Thread: Source of infamous "Baghdad airstrike" footage still in solitary w/o trial

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

If you can't come up with a good argument, don't resort to stating axioms.

You're basically acting surprised that a guy who broke the law is in prison...

Oneironaut...thank you for getting it.

Spartiate no one is surprised he's in jail. It's just that some people question if the law is right or not instead of siding with it just because IT'S THE LAW.

Do you believe that a nation should be able to have confidential information in the interest of preserving national security?

Originally Posted by DuB

Manning is being held under these harsh conditions despite not having been convicted of anything yet. In fact, he hasn't even set foot in a court. Apparently this is because his escape would "pose a national security risk." He is also on a prevention-of-injury watch. Is this reasonable? Are these conditions necessary to prevent escape or injury? Or is this treatment indefensible?

Moving him straight to solitary sounds perfectly defensible here. If he poses a real security risk, then preventing his ability to communicate with others (solitary) and from leaving the country does not sound unreasonable. I disagree with the prevention of injury watch however, unless he is withholding important information (who he may have shared information with) from his captors.

I am not a fan of prisons in the first place, but this man has to have been aware of the law and the consequences for breeching it. Keeping that in mind, even though I may feel very sorry for him, I can't argue in his defense given what we know about the situation.

Manning was turned in by, of all people, Adrian Lamo (of computer hacker fame), after confessing to and describing the crimes to him in a private chat room. Lamo says that he turned in Manning because he "feared that lives were at risk." What do you think? If you were in Lamo's position, would you have turned in Manning? If you were Manning, would you have released the documents in the first place? Does the leak pose a significant national risk?

The only reason I could consider turning him in is if I thought that knowing the released information would pose a risk to my own safety. Not acting on it and being discovered by federal agents later on would not be particularly pleasant. If there were no fear of that, it would depend heavily on the kind of information released. If it were dangerous I may try to forget I ever heard about it and continue on with my life. It really depends. If I were Manning, I would have kept my mouth shut. Releasing classified documents, even if they pose no security risk, is not an intelligent move to make if you value your health, so to speak.

Should the principle of freedom of information trump any risks incurred by the leak?

I'm still trying to figure out what I think about all this. Help me out.

Maybe.. That depends on how the country runs, and what kind of risks exist. I don't think it's all too relevant here. Manning knew the rules and intentionally broke them. Still, as I said, I feel sorry for the guy. He may have meant well.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Do you believe that a nation should be able to have confidential information in the interest of preserving national security?

Not things like American soldiers on a killstreak in an Apache helicopter. I'd like to know about that. In a democratic society we should know about that.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Not things like American soldiers on a killstreak in an Apache helicopter. I'd like to know about that. In a democratic society we should know about that.

Why? That's what soldiers do.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Why? That's what soldiers do.

You know what video I'm talking about. If the people of the country that are "supposed" to be making the decisions are kept from knowing things like their government covering up soldiers mowing down groups of civilians what else will they do behind your back? You think that's a legitimate secret to be kept?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Why? That's what soldiers do.

You know what video I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

You know what video I'm talking about. If the people of the country that are "supposed" to be making the decisions are kept from knowing things like their government covering up soldiers mowing down groups of civilians what else will they do behind your back? You think that's a legitimate secret to be kept?

Who is "supposed" to be making decisions and why aren't they making them?

The people of the country. I think he;s saying that people can't make good decisions without knowing what the governments real motives are. They can't know what the governments real motives are unless the government is honest with them, which it isn't.

I was gonna say something along the same lines but I thought about it and if the military is going to be effective they do need to keep somethings secret, but not as much as they do. They didn't need to keep that video secret in order to effectively fight the war, they kept it secret from looking bad. So to answer spariates question, yes the gov needs to keep some information confidential, but they also need to be more transparent and honest about what they are doing and why they are doing it, but if they were people would probably stop voting almost exclusively republican and democrat and they(the republicans and democrats) don;t want that so they keep telling the people a nice story.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

You know what video I'm talking about. If the people of the country that are "supposed" to be making the decisions are kept from knowing things like their government covering up soldiers mowing down groups of civilians what else will they do behind your back? You think that's a legitimate secret to be kept?

