What are Bay12's thoughts on this issue? I feel that if the powers that be are doing wrong, then individuals stepping up in such a way are a necessity to prevent the abuse of power and that this issue needs to be DIRECTLY in the public's view lest we forgo any more of our already extremely limited ability to influence our country's use of armed forces, which exist (or should exist anyways) only as a way to defend our people and not as a tool for rich men to control resource wealthy countries.
How were "the powers that be... doing wrong"? I don't have the luxury of viewing the video for the time being, but I did read up on what it was about: Apache helicopter team(s) gun down unarmed civilians, wounding children in the process. From what I read, it seems that the targets were not civilians, though there were civilians nearby and were wounded/killed. Although it is a very sad instance, it's certainly not a major screw-up, and shows little else other than the Apache team(s) not having enough information or specific orders to limit civilian casualties. The "rich men" controlling countries statement seems quite unfounded. The American military does have a mind of its own, and though soldiers do follow orders, overall it's certainly not a "tool".
I haven't seen any evidence yet that he leaked things particularly important to National Security, or more importantly my family's security; but rather things relating to the ability of the military and government to operate without the input of honest, interested, and concerned citizens.
Probably in the other documents, although releasing footage taped from an Apache helicopter could be problematic in and of itself. I'm not sure about our declassification of the Apache's various systems, but we have a policy of not giving the enemy anything they can use against us. Again, didn't see the video, which would probably help me give some credit to that statement, but.. meh. As for the military operating without the input of honest, interested, and concerned citizens, you forget that U.S. soldiers are citizens of the United States, many of which have those qualities. If you suggest that we have every operation or whatnot first brought up to the American people... It's just not a situation I want to argue, because it's a horrible idea for what should be very obvious reasons, so I hope you're not suggesting that. I didn't include the government in that statement because the government does not have a direct hand in military operations; historically, politicians that focus on politics tend to mess up war efforts when they start meddling.
Then again, I have no idea what was in the other documents he leaked and likely never will if the government has it's way, but I still cannot fathom how hiding such things as a video of the massacre of unarmed journalists and the family who were brave enough to assist gravely wounded human beings is preferable to the public knowing about it, unless they fear to lose some control over us civilians.
Perhaps they don't want to air an operational screw-up on national/international television/other media? Would you like to view a camera aimed down the nozzle of a flamethrower as a U.S. marine ignites a Japanese squad in a bunker holding a woman hostage, then watching as the flames die down to see scorched human remains? Would you like to view a three hour movie of someone taking a test with a spectacular ending of the test-taker getting an 'F'? Would you like others to view an embarrassing moment in your life that wouldn't really change anything except make people laugh at you? Think about what your statements are asking...
This makes me question why both Republican and Democrat politicians have so far refused to comment on the issue as far as I know. (please post links if you have them) It seems Democrat's support of human rights, and the Republican's support of a less powerful government would render the issue debatable, yet I wonder if they don't discuss it because it would weaken their ability to do whatever they want without telling us.
I don't think the issue is important enough for politicians to comment. There's a chain of command, and somewhere along there the actions of individual soldiers aren't exactly important for government officials at the top to go "Okay, attention everyone: On this day, this month, this year, these soldiers screwed up, and these are the immediate officers responsible for them. That is all."
I personally wonder why the (albeit stereotypical) Jewish-dominated news outlets are doing their best to ignore the elephant in the room of the middle east that is Israel. Oh, hai thur, reason that the middle east doesn't particularly like us, what with the sponsorship of forming the state of Isreal in Islamic holy land...
I sometimes wonder if Mr. Obama's presidency was masterminded by the same people causing trouble in the world for money, but I suppose that's being too paranoid. I had my suspicions that it was bad news when he came out of no where with very limited experience to beat Clinton in the Democratic primary. My last and greatest hope for Obama is that he can get us out of these two wars of occupation without starting a new one or being dragged into another country's war. My fear for him is that the military's high brass are as corruptible as any other person and that he doesn't have enough experience to feel confidant in overriding them even if he may be correct to do so.
This entire paragraph seems a bit much like too much conspiracy if you ask me. I also think that Obama was a far better choice than Clinton, though I like neither, it's just that Clinton is so obviously fake, and seemingly power-hungry. I can site instances that follow along with the "obviously fake", so it's not necessarily bias on my end. I mainly just wanted to point out that you want us to get out of the wars of occupation without another one, but later you post that you want something done about Iran.
Anyways, my guess is that they will declare a blanket of secrecy over the entire trial to protect National Security. More like they are protecting their job security. I still have yet to feel my family's security is threatened by Afghani's in Afghanistan armed with AK47's and RPGs.
That was more or less our previous attitude before 9/11. After all, what could mere people do when you underestimate them?
If they have weapons of mass destruction, its another story, but there are none that we know of in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Because there's evidence that they were shipped to Syria/Lebanon.
The Western governments have been successful in preventing most if not all terrorist attacks since 9/11, thwarting attempts that originate from countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is an exception, but there are other threads for that with mixed opinions and I'd prefer not to drag that into this discussion.
I think you seem to forget a nasty series that popped up in Europe, though I'm not 100% sure if they were from groups that originated in the middle east, so you could be right.
Instead there would be many thousands of crispy civilians and millions of young men dead who could have been doctors or engineers or farmers;
Sadly, that's the absolute truth of every war.
Entire cities were destroyed in WW2; thinking that people would be behave in a more civilized manner in the era of the guided missile with which you don't even have to risk aircrews to ruin your enemy's civilian population is somewhat naive in my opinion.
Not at all. Think about it: The United States has such overwhelming firepower, resources, and technology compared to opposition in the middle east, but we are NOT using it. Instead, we are acting all nice and sweet and playing the opposition's game. We carpet bombed the 'evil' German populace of Berlin until the entire city was ash, we laid waste to two Japanese population centers, but when surgical missile strikes accidentally wound/injure 'civilians' at a wedding in a town dominated by terrorist forces, civilians who support and supply said terrorist, we get an instant media backlash. I would prefer using absolute, overwhelming force to rob the enemy of its will to fight, or destroy them to the point of surrender, rather than having American and Coalition casualties as we try to play pancake with the populace and go to a high school dance with the enemy.
This is even with conventional warheads, rather then those blasphemous (against mankind) biological concoctions governments spend so much on to have even more ways to eliminate the entire human race if they can not control their section of it.
Peace through intimidation. We have (more or less) a policy of "We won't if you won't." The technology is out there whether you like it or not, it's best if we had it, and the best of it at that, rather than anyone down the road that want's to pick a fight. Remember, martial arts are traditionally taught as a self-defense art.
Just to avoid a potential shitstorm that has happened elsewhere, I just want to say that in no way is my tone in my post meant to be hurtful. The general tone is of polite opposition to your statements, with sarcasm laced in for humor.
He should be tried in a court of military justice.
I whole-heartedly agreed. He disobeyed orders, and should be made example of for doing so. If it turns out he was more righteous in his cause than apparent, then perhaps a pardon should be granted in the future, but in my eyes he is a criminal.
Author
Topic: U.S. Soldier who leaked war video + other documents charged (Read 6715 times)