Well that plan definitely backfired then. They edited the video to make the military look bad. Then when the facts came out and the investigations said "Wikileaks was dead wrong", the civilians turned against them on that incident.
Double backfire, not only did they lose the battle at the government level, they lost face with a lot of people they could have otherwise persuaded.
In all the whole video was worth far less fuss then was made of it. Under the presented circumstances there was no way to tell if they were video men for insurgents or legitimate media members. Keep in mind the insurgents have camera men recording them in combat as is evidenced by the number of videos they have made available for public consumption. The whole mess was a combination of the media men being with the wrong group at the wrong time with nothing more then a press badge not visible at distance to distinguish them from the insurgents. Add in fog of war and other factors and rereading wikileaks release of it. Not only do they lack clarification of the whole situation and withheld some context instead of bundling it they deliberately separated it. It seems more like a smear campaign then pointing out some folks got caught in a bad spot and unfortunately died.
I am still questioning Mr. Manning's logic an motives something just doesn't sit right with the whole thing. Maybe someone else has an idea. This is going to bug me until someone nails it for me I stumble on to it myself.
Who watches the watchmen?So it's perfectly fine for soldiers to sign up to get shot, but not to sign up to swear obedience?
Dear God, you guys are Chaotic Stupid.
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZEYou keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.
The Marines don't train us not to use nuance. But I like the jump to conclusions. If I had any doubt that you didn't fully understand what you're criticizing, it is gone.
edited 26th Dec '10 2:41:24 PM by Scrye
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZEBarkey's the one who suggested that you're more big on getting the job done than nuance, blame him :P
Basically, the people who accuse others of being needlessly pedantic are the ones who don't have an eye for nuance.
But okay, let me spell it out for you: It's not the marine's (the soldier that is, as opposed to the organization) fault that he's there. And no matter what the protocall for such things are, his goals should be to protect his own life, assuming that he doesn't hold whatever mission over his own life.
The military, however, have a responsibility for being there. Thus, they have a higher burden to not be a jackass, because they're the ones interfering. Is it stupid to not shoot at someone you think is going to shoot at you? From a survivalist standpoint, of course. But the military is the ones who have to bear that burden of stupidity (so to speak) because they're the invading force to begin with.
Now: This is countered by the fact that you can make an argument that the government/forces of the region have a responsibility to prevent X (where X is whatever force we're fighting against) from doing Y, and that that justifies our presence there. I'm not going to argue against that, mostly because I don't believe in agreeing or disagreeing on a vastly overgeneralized ba-wait a second, sorry, sorry, getting off topic again.
Never mind, we should probably lock this thread, it's just getting into "Military vs Civilian Mindset" territory again.
edited 26th Dec '10 2:51:11 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Barkey is Air Force. Chair Force and Marines love to talk shit to each other. Don't take that as a good source of argument.
Nuance has nothing to do with leaking information though. It's just a pleasant word you can throw around to make yourself sound more clever, but at the end of the day, when you use it to describe everything you do, it makes you sound like an ignorant fool with a one-track mind.
But arguing your vocabulary isn't arguing your logic, so I'll move on. You seem to have an incredibly thin understanding of what your want total control over, and feel entitled to your goal, without regards to the safety or efficiency of the people who are actually involved. I find this to be highly irresponsible, and comparable to that of a child. So forgive me for inferring that it would be disastrous if you actually got and acted upon what you wanted.
And no, the priority of Marines and soldiers is to protect the Marines and the soldiers next to them. The only conflict of interest that comes from the higher ups is that the higher ups want their priority to be to protect the local population.
edited 26th Dec '10 2:58:29 PM by Scrye
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZEI don't want total control over. I don't recall ever saying that. Rather, I want to be aware of the injusticies of said system because by awareness, I can have a say in it. I think that's just a nitpick on my end-ultimately, having any control sort of amounts to total control in this context, though I suspect we disagree on the significance of that.
Because you can use the same damned "Oh you don't understand!" arguments to justify torture. And that's a big no no.
^Make up your mind: is the highest priority protecting the marines, or is it the mission? I mean, it shouldn't be one or the other-that's a false dichotomy-but if the higher ups have the priority "Don't kill civilians" (because it's their obligation to not kill civilians) then that's the mission. Isn't that important?
