TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Saving Private Manning (Wikileaks)

Go To

Scrye Since: Jan, 2001
#151: Dec 25th 2010 at 2:22:35 PM

The answer is no, because he was in charge of not leaking them.

Way to drop the ball on that one, Bradley!

"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#152: Dec 25th 2010 at 2:25:37 PM

If it's my job to protect the president, and the president is Lex Luthor, and superman bursts in through the door, and I have a kryptonite gun, it is not the proper thing to do for me to shoot superman full of Kyrptonite bullets.

Unless I'm Lawful Stupid.

I really hate to have to explain the analogy, because I don't want to insult people's intelligence, but otherwise it just seems like a non-sequitor. Saying that he shouldn't do X because not doing X is part of his job is basically begging the question by saying that doing his job is the right thing to do-it's ignoring what's actually at issue in the conversation to begin with. Hence the "I protect the president" issue, where the president perhaps should not be protected. For he is Lex Luthor. And about to destroy the world or something.

edited 25th Dec '10 2:28:03 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Scrye Since: Jan, 2001
#153: Dec 25th 2010 at 2:30:57 PM

Then let him be his little martyr. Whether or not he had good intentions, he still broke his contract and contacted a known enemy resource. That's what he's getting tried for, not for being a bad person.

"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#154: Dec 25th 2010 at 2:35:08 PM

/Epic Facepalm

Scyre, whether he should be tried for it or not is a question of the legitimacy of the system to begin with-the fact that all is going "according to the system" is a non-answer, because what's at question in the first place is the system.

I think part of it is that, you CAN say "Well, the system needs to be upheld, so X Y and Z should happen" but still divorce that from what is the "ethically responsible result" or some such. But that's a more nuanced position to hold.

edited 25th Dec '10 2:36:13 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Scrye Since: Jan, 2001
#155: Dec 25th 2010 at 2:54:29 PM

/Epic Facepalm.

I take it you have a way to completely overhaul "the system" so that it meets your fancy and still offers me, Barkey, Tom, and any other servicemember the same amount, or more, security and ability to accomplish our mission?

"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE
BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#156: Dec 25th 2010 at 3:01:24 PM

First, a somewhat clearer source.

Second, while I agree that at least the two videos should've been leaked, I don't see where you're getting that he shouldn't be tried for it, Tomu. Whether or not it was right it was still illegal, and to exempt someone from legal action because you (general you) think what he did was right opens a gigantic can of worms we are better off avoiding.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#157: Dec 25th 2010 at 3:11:29 PM

Hmmm? I never said he shouldn't be tried for it double checking my earlier posts to make sure... one second. I'm saying that the process whereby the people who have the most to lose by having videos released shouldn't be in charge of prosecuting those who release videos because of the conflict of interests.

I guess you could say I'm making the case that Manning being tried is wrong, even if it's the "right thing to do" if that makes any sense. It's like how if someone is a murderer, and you know they're a murderer, you can support their right to go free if due process suggests that they should, without accepting that they "should be free" so to speak.

I guess I'm more concerned with the issue of HOW he is tried, and the attitudes surrounding his being tried. After all, due process is due process-but that doesn't mean that the results of due process are right, so to speak.

edited 25th Dec '10 3:13:29 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#158: Dec 25th 2010 at 3:23:39 PM

"He shouldn't be tried for it" is how I read your last post.

It's not entirely clear what you meant to say, so I apologize if you didn't mean that.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#159: Dec 25th 2010 at 3:25:13 PM

Yeah, that was my bad. What I meant is, "Should be tried" can have two contexts.

1.) He did something wrong, and should be punished. 2.) He did something that was against Da R00lz and Da R00lz must be enforced.

I'm objecting to point 1, and deliberately not commenting on point 2. You're right though, I didn't make a close enough distinction there, so it looks really fucking stupid.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#160: Dec 25th 2010 at 3:31:05 PM

Tomu: Remember the whole jury of your peers bit. Give you a guess who his peers are.

Who watches the watchmen?
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#161: Dec 25th 2010 at 3:40:12 PM

People like Scrye, I'm guessing.

But I guess that's fair. As much as I can complain about "The military shaping the marines to think what they want them to think" they're still individuals who can think for themselves, and if Scyre can be a military tribunal juror, then he has as much right to cast his vote against Manning as anyone.

But I didn't think military tribunals worked like that.

Basically: If he's tried and found not-guilty (or whatever the equivalence for this would be) I'd be okay with it.

edited 25th Dec '10 3:40:45 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#162: Dec 25th 2010 at 3:53:00 PM

A quick fact-cleaning here: The helicopter video off of Wikileaks was doctored to make it look like the US Army was deliberately firing upon reporters and civilians. (and they failed miserably in their doctoring)

The real video shows multiple armed insurgents (one with an RPG-7) and all were legitimate military targets. The reporter in that incident made his bed and his choice to deliberately walk out into a battle. (What wasn't shown about the incident by Wikileaks is that US soldiers nearby were under attack by said insurgents in the video not too far away. The helis were running close air support in the middle of a live firefight.)

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#163: Dec 25th 2010 at 3:55:29 PM

Citation? Seeing as how of the sources we have seen, no one has said anything about "doctored video."

edited 25th Dec '10 3:55:44 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#164: Dec 25th 2010 at 4:23:51 PM

^ To begin with.

More.

NPR account from someone who was there. (More on that one.)

Opinion piece (left-wing of all things) disapproving the wikileaks doctoring.

As mentioned in The Register article, an official investigation cleared the soldiers involved of all wrongdoing.

