38 votes

(Updated) Bradley Manning Sentenced: 35 Years—Will seek pardon from Obama


REUTERS/Gary Cameron

RT.com:

********************

UPDATE:

Manning to ask Obama for pardon, [ready to] pay ‘high price’ if not granted

Bradley Manning’s defense team will file a pardon request to US president Barack Obama early next week, or will ask to commute the Private’s sentence.

“Early next week I will file a request to the President for the pardon of Private Manning, or at least [ask to] commute his sentence,” Manning’s lead attorney, David Coombs, said during a Wednesday news conference.

http://rt.com/usa/bradley-manning-obama-pardon-805/

********************

A US military judge has sentenced Army Pfc. Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison. Manning faced up to 90 years behind bars, while prosecutors sought to put the whistleblower away for a minimum of six decades.

Manning will be credited with the 1,294 days he spent in pre-trial confinement plus an additional 112 days. He was also dishonorably discharged, saw a reduction in rank and was forced to forfeit all pay and benefits. No additional fine, however, were levied against him.

Col. Denise Lind, who on Tuesday began her deliberations in the court-martial case, said she would announce the first sentence for Manning on Wednesday at 10am local time (14:00 GMT). Wednesday’s sentence will be for the army private’s disclosure of classified information through the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

http://rt.com/usa/manning-sentence-years-jail-785/




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

Fine with me. So, what?

I don't care much about what Rand may think of Manning's fate.

Or about what anybody else thinks of it, for that matter.

I can think by myself, thank you.

If you (or Rand, or Joe Shmoe, or...) think the treatment of Bradley Manning isn't wrong, factually, I beg to differ.

And that is all. I don't give a crap into ideologies or parties.

I had my dose already. Double dose, actually.

Cheers,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

How can you think for

How can you think for yourself when you don't have any relevant first-hand knowledge or experience?

Cyril's picture

Clue time.

You're embarrassing yourself.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

How so? Everybody with

How so? Everybody with relevant knowledge says you are wrong, but you "don't care what they think." I bet you're a 911 truther too, amiwrong? Listen to alex jones?

Cyril's picture

Yes, I happen to watch Alex Jones' stuff once in a while.

Yes, I happen to watch Alex Jones' stuff once in a while.

And, see! I can even reply to your comments!

Agreed, if that's not crazy from me, I have no clue what could ever be?!

Now, farewell.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Well, there we have it

Thank you for revealing your true intentions here today.



"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Let me get this straight -

Let me get this straight - anybody who disagrees with you is a troll? This is your definition? I've asked a perfectly legitimate question. You cheer Manning's criminal actions. You laud him a hero, yada, yada. Ok, so why aren't you doing the same as him then? Are you going to do anything to truly support him or what he did? I guess the answer is no, you're not going to do anything, and knowing the hypocrisy of this you respond with a personal attack rather than addressing the issue.

troll troll troll...

Yes, you are a troll and a bad one at that.

What did Manning do to you as a person to create such hatred from you?

I don't glorify him, but I also don't tear him down. I am pretty much neutral on the topic, and that's not because I think he did a bad thing. He did what he felt was right. He took a stand and is now paying a very dear price for it.

Flip your question around. What are you doing to make the world a better place?

Please, enlighten us.

Silly Troll

What you fail to understand is that the way YOU are choosing to have a "conversation" is so beneath me that I could not tell you with complete certainty of the amount of Sh*t I Do Not Give about you and your hateful, disrespectful verbal vomiting you are spewing here. Everything coming out of your mouth and onto these pages is attracting flies, so unless you genuinely want to have a respectful conversation rather than just sitting there hitting 'Refresh' on this thread so you can ready your cut n' paste substance-less remarks, I have zero interest in feeding you any longer.

Ok, just one more little snack as a show of my kindness but that's it:

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

-1 from me

For being a D-bag and a troll

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

Seconded !

.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

A troll? What is the point

A troll? What is the point of comments if not to opine? I'm asking a legitimate question. You cheer manning on the internet, but what are you going to actually do? I don't see any of you putting your money where your mouths are.

Yes. A troll

I'm curious, do you intend to visit Manning in prison? Send him cookies? Where is your criminal act, I mean act of "civil disobedience", following his great example?