Honestly, if we had NO care for the population at all, we'd just bomb the entire place and turn it to glass-but I think everyone acknowledges that at least that would be ethically dubious.
There will always be people who want to use a machete when the situation calls for a scalpel, and vice versa. I am generally the person who prefers a scalpel, though I probably shouldn't over-generalize.
edited 26th Dec '10 3:05:54 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
@Tom: But:
- Wikileaks has had the full version right there on their website since they released the video in the first place.
- Everything Wikileaks claimed was true, WAS.
They claim, right in the beginning of the edited video that:
- The helicopters killed about 12 people in New Baghdad, including 2 children. This is clearly true just by looking at the video.
- Although some of the killed people may have been armed, nobody was shooting at the time. Also clearly true just by looking at the video.
- Among those 12 people killed were the Reuters reporters Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen. Reuters knew this before the video was even released.
- The US military claimed that the reporters died during a battle and that the actions of the helicopter were in accordance with the US Rules of Engagement. It is both true that the military claimed that and true, as far as we can tell, that the video did take place directly after a firefight and was in accordance with the Rules of Engagement.
So, again, everything Wikileaks claimed is true.
Which is precisely what I just said. But "the mission" includes "Don't kill the civilians."
Of course, sometimes, it's tradeoffs: If you're overly cautious to not kill civilians, you may lose more servicemen. That sucks. But then, if you don't want anyone dying in war, you don't go to war in the first place. It's not an all-or-nothing situation.
The entire point of Wikileaks is that, maybe the military is taking necessary precautions, and there are just mistakes being made, or perhaps they're not even mistakes because that's the best cost/benefits analysis that can be made. But what if there IS reckless abandonment of the value of civilian life going on? How are the people supposed to know about it if all those with access to the information are unable to act upon that because of a dedication to a code?
The argument isn't that it's a violation of the rules. It's not even an argument that the rules are wrong, in as far as there should be rules to begin with. It's an argument that when you as an individual know something that you think others should know-for whatever reasons-the ethical decision is about more than just whether it's against the rules or not.
^^^This
^^^^You've been using a machete that you scribbled the word "scalpel" on the side of this whole debate, dude. You really have some misconceptions about your arguing style.
And Mission Accomplishment has everything to do with the personal safety of the people serving along side you.
edited 26th Dec '10 3:14:42 PM by Scrye
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZEScyre, if the guys in charge say "The mission is to not kill the civilians" and you kill the civilians, that's a failed mission. Now, you can argue that those guys are making the wrong decision of what the mission should be, but THAT'S the difference between a machete and a scalpel. You're arguing that you want to use the former, and they're arguing that they want to use the latter.
Okay, let's go meta for a moment. Scyre, do you have any intention of listening to me or taking me seriously at all? Because otherwise, this really is just a waste of energy.
edited 26th Dec '10 3:17:15 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Not really. It's taking an unnecessary civilian casualty, and you'll (the individual and those in charge of him) will be tried for unlawful murder. I have seen this happen.
You can still technically accomplish the mission even with losses of both civilians and military personnel. But then, what's the point?
Higher-ups and the boots on the ground are two different groups of people with two different goals, so that's why it seems like I'm arguing to very different points.
As for listening to you, I gotta be honest, it's pretty hard to take your points seriously, especially when you constantly bring up the "I don't want you to use 'you wouldn't understand the military' as an argument because it implies I have no idea what I'm talking about and that's not fair!" speech. It really does feel like I'm arguing with a stubborn child who wants leverage in something he has nothing to do with, purely to have leverage in it.
Sorry if that sounds rude, but it's my honest assessment of you.
edited 26th Dec '10 3:21:59 PM by Scrye
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZEI think the point I was trying to get at is that, we both should probably speak less in terms of absolutes. I don't want to kill civilians because, honestly, I don't even want us in there. What a nutjob peacenick pinko hippie bastard I am etc etc etc. And you-because you're a member of said unit-want to minimize the loss of life of the marines because those lives are important to you-not least of all your own. I can respect that; I just think that saying universally that one is more valuable than the other is a bad move, and that defending a system wherein it is impossible to criticize operations for being too reckless in terms of how civilians are treated is "a bad move."
Who the fuck said I gave a shit about my own life over the other Marines?