It's an ugly fact of war that friendly fire happens. This isn't new, it's been happening since we were fighting each other with bows and arrows. We only care now (well since Vietnam) because there are reporters on scene with cameras. People have this mental image of war being clean and honourable, and they're horrified when they find out how dirty and chaotic and gruesome it really is. There is no clean war where the innocent are safe and the bullets always go where you want them to.

I'm sure those apache pilots would not have fired if they knew who they were firing at. If they were negligent, then I hope they were disciplined, but that is a military matter to be settled in a military tribunal.

Civilians getting caught in the cross fire (or being mistaken as the "enemy") is nevertheless a step up from an entire military that approaches war with the mentality that it's ok to rape every woman and kill every child of the opposing faction, or to use captives for slave labor. Psychological warfare tactics used to be far more heavily used. The real tragedy is that we have to make one another suffer at all. War is one of the things I hope humanity learns to live without.

Originally Posted by stonedape

The people of the country. I think he;s saying that people can't make good decisions without knowing what the governments real motives are. They can't know what the governments real motives are unless the government is honest with them, which it isn't.

The people don't make decisions, they elect people to make decisions for them. The people are in no way, shape, or form qualified to make important decisions, especially ones regarding war.

Originally Posted by stonedape

They didn't need to keep that video secret in order to effectively fight the war, they kept it secret from looking bad.

I think you're underestimating the value of public opinion. Public support very much affects their ability to fight the war.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The people don't make decisions, they elect people to make decisions for them. The people are in no way, shape, or form qualified to make important decisions, especially ones regarding war.

Neither are the people they've elected lately.

The people decide who to elect based on available information. The information that they have to make these decisions is limited by the government and further filtered by the media in a way that makes it impossible for anyone to get elected who does not support the current agenda, or if you do not accept that republicans and democrats are basically the same, one of two agendas. The democrats claim to be some cleaner softer non-violent choice, but they simply aren't.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I think you're underestimating the value of public opinion. Public support very much affects their ability to fight the war.

No, I just think that public opinion should be based on the reality of things not the image presented to them by the people in control. People need to see the reality of war so they can decide for themselves what they want to be done. If people find war to be a violent, deplorable and inhumane activity, which it is, then they will not support wars other than those which are actually necessary, such as in the case of self defense. If people see what is really happening it will not be so easy to move them based on fear, pride and other emotional tactics.

The kind of information that is needed to be kept secret is information that if know by the enemy would endanger our troops. Other types of information should be available to the public, the public should know what's going on, if they do not how can they make an informed decision?

Do you have an opinion on what kinds of information should be kept secret, or do you think it is up to the governments discretion?

Originally Posted by stonedape

Neither are the people they've elected lately.

The people decide who to elect based on available information. The information that they have to make these decisions is limited by the government and further filtered by the media in a way that makes it impossible for anyone to get elected who does not support the current agenda, or if you do not accept that republicans and democrats are basically the same, one of two agendas. The democrats claim to be some cleaner softer non-violent choice, but they simply aren't.

Who is making decisions if our leaders aren't? I don't really understand what you're upset about. I don't think any of the content on the wikileaks site would change anyones vote. The people are more informed today than they've ever been, since back in the day there was no media constantly probing for "the scoop." It wasn't so hard to keep secrets. Now every citizen feels they are entitled to know the truth about everything and I don't quite know how they got that sense of entitlement. Especially in warfare, the people in charge know what is good for this country much better than the average citizen, so in my mind it doesn't make much sense to let them in on potentially valuable information.

Originally Posted by stonedape

No, I just think that public opinion should be based on the reality of things not the image presented to them by the people in control. People need to see the reality of war so they can decide for themselves what they want to be done. If people find war to be a violent, deplorable and inhumane activity, which it is, then they will not support wars other than those which are actually necessary, such as in the case of self defense. If people see what is really happening it will not be so easy to move them based on fear, pride and other emotional tactics.

The kind of information that is needed to be kept secret is information that if know by the enemy would endanger our troops. Other types of information should be available to the public, the public should know what's going on, if they do not how can they make an informed decision?

Do you have an opinion on what kinds of information should be kept secret, or do you think it is up to the governments discretion?

