Wikileaks Publishes Videos of US Soliders Killing Journalists and Civilians
- Status
It's one thing to feel you're doing the right thing, exposing certain videos and such, even if you shouldn't. It's another thing to be talking about releasing 250,000 secure conversations and "worldwide anarchy".
It's one thing to feel you're doing the right thing, exposing certain videos and such, even if you shouldn't. It's another thing to be talking about releasing 250,000 secure conversations and "worldwide anarchy".[/QUOTE]
There is a definite difference of degree.
I think he did the right thing in leaking the video, but the fact of this particular side of the matter is that he leaked classified info. He knew he risked arrest, and the Pentagon can't afford to not arrest him, just for the sake of the chain of command.
He wouldn't have been caught if he hadn't been bragging about it.
It sounds like he's either making up the level of conversations sent to Wikileaks, or they're not posting them for some reason, either because they're not that juicy, they're still sifting through them, or that Wikileaks also feels that the guy's level of security breach was dangerous.
It sounds like he's either making up the level of conversations sent to Wikileaks, or they're not posting them for some reason, either because they're not that juicy, they're still sifting through them, or that Wikileaks also feels that the guy's level of security breach was dangerous.
Necronic
Staff member
Sorry, didn't mean to come off too much like a prick. I should add that I couldn't understand following orders like that either. It's just not who we are. But because I can draw that line, and say that we are such different people, I have a hard time judging them about certain things.
It is a good thing he released this video, although the problem came in how people automatically went to "soldiers are evil murderers" mode. If civilians got better insight into the horrors and uncomfortable choices of war, there would be less of it.
That said, damn straight bring his ass up on charges. The "right" or "good" thing ain't always the lawful thing, as it most certainly wasn't in that case.
That said, damn straight bring his ass up on charges. The "right" or "good" thing ain't always the lawful thing, as it most certainly wasn't in that case.
Z
zero
It sure the hell isn't an E-4 enlisted man, that's for damned sure.
It's not up to these guys to question shit. And if he wants to it sure isn't the way to go to the press. He needed to go through the military channels. Go to intelligence or whistleblow to internal affairs. Going to the press was beyond his pay grade, his security level and his oaths.
He needs to pay for his crimes, regardless and irrespective of any other supposed crimes by others.[/QUOTE]
I see where you are coming from, but consider this: Before the video was released, the Military explicitly DENIED any knowledge of the subject. They lied blatantly to the public. And, in a ex post analysis, there's NO REASON to classify the video except to cover up an incident which would put the military under a bad light.
It was above his responsibility to disclose the video to the press? Well, let me tell you something: It was WAY above anyone's pay grade, security level, discretionary, responsibility, oath, rank, manifest destiny, God's appointment, whatever, to classify the footage just to not look bad in the public eye.
Want to go after the kid for not following due procedure? Fine. Just don't forget to go after those who committed the much severe crime (that should carry a much severer punishment) of lying to the public.
Dave
Staff member
It sure the hell isn't an E-4 enlisted man, that's for damned sure.
It's not up to these guys to question shit. And if he wants to it sure isn't the way to go to the press. He needed to go through the military channels. Go to intelligence or whistleblow to internal affairs. Going to the press was beyond his pay grade, his security level and his oaths.
He needs to pay for his crimes, regardless and irrespective of any other supposed crimes by others.[/QUOTE]
I see where you are coming from, but consider this: Before the video was released, the Military explicitly DENIED any knowledge of the subject. They lied blatantly to the public. And, in a ex post analysis, there's NO REASON to classify the video except to cover up an incident which would put the military under a bad light.
It was above his responsibility to disclose the video to the press? Well, let me tell you something: It was WAY above anyone's pay grade, security level, discretionary, responsibility, oath, rank, manifest destiny, God's appointment, whatever, to classify the footage just to not look bad in the public eye.
Want to go after the kid for not following due procedure? Fine. Just don't forget to go after those who committed the much severe crime (that should carry a much severer punishment) of lying to the public.[/QUOTE]
What severe crime? Attacking a group of armed insurgents? They didn't know that journalists were there. All they knew was that intel said there were armed insurgents there, saw the group of guys, requested clearance to engage and then did so. Afterwards, weapons WERE FOUND! So the intel was right, the shoot was good. You guys defending this bozo who broke the law releasing it always seem to ignore or forget the fact that they found weapons and the group of guys they targeted were insurgents. Doesn't fit your world view when the soldiers were right so you conveniently forget it.
Z
zero
Wait, you're misunderstanding me... I have so far refrained myself from judging the acts of the soldiers involved in the incident (please, go and check my original post:http://www.halforums.com/forum/t12779-5/#post368091 ).
The "severe crime" I'm talking about is the blatant lying of the military about the incident before the video came to public. It should not be forgotten that the military was inquired about the incident and explicitly stated it had absolutely no knowledge of it. Those involved in this cover up committed a far more serious crime than anyone who released the video (and I dare even to say, than any soldiers involved in the firing).