EDIT:

Reuters had long pressed for the release of the video, which consists of 38 minutes of black-and-white aerial video and conversations between pilots in two Apache helicopters as they open fire on people on a street in Baghdad. The attack killed 12, among them the Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and the driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40.

At a news conference at the National Press Club, Wiki Leaks said it had acquired the video from whistle-blowers in the military and viewed it after breaking the encryption code. Wiki Leaks edited the video to 17 minutes.

Source

edited 25th Dec '10 4:29:58 PM by MajorTom

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#165: Dec 25th 2010 at 4:35:52 PM

I'll buy into the idea that one of the two videos misrepresented what was going on. And I think it is clear that the military is not acting with sheer malicious intent persay-rather, that there are more mistakes being made than should be considered acceptable.

But it certainly is true that, in the hopes to make the public aware of the mistakes being made, that there shouldn't be a push to deliberately misrepresent what's going on. This isn't "The military deliberately killing a bunch of civilians in order to take down two insurgents" or something, and it seems to be suggested that that's how it's presented.

Of course, as someone who endorses total withdrawl, I can take the so-called high ground and say "No civilians should be harmed," but that's a separate issue entirely.

edited 25th Dec '10 4:36:27 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#166: Dec 25th 2010 at 4:40:54 PM

So if they are willing to distort information to that extent to remove additional context to spin it in a way they see fit who knows how much the info they have released may have been doctored. Now I am rather unhappy with the whole mess. This bears additional research and time to think.

Who watches the watchmen?
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#167: Dec 25th 2010 at 5:11:12 PM

I'm cautious to attack Wikileaks simply because the military specifically designated them as a thread and was trying to figure out ways to destroy their credibility, mind you.

BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#168: Dec 25th 2010 at 5:21:27 PM

@Tom: You got the quote wrong on that last one:

t a news conference at the National Press Club, Wiki Leaks said it had acquired the video from whistle-blowers in the military and viewed it after breaking the encryption code. Wiki Leaks released the full 38-minute video as well as a 17-minute edited version.

In fact if you go to their site, the full video is right there and clearly marked.

More detail:

  • The first link says nothing about editing the video; it does use the 17 minute version instead of the 38 minute version but that's not too strange.
  • The second link is obviously biased; but does seem to prove that the target in the video may have had a weapon. It definitely does not prove that Wikileaks edited it out of the video; in fact it seems to have taken its proof directly from the Wikileaks video. (It does at the end claim Wikileaks withheld some context-necessary photos, but it doesn't give any proof whatsoever, so I'm ignoring that.)
  • The guy in the third link seems to be supporting exactly the things the second link proved: that the people in the video were carrying weapons and not that Wikileaks withheld context.
  • Fourth link proves the same thing all the other links have.
  • Fifth link is just a summary.

So in conclusion:

  • Wikileaks released two videos, one 17 minute long video edited to show the parts that supported their claim and one 38 minute long video of the raw footage they edited to make the 17 minute video.
  • None of the claims that Wikileaks made explicitly in the video is wrong, though some of the implications seem to be. Read it yourself; it's clear that Wikileaks is not alleging "US soldiers shot unarmed civilians unprovoked" but "US soldiers shot armed but unprovoking insurgents and in the process killed at least two unarmed civilians."

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#169: Dec 25th 2010 at 6:38:39 PM

The way they played it we targeted the group knowing they were reporters. So did wikileaks in their initial release announce that they had enhanced or altered the 17 minute video?

By the way you don't have to provoke to be a valid military target just simply in armed opposition to a recognized military body. There are no rules stating you have to shoot at the military to be their enemy. If the troops in the area were under attack and you have more armed groups roaming nearby put two and two together. I could see why the group was hit and without further image enhancement it would be more difficult to distinguish finer characteristics of weapons and items carried.

Who watches the watchmen?
NickTheSwing Since: Aug, 2009
#170: Dec 25th 2010 at 8:37:32 PM

I do not understand the military and its vast, stupid network of power and control over this country. Nor do I really want to. I do know that I consider it free speech to speak of what is going on and what our military leaders are doing. To put this bluntly, I hate the current military and its message of forced conformity and nationalistic fervor that oh so often leads its members into situations such as Abu Ghraib and other prisons which we surely do not know about. Mainly for the reasons Scrye has so elegantly presented. You are all about your little mission, and you do not care who gets trampled over in the act.

edited 25th Dec '10 8:40:28 PM by NickTheSwing

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#171: Dec 25th 2010 at 8:39:44 PM

Nick: Go hate somewhere else. You have brought nothing to this conversation other then unsupported statements please go somewhere else with it. Your ignorance is vast and obvious and quite honestly overtly offensive.

edited 25th Dec '10 8:40:07 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
Scrye Since: Jan, 2001
#172: Dec 25th 2010 at 8:40:38 PM

Nobody forced anybody to sign the contract. It's not forced conformity at all.

"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#173: Dec 25th 2010 at 8:40:59 PM

Let's try and keep it to actual arguments.

^No one forces people to join cults either, but once they're in, they're in. That's not to say that the military is a cult-but it has certain similarities in terms of how it shapes individual's behavior.

edited 25th Dec '10 8:41:36 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Scrye Since: Jan, 2001
#174: Dec 25th 2010 at 8:43:34 PM

Rarely are cults explained clearly before one joins.

"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#175: Dec 25th 2010 at 8:43:51 PM

That is true. But that is true of a lot of jobs, organizations, and religions as a whole.

Who watches the watchmen?

Total posts: 319
Top