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.
Thank you for the excellent dissenting opinion. I agree with quite a bit of what you said, but I'll really quickly pick out a few points. I'm going to copy and paste them because I always spend almost as long on formatting quotes as I do typing if I do it that way.
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".
There was an infantry patrol that had received fire recently. The helicopter pilot spots a group of men carrying items which are admitably hard to distinguish through a camera. They are actually cameras on shoulder straps and briefcases which were mistaken for weapons. They open fire on these men after receiving permission from someone who can't see these people who is likely a few miles away. Despite not being able to clearly identify the items. This was an honest mistake, and as such it probably wouldn't have ruined any careers. The mistake was in keeping it from the people. Are we so weak that we can not handle the fact "War is Hell?" If the military had released it on their own, and said, sorry guys we screwed up and we'll try not to do it again, I for one would have been, meh, war is hell and this happens, and they are trying to do the best they can. That's not what I'm arguing about. The thing I am arguing is the fact that "War is Hell" does not give anyone the right to make it look anything but what it is.
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...
If my screwup involved people's deaths, and it was caught on camera, yes, I believe people should know of what I did. Also, the Japanese example is a bit different, as there were no enemy combatants anywhere visible at any time on the video. All that was known is that in the prior half hour a foot patrol was fired upon from the vicinity, and the Apache crew fired upon the wrong group of people in what appears to be an honest mistake. Saying war is hell is a fine truth, but should that fact be used as an excuse for every death, mistake or not? Should that fact encourage us to allow ourselves to do nothing when things like this happen, or would we rather be well informed as to the bad, as well as the good they trumpet whenever they can find it? Also, I believe the way the "powers that be" are doing wrong in this is the very fact we are still there, influencing people who live on the other side of globe from our own homes. We do a lot of positive things, don't get me wrong, but all the electricity in the world won't make up for a dead son or father. At least until we have robots that you can cram the deceased's brains into.
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.
The points about not wanting to bring up the issue of military action before the American public are good ones, as well as the military being made up of citizens who likely have the qualities mentioned. I'm not suggesting we put entering into war to a vote or something like that. Like you said, that would probably be a bad idea. HOWEVER, what I think is that if bad things happen in the war we are supposed to be supporting, we should be allowed to know about it. Sure, it means people won't support an unnecessary war. That would be the point and sems to me to be a very good thing for everyone but the war material companies. People during World War 2 listened and read from the war correspondents of the horrors of war, and they didn't quit because it seemed important to them to continue the war effort. All I'm asking is the ability to make the same decisions. As for individuals in the military : the problem is that it's a job, and that you can be "fired" or at least treated very poorly if you break the mold they set. The PFC in the story is a good example I think. I agree that if he could have gone to his superiors about the incident, he should have. The problem is I can't think of a logical reason why he wouldn't if that would have been possible; with the consequences being what they are.
The point about the video is moot, I think. The worst the enemy can see is how quality (which doesn't seem to be too high, but then again they were probably a mile away) the gun cameras are, as you can't see anything attached to the helicopter. Theoretically they could figure out how fast the gunship was moving at the time, and perhaps use the recoil shake on the camera in some nefarious plot involving the amount of recoil on an Apache's 20mm cannon (I think that's what they are armed with)
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 agree with the theory of your post, but the problem is this is more than one soldier. This is whether the system wherein any soldier in the army can report wrongdoing to his superiors and have them take actions to correct it, is working or not. If the PFC feels the need to break the law and compromise his future because he feels he is witnessing terrible things done and he can't go to the ONLY people he is lawfully allowed to contact with the issues, then isn't the system broken, even if theoretically only within the chain of command as high as he is allowed to contact? Also, I agree on your point about Israel. I understand they are between a rock and a hard place, so they have my support simply because the world will have to live with the decisions made fifty years ago, as it always has and will. The problem is they've been whacking the beehive for as long as I can remember and they will either kill the bees or be stung. Possibly both. With a little help to the bees, they could be making honey, and make even more if they give them a place to live that benefits both parties. What they need is to encourage industry to develop and get the Palestinian economy going. The way it is, they are treating them the same way the American Indian was treated.
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.
I would say all politicians are "fake." They won't even swear around voters, gosh darn it. Also, politicians are power hungry, otherwise they wouldn't be politicians. The issue I think that is more important than the fact that they are power hungry, is the reason BEHIND why they are power hungry, or rather what they hope to do with the power. Is it to do good for the world and ensure a positive place in history with a marble shrine in D.C., or to make your pals a whole lot of money? If you can enlighten me on Mrs. Clinton I'd be happy to read it.
That was more or less our previous attitude before 9/11. After all, what could mere people do when you underestimate them?
I'm not saying we underestimate their ability to attack the U.S. I'm saying we focus on defense, instead of causing the same troubles in other countries that we would like to avoid in our own, while inflicting the same feelings against our own country that we all felt on 9/11 for the terrorists.
Because there's evidence that they were shipped to Syria/Lebanon.
Links? I never heard that and I've tried to fairly up to date on current events since these wars started. Not doubting you, I'd just like to read it myself.
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.
I could be wrong as well. I know we've been pretty successful in thwarting most. Although there were a couple of airline bombers who failed Bomb Making 101 that they wouldn't have caught. Also, wasn't there a bombing in London after 9/11 now that I think about it? Thanks for point that out.
Sadly, that's the absolute truth of every war.
Right. So let us view what happens in our wars so that we are encouraged to make a decision whether it is worth fighting or not, instead of being asked to blindly support such things as what we are involved in right now. Perhaps one day it will shorten a war.
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.
Well, I was referring to a World War III type situation, where two or more sides with heavily industrialization on both sides, do their damndest to put that industry out of operation. That wasn't neccessary because we basically can blitzkrieg these smaller countries to the point where it would be counter productive to destroy the territory we seize. For instance, if I remember correctly the Germans hardly damaged French infrastructure during the blitzkrieg. What I propose is that if a country requires a regime change, like Iraq probably did, that you simply get right the hell out after taking it down and disarming them to the best of your ability. If it reforms, who cares, their forces are absolutely wrecked and it should deter them for the next ten years or so. If they go into a civil war, well... I hesitate to say let them, but I wonder if leaving them to their own affairs might not be a better option than occupation. This would also keep the "playing pancake" as you put it to a minimum.
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.
This plays directly into my argument above. There is no need for an occupation for this to be effective.
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.
Oh, I understand perfectly. It was a very well done post, good sir, and I appreciate being able to hear an excellently composed and thought out opposing argument. My post was meant in the same fashion.
Author
Topic: U.S. Soldier who leaked war video + other documents charged (Read 6744 times)