I don't believe soldiers are inherently right or wrong. What I do believe is that no member of the government, Military or not, should NEVER lie to the public, under no circumstances (yes, even when the lying protects supposedly "strategic" information - absolutely NOT the case of the released footage). Trust me, in that path lies Tyranny...
Dave
Staff member
Okay, this I understand. But maybe there's a reason that they did. Look what happened when it WAS released. Maybe they didn't release it because people won't take, "It's classified." as an answer. Easier to deny it happened than to try and explain to people like Jon what was going on.
Z
zero
Oh, sure... I would go even further and say that the majority of the public won't be able to fairly judge what happened in the footage (in part due to the "war without collateral damage" that has been sold by politicians and the media). Even so, it wasn't the military call to classify the information just to protect their image (that was, from a public administrative point of view, a much severe infraction than the whistblower's). The military, as any branch of the government, should always be subject to public scrutiny (as bad as that scrutiny can be), and NEVER withdraw information just to protect their image.
One last thing: Had the military been fully open about it from the beginning (as it is required by law to be) by releasing the footage, explaining the situation and defending their men, the public image of the soldiers involved in that sad incident would be a lot better than it is now. Yes, there were still some people who would call it a coward massacre by trigger happy soldiers, but at least they wouldn't be looking like someone caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Okay, this I understand. But maybe there's a reason that they did. Look what happened when it WAS released. Maybe they didn't release it because people won't take, "It's classified." as an answer. Easier to deny it happened than to try and explain to people like Jon what was going on.[/QUOTE]
You know what they say... "The Act of Covering something up is far worse than whatever was covered up." and all that. If they had admitted it, there would have been a few days/weeks of people calling them out on it (rightly or not, as we can't seem to agree) and it would have died, with the strong possibility that it never would have left the newspapers or blogs. Instead, they buried a landmine that was eventually going to go off and piss off a whole lot of powerful people.
It's sort of like the Lewinsky Scandal: Most Americans really wouldn't have cared if Clinton had had an affair, but once he lied about it...
citation please? I have not found any reports of "blatant lying".
I keep finding things like "the military withheld key evidence on the grounds that it was classified", which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
(see Military's Killing of 2 Journalists in Iraq Detailed in New Book - washingtonpost.com )
Where's the blatant lying?
Z
zero
Hmm... nowhere, you appear to be right...
But there's clear intentionally vague statements such as "''There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force"
2 Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias - New York Times
and "continuation of hostile activity"
FOXNews.com - Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video
I mean, what is a "hostile force" anyway? Would a party of Osama Bin Laden, Aldolf Hitler and Genghis Khan walking in the street constitute "hostile force"? And "continuation of hostile activity" is also deliberately vague... Everything from 2003 can fit under that description...
This is obvious weasel talk meant to mislead the public into thinking the shooters were fired upon first.
Of course, the mere fact that the information was classified for no strategic purpose whatsoever, but just to hide the military acts from public scrutiny, is scandalous and should not be tolerated.
Thank you.
I think men with RPGs and AK47s peeking around corners at a humvee that's a block and a half away qualifies, your fanciful exaggerations notwithstanding. Especially since the humvee had taken some fire in that area earlier. This is ground we covered months ago.
Well now wait, did those guys with RPG's and AK47's have cake? Because then it might just be a birthday party.
Z
zero
I think men with RPGs and AK47s peeking around corners at a humvee that's a block and a half away qualifies, your fanciful exaggerations notwithstanding.[/QUOTE]
It Certainly qualifies... as would my "fanciful exaggeration" and so would a firing AA missile battery... As I said, "hostile forces" and "hostile action" is a deliberately vague speech that would lead a careless reader (such as myself) to believe they were actively firing on USA forces... I was wrong in qualifying that as "deliberate lying", but you have to agree that it (along with the attempts to classify the information) is not exactly the most forthcoming and honest way to present the event to the public.
Actually, I think it more than accurately describes the situation without going into detail. I don't consider it "weasel words" at all. When I read "hostile forces", I don't immediately assume a firefight was raging. I do immediately assume a group of armed insurgents was targeted, which this apparently was (regardless of whether or not there were unidentified Reuters employees among them).
I think men with RPGs and AK47s peeking around corners at a humvee that's a block and a half away qualifies, your fanciful exaggerations notwithstanding.[/QUOTE]
It Certainly qualifies... as would my "fanciful exaggeration" and so would a firing AA missile battery... As I said, "hostile forces" and "hostile action" is a deliberately vague speech that would lead a careless reader (such as myself) to believe they were actively firing on USA forces... I was wrong in qualifying that as "deliberate lying", but you have to agree that it (along with the attempts to classify the information) is not exactly the most forthcoming and honest way to present the event to the public.[/QUOTE]
The military has a hard enough time making sure everything it does is infantry proof. Your ignorance is of no responsibility of theirs.
Z
zero
When they attempt to classify material, it certainly is!
Z
zero
Well, that is very commendable of them, but again, they were being a lot less open about the incident than before the leak of the video.
- Status