First of all, the nature of war is no secret. I don't think there are any people who would say war is not "violent, deplorable, or inhumane." Yet, people still support wars which are not technically "necessary," and you can't blame that on propoganda. War, violence, and hatred run in our genes. It doesn't matter if war is necessary or not, we would still seek it out. And I think that showing civilians images of war is a dishonest political tactic in itself. Of course they aren't going to approve of what they see. They don't understand it and they've been sheltered from it. You're trying to play on their emotions in the hope that they overlook the political and economic values of war.

Information a public would have a right to know would be if their military is actually making a deliberate practice out of killing civilians or something similar. An accident where civilians are inadvertantly killed is not something that needs to be broadcasted across the country. Things like that happen in war no matter what your policies are. So someone who leaks that information for the sake of "truth" is probably not interested in truth, they are interested in shining a negative light on a war they don't agree with. They are following their own agenda without regard to what is truly good for the country. Julian Assange isn't interested in the good of humanity, he's interested in "getting bastards."

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Who is making decisions if our leaders aren't? I don't really understand what you're upset about. I don't think any of the content on the wikileaks site would change anyones vote. The people are more informed today than they've ever been, since back in the day there was no media constantly probing for "the scoop." It wasn't so hard to keep secrets. Now every citizen feels they are entitled to know the truth about everything and I don't quite know how they got that sense of entitlement. Especially in warfare, the people in charge know what is good for this country much better than the average citizen, so in my mind it doesn't make much sense to let them in on potentially valuable information.

HAHA, I was making a joke(sort of), I meant they aren't qualified not that they aren't making decisions.

I don't see how anyone can be qualified to make the decision to start a war that is not technically necessary. What is it that can possibly qualify a person to make a decision of such importance with how much money and human life is wasted in a war, with how much suffering it creates? Who has such great foresight that they know that the war in Iraq is going to be worth it's cost. Whoever it was was wrong in my opinion, but I don't want to turn this thread into an iraq war debate, if you want to have one we should start a new thread or resurrect an old one.

Despite that Cheney and others probably had more to do with it, do you really think Bush was qualified to make that decision?

The content of the videos may not change votes for specific people, but it may change peoples way of looking at war. This would further change who they might vote for based on that persons policies. It does effect the vote and the political climate, that's why it was released, no?

I've already said I agree with you that potentially valuable info should be kept secret. The video in question is not potentially valuable, it is potentially destructive to the image presented of the war. What is the criterion for what is valuable?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

First of all, the nature of war is no secret. I don't think there are any people who would say war is not "violent, deplorable, or inhumane." Yet, people still support wars which are not technically "necessary," and you can't blame that on propoganda. War, violence, and hatred run in our genes. It doesn't matter if war is necessary or not, we would still seek it out. And I think that showing civilians images of war is a dishonest political tactic in itself. Of course they aren't going to approve of what they see. They don't understand it and they've been sheltered from it. You're trying to play on their emotions in the hope that they overlook the political and economic values of war.

Information a public would have a right to know would be if their military is actually making a deliberate practice out of killing civilians or something similar. An accident where civilians are inadvertantly killed is not something that needs to be broadcasted across the country. Things like that happen in war no matter what your policies are. So someone who leaks that information for the sake of "truth" is probably not interested in truth, they are interested in shining a negative light on a war they don't agree with. They are following their own agenda without regard to what is truly good for the country. Julian Assange isn't interested in the good of humanity, he's interested in "getting bastards."

War is clearly not portrayed as being not violent, but when it is talked about is violence the focus? Not necessarily. You say that showing the realities of war is portraying it in a negative light but is it not really just showing the realities of it? Maybe people don't understand it from the same perspective a soldier does, but does mean that their opinion of what should be done doesn't count? If more civilians were aware of all of what goes on in wars there would be less wars, in my opinion less war is a good thing.

If it is the case that we would seek out war regardless of it's necessity, than why are not all societies violent? Why is it that some cultures have been able to exist peacefully while others haven't?