Where's your's? I get the feeling you are trolling. You're looking to get a rise out of people.

You people (collectivist statement) cheering Manning, you're all cowards and hypocrites(Sweeping Generalization). You talk a big game but I don't see any of you actually doing anything. Shouldn't you be spray painting the IRS building or something?

I don't think spray painting government buildings is a good means of spreading the message of liberty. It might be attention grabbing, but an excuse for the msm to associate the rest of us with "vandals".

And that's what's truly funny about all this. When stuff truly does cross that line in the sand you'll all be begging the veterans to take up arms and save your whiny butts.

Another collectivist and sweeping statement...

A troll? What is the point of comments if not to opine? I'm asking a legitimate question. You cheer manning on the internet, but what are you going to actually do? I don't see any of you putting your money where your mouths are.

You are not adding anything to the conversation except trolling. You are not really "opining". You're playing the role of an anti-Manning attack dog. "All you people who blah blah are blah blah! What are you actually going to do, blah blah." Why don't you tell us what you WANT us to do, because you ask a very broad question...

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

Insane World

Our world is completely upside down. It is hard to even comprehend how f'd up things have become.

beephree

You guys are making one miscalculation in your math...

Maybe when the prison presses, uh "printing presses" stop running there won't be enough money to keep him locked up. There is already a full court press to release prisoners for lack of funds.

I am not so sure Big Brother wants to keep feeding and housing all of the prisoners they already have let alone keep more.

Time will surely tell I suppose...

http://www.waka.com/home/top-stories/State-Prison-Commission...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/lacking-funds-oregon-j...

http://rt.com/usa/ice-immigrant-illegal-prison-495/

http://kfor.com/2012/05/25/lack-of-funding-hurting-state-pri...

Huh?

What war crimes? Manning didn't "expose" anything. He took a hoard of documents he hadn't read and didn't understand and puked them out on the internet. Reckless. He's lucky nobody got killed as a result.

What a Troll....


Manning released a Video showing U.S. Soldiers gleefully slaughtering totally innocent civilians and reporters (War Crimes).

He didn't endanger anything except for the fiction and brainwashing that blinds Americans about our corrupt, immoral, and treacherous our "Foreign Policy" is (which is based upon the perpetration of mass murder as the remedy for nearly everything).


Nonsensical remark. You are

Nonsensical remark. You are taking a narrow-scope video out of context, and this has been debunked and explained several times over. Those pilots didn't do anything wrong. Yes, they were callous about their jobs, welcome to the world of men. Have you ever been in a locker room before? Or are you some frail skinny thing that got picked on in school with gender confusion like Manning? Find any group of guys, fire fighters, police, athletes, even engineers in a city of cubicles, and you'll find this type of mindset and language.

Men in the military are trained to do a very hard thing and they wouldn't be able to do it effectively if they were ridden with this awful sense of guilt. It is what it is. The men that fought in the American Revolution or the Civil War were no different. That is the nature of war. You are a hypocrite. You celebrate the carnage of wars you agree with but call these guys "criminals" because you happen to disagree with the war? And this is why so many conservatives don't take the "paulians" seriously.

As for them being "civilians," that point is in dispute. They may have made a mistake, but they were operating on orders. Those orders may have been wrong, based on bad intel, but that isn't the fault of the pilots. War is not a perfect thing. People are not perfect, mistakes are made. Those pilots were operating in a very dangerous environment. Their ROEs were already pretty darn strict, frankly the strictest of any war known in history, but their priority is to save American lives not Iraqis. They assess threats and respond based on the information that is available to them. This is where context matters. What the video doesn't show is everything else that was happening around them - for years.

If you want to say the war is stupid and a waste of money and whatnot, I agree with you. But please don't distort reality. Those pilots did nothing wrong. You should feel sorry for them that they are forced in such a situation. Trained for years to kill people from the air. Sent to a war they may not agree with or understand. Put in a dangerous environment and given restrictive ROEs that make their job very difficult, and then potentially hung out to dry when they do exactly what they were trained and ordered to do. Men in the military live in fear of doing their jobs - I know, I've experienced