No announcement yet.

PFC Bradley Manning: I hate this guy

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Stickybomb View Post
    Anyways, I think that hunt for Osama should be more of a black ops operation, not open war.
    You do realize we got Osama bin Laden, right? Hollywood has literally already made the film, it's available on DVD and Blu-ray.
    Consider for a moment that there is no meme about brown-haired, brown-eyed step children.


      O-zombie? Saw that documentary's review..


        Apparently Osama wasn't the one living in a cave.


 long as the cave has internet and is cosy :-)

          Don0t take it too personal I know I don't know much and am pretty far away being fed scrubs from the media (like pretty much all). But hey t3h freedomz of speech and exchanging opinions perhaps make Johnny a bit smarter sometimes.
          Also there is possible to see more from a distance sometimes (not necessarily this case)
          Last edited by Stickybomb; 6/13/2013 4:56pm, .


            Originally posted by submessenger View Post
            His question is not relevant to this discussion; it shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter.
            His question was valid, his example maybe a bit over the top. Still, the fact remains that "I just followed orders" is a very poor defense, ethically and juristically. If the example of Eichmann is too extreme, think of war criminals in Serbia, Egypt, Libya or elsewhere.

            In the end the juristical questions have to be sorted out by a fair trial (which will not happen), while the ethical question should be if the ends of Mannings actions justify the means.

            It should not be forgotten that in the wake of Brannings leaks, public attention was forced on warcrimes, deathlists ("terror-tuesday"), massive disregard of civillian life and other actrocities that would have been kept secret if Manning and those unidentified whistleblowers that followed his example kept quiet.

            Furthermore, he did not have legal alternatives; going by chain of command is useless when warcrimes are ordered from the top of the chain.

            And I'd say that this legitimates Mannings actions. The lives of innocent men, women and children (or "enemy combattants", as those being responsible are calling the dead children who were in the general vincinity of the killed terror-suspects) should be important enough.

            Or, to take a more specific example, what is the greater crime: Manning's whistleblowing or the murder of a 16-year-old US-citizen who was killed because his father was the host of a antiamerican radio show at the end of the world (Yemen)?

            Still, Manning gets torture while Obama gets a Nobel-Peace-Prize. Strange world.

            one source for last example:
            Last edited by nils; 6/13/2013 5:16pm, .


              Originally posted by nils View Post
              His question was valid, his example maybe a bit over the top. Still, the fact remains that "I just followed orders" is a very poor defense, ethically and juristically. If the example of Eichmann is too extreme, think of war criminals in Serbia, Egypt, Libya or elsewhere.
              Let's consider the original quote:
              There's a significant difference between failing to follow an order and violating several laws. Your argument is irrelevant.
              You're arguing that a soldier should break orders he finds unjust. You are arguing this against submessenger, who said the above, which is different than what you're arguing. Thus his irrelevance claim.


                Just so we're clear, here, Manning's charges are not "failure to follow orders." He has been charged under Article 92, "failure to follow a lawful order," among other things.

                The presumption, there, is that any orders he disobeyed were lawful, legal, and appropriate (apologies for redundancy). Since everything he did was in secret - that is, he wasn't directly ordered by a superior officer to NOT disclose information that he illegally obtained - any discussion related to orders pretty much falls flat on its face. The "orders," he broke were, by and large, laws and standing orders. In other words, the Supreme Court will probably not be hearing his case, because in ANY other context, the same wrongdoings by a different individual would be a slam-dunk by the prosecution.

                Manning is not a hero by ANY stretch. He is a very disturbed individual that, for some reason of incompetence or another, was allowed to continue in his duties and/or with clearance which allowed him to continue to break the law, to the detriment of the United States.
                Consider for a moment that there is no meme about brown-haired, brown-eyed step children.


                  Originally posted by Stickybomb View Post
                  Because sometimes when you read, watch videos and talk to people, you get the impression that situation is as chaotic as in the movie Jarhead - sorry for a better example.
                  Sometimes a man can get the impression that there is far too much friendly fire incidents, that the army is full of young confused people and social rejects who shoot criss-cross on everything preferably while being safely canned in an Abrams, and blasting loud music, that there are many things that are just swept under the rug and that foreign troops who work with that army do not have the best opinion about it's professionalism.
                  I totally hope these impressions are wrong and that it's really just about a few excesses, which happen in every war (but should be punished none the less)
                  ...'swept under the carpet' etc.

                  "Discipline". Now, there's a word that has much resonance in Military Matters. It can mean an ability to accept (lawful) Orders from superiors, whether it be Officers or NCOs. The ability to put them into effect. The ability to suffer provocation and not react to the same. Provocations can be verbal or physical or outright dangerous. The military practise these sort of things regularly, especially before Deployment. For example, re Civil Disorder, they may only have plastic shields yet be subject to bricks, stones, petrol bombs etc.

                  Royal Military Police. Special Investigation Branch. Now, the US will their equivalents.

                  Regimental Police. These will be battalion nominated and will impose Discipline, they are NOT RMP. No unit wants THEM involved if they can avoid hence Regimental Police will look to provide a visible reminder to soldiers against major misbehaviour (which would certainly draw in the professional RMP/SIB).

                  Now, why mention this Policing element? Well, because if you train men to prepare for Combat and give them the Weaponry to do so, you want to make sure that they don't go off the rails and behave in an illegal manner by targeting Non-Combatants (Robbery, Assault, Rape, Murder etc).

                  The Military produce Doctrine that covers: Rules of Engagement; the treatment of Surrendered Enemy Personnel (that's the terminology, POWs is the old shorthand). So, there is a Legal Framework and all underpinned by, say, Queens' Regulations (QRs) in the British Military and this will be true for all National professional military organisations.

                  Elite Regiments have often standards that are difficult to attain without great effort. The soldiery will defend them and want those who wish to join their Professional Family (Battalion/Regiment) to meet them as the price of admittance. One takes on the mores of such elites if one is to be a serving member. For example, in martial arts, a Black Belt signifies such virtues as Knowledge, Understanding, Technical Ability, Skill, Clean Gi, Medical training, Insurance Coverage, etc etc.

                  Reputations are hard-won and are built up by 'honourable' actions, accountability and Time. Reputations can be lost overnight - and taint everyone in the process. To avoid this, you need to filter and remove those without the Aptitude, Ability but also those with a questionable moral compass - and the psychopaths. Some would say, especially the psychopaths.

                  Food for thought: Consider how My Lai became public knowledge.

                  Re Iraq: We've all seen the video from the helicopter targeting Iraqi men - amongst whom was a Reuters cameraman. We've heard the exultant whoops of joy from the remote keyboard soldiers. Now, I stand to be corrected on this but I think that those targeted were not actually 'Terrorists' moreover I think they have have been unarmed. Be that as it may - there have been illegal actions by mil personnel in Iraq and some took a long time to come out. 'Cover ups' can take place but, really, the victims will always been known of and it may become 'local knowledge of what Coalition Forces did and how they behaved and hence Reputations (and Confidence) are easily lost.

                  I'll stop there. Just my 2bob.



                  Edit this module to specify a template to display.