I think this is because of the people who occupy positions of power in these societies. In our society the republicans and democrats, two groups of people who support governing by force, have a stranglehold on power. They have basically rigged the system so that only those two agendas can be furthered. Until this system is broken by some means we will have a violent government.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I don't see how anyone can be qualified to make the decision to start a war that is not technically necessary. What is it that can possibly qualify a person to make a decision of such importance with how much money and human life is wasted in a war, with how much suffering it creates? Who has such great foresight that they know that the war in Iraq is going to be worth it's cost. Whoever it was was wrong in my opinion, but I don't want to turn this thread into an iraq war debate, if you want to have one we should start a new thread or resurrect an old one.

We should stop using the word "necessary." No war is technically "necessary," and its necessity is subject to opinion and a variety of circumstances. As for how someone can be qualified to makes those decisions, that's a complicated question, but obviously someone has to do it. You make it sound as if nobody could ever be qualified to make such decisions. No single person has the power to send this country to war. There was no "war button" for President Bush to press. The military's superior officers and military advisors are the people who are qualified to make decisions regarding war. Our only job is to elect a leader who is intelligent and mature enough to correctly utilize his resources and heed to the advice of his advisors.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Despite that Cheney and others probably had more to do with it, do you really think Bush was qualified to make that decision?

President Bush was more qualified than the collective American public, that's for sure. Think about the resources at his fingertips. It doesn't mean he made the right decision, but if we're talking about credentials, surely Bush wins that battle.

Originally Posted by stonedape

The content of the videos may not change votes for specific people, but it may change peoples way of looking at war. This would further change who they might vote for based on that persons policies. It does effect the vote and the political climate, that's why it was released, no?

It doesn't mean it was an honest tactic. Some people can't handle images of war. They are overcome with emotion, and that of course directly suppresses their capacity for logic and reason. Decisions about war can't be emotion-driven. Those decisions tend to be senseless and short-sighted, and they inevitably make things worse.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I've already said I agree with you that potentially valuable info should be kept secret. The video in question is not potentially valuable, it is potentially destructive to the image presented of the war. What is the criterion for what is valuable?

It's value was in its effect on morale. It won't get soldiers killed, but it affects the public opinion. The government therefore has the right to keep it secret. It indirectly affects their ability to accomplish their mission. I already talked about emotion and logic, and that comes into play here. If someone hears that a handful of civilians were killed in an accident, they won't think much of it, but show them the actual video and all of a sudden it' a tradegy. Now they are against the war because of a sinlge video which was not given proper context and was designed to play on their emotions. Is that logical? Can impulsive, emotion-driven decisions be good for a country?

Can you not see that a person who uses those methods to turn people against the war are playing the same game as the people who use propoganda to turn people on to the war? They are both dishonest.

Originally Posted by stonedape

War is clearly not portrayed as being not violent, but when it is talked about is violence the focus? Not necessarily. You say that showing the realities of war is portraying it in a negative light but is it not really just showing the realities of it? Maybe people don't understand it from the same perspective a soldier does, but does mean that their opinion of what should be done doesn't count? If more civilians were aware of all of what goes on in wars there would be less wars, in my opinion less war is a good thing.

A person who can't separate themselves from their emotions should not contribute their opinion on warfare, and if they do, it shouldn't be considered valid. That's what I think. Civilians are the driving force behind war. Their experiences with violence would have no effect on their ability to hate another group of people, so I completely disagree with that last sentence. In fact, there is evidence that exposure to violence could make an individual more prone to violence.

Originally Posted by stonedape

If it is the case that we would seek out war regardless of it's necessity, than why are not all societies violent? Why is it that some cultures have been able to exist peacefully while others haven't?

I really don't think you want to go down that road with me again. Show me a society that had no form of warfare that wasn't abnormally small or completely isolated. Even if a few isolated cultures were able to exist in relative peace, they are completely irrelevant to large countries who deal on a daily basis with other large countries. The world is obviously a little different today than it was in ancient history.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I think this is because of the people who occupy positions of power in these societies. In our society the republicans and democrats, two groups of people who support governing by force, have a stranglehold on power. They have basically rigged the system so that only those two agendas can be furthered. Until this system is broken by some means we will have a violent government.

That is a totally superficial way of looking at it. Once we break the republican-democrat dichotomy, then what? How would that affect our foreign policy? What makes you think the new political system wouldn't be as equally toxic? No other country has republicans or democrats, but they still participate in war.