had fired upon our ground troops,
You don't see it as a problem that nothing has actually been investigated, and that lots of civilians were slaughtered because SOMEONE somewhere (somewhere else, probably) may have shot at someone?
How would you like it if lots of people in your street were gunned down from a helicopter because somebody in your town may have shot somebody? Do you honestly not see how disproportionate the response is, how any semblance of justice is completely absent, or how disgustingly inhuman that kind of behaviour is?
Kill everybody, just in case somebody might be guilty? What kind of world do you think you're creating with that kind of attitude?
Seriously, these people need to be tried for war crimes. That, or plain murder.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
First off I don't blame the soldiers. I blame the U.S. Congress and both presidents for putting them in that shitty situation. We have no business going to war simply because ~1500 people died on 9/11. That isn't even that great of a loss (more people die in a single month just from car accidents), and the war will only create a next generation of tettorists s the kids with dead parents grow-up hating Americans.
Second regardless of the content of the video, it should still be released so the People (the ultimate holders of authority) can see it with their own eyes, and decide if the war being fought is worthwhile. If the People decide it is not, as happened with Vietnam, then we withdraw. If the People decide the job being done is good, then we continue.
In either case the decision should be with the Citizens, and the release of videos like these help make that decision. The government has no right to censor what we see. They are not our Plantation Masters, and we are not Serfs to be treated like idiots.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:3, Insightful)
They arrested a hero whistleblower, at least for revealing this video. The government lied, and denied Reuters FOIA requests for information regarding how their reporters were killed, to continue the coverup.
Hero whistleblower? If you sign a non-disclosure agreement that he had to have to have access to classified, he is no hero. You do not get to decide when classified data should be released, regardless of how it makes you feel. There are proper channels for complaining about things and he could have availed himself of those, if he had a problem with what was happening around him. Anyway, it is very obvious that this guy did this because he has a need for attention and respect, not because of his moral stance. The point is, the minute you sign those forms and take that oath, it ceases being about your personal feelings. You have a responsibility for following the law. The wrongs of others does not justify what he did. There are a million things that he could have done, instead of this that would have within the law.
He could be thrown in prison for life, and it would be completely justified because he agreed to risk that consequence unauthorized sharing of classified. You dont get to change the rules after the fact because you dont like them. That line of work is for people willing to accept serious responsibility. Its not like these are trumped up charges or they made a special punishment for him. he gets no sympathy, and he did not help anyone here.
"moments" == 10+ minutes???? (Score:1, Insightful)
"moments" == 10+ minutes???? Nah. And texans are armed civilians. Can the army just shoot into a crowd of texans walking the streets of houston???