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZEBlackhumor: The presentation and noting of additional information that was directly related was less then honest including the pictures you dismissed earlier. That and the way it was laid for the public from wikileaks initially is that we knew A. the Reporters were Reuters and those were obviously cameras (obvious in the enhanced and altered video yes) B. That we knew that van contained non-combatants and was supposedly not involved. That one is even more dubious even with the enhanced video its all that immediately obvious that they are children. Also you got your info wrong the children survived the attack but were wounded and were immediately given treatment on discovery.
For all we know some of the men that were killed by the helicopter were gathering together again after the assault. Without additional information such as observation reports or additional intel we do not know what led the pilots to assume these people were possibly involved in the assault. Which is something wikileaks completely ignored and instead pressed on that we killed reports with absolute negligence.
Tomu: Some of your assumptions are bordering on the rude and personal.
Scrye: Relax man your not going to get anywhere being pissed or frustrated about it I get what your trying to say but I am not quite sure how to sum it up in a more easily conveyed manner.
Who watches the watchmen?Scyre: So, what, you're the least valuable marine? I'm not saying you're the most valuable, I'm just saying you're not the least.
Honestly, are you just trying to pick a fight? You may not like my style of rhetoric or something, but if you just find excuses to be offended (about the things that I'm not even trying to be offensive about!) we're not going to get anywhere.
That and the way it was laid for the public from wikileaks initially is that we knew A. the Reporters were Reuters and those were obviously cameras (obvious in the enhanced and altered video yes) B. That we knew that van contained non-combatants and was supposedly not involved.
Seriously dude, look at the actual video. It tells you exactly what Wikileaks claims, and none of that is part of it. It's so obvious from the video that the helicopter at least thinks someone they're shooting at is carrying a weapon A would just be silly to claim.
They don't claim anything outright about B at all, but the video does seem to imply that it was irresponsible to shoot at the van because although the people in the helicopter obviously don't know whether or not it contains insurgents, whoever it was carrying all they were doing is picking up a wounded guy. (And I happen to agree with that after seeing the video, though obviously "irresponsible" is a bit subjective no matter what the facts are.)
But please, before you continue arguing, go watch the video
. I have a feeling you're arguing based on stuff you've heard in the media afterward, because you clearly think Wikileaks is claiming much bigger stuff than they actually are.
@Scrye: I'm not sure quite what you're arguing about, but from what I'm seeing of it, Tomu is not claiming anything he'd need to be in the army to claim.
Analogy: You probably, implicitly or explicitly, think Judaism is wrong. (If not, replace it with "Islam" in that last sentence and read it again.) The laws of Judaism could fill a whole bookshelf or more, and I know because I have seen the bookshelves. But that doesn't matter; all you need to know about Judaism to declare it wrong is the surface level stuff that any idiot knows. You don't need to know the proper Jewish method to calculate the value of a cow to be able to tell that all Judaism is based on flawed assumptions.
edited 26th Dec '10 4:55:21 PM by BlackHumor
Value has nothing to do with it. I can't in good conscience put my life above another Marine's. Even if they're the biggest fuck-up alive. And it actually hits me pretty hard that you can't even comprehend that. But I understand why you can't.
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZEFor fucks sake Scyre, does life have value or not? You're apparently about the mission-so if one guy is going to get three people killed, you're not going to give a shit if it's a decision between saving one fuckup or saving three fuck ups? You can't tell me that if you were forced to make a decision like that in a rational setting that you wouldn't take that into account. I understand that you're hesitant to say that you're more or less valuable than others, and sure, it's a bit of a pedantic point-but when I said "Not least of all yours" i just meant YOU'RE AN IMPORTANT PERSON TOO GODDAMNIT.
Jesus fucking Christ.
^ If there's one fuck up on a mission who's likely to get himself killed or draw attention that'll get someone else killed, he'll be either moved to where he can't make that happen, or taught the hard way outside of battle not to do that kind of shit.
Soldiers don't let soldiers get themselves killed needlessly.

In any war dead civilians are generally taken to be more of a problem than dead soldiers, because the soldier signed up to get shot at and the civilian didn't.
So, yes, they are trying to get the US military to make their policy less friendly to soldiers so that it would be more friendly to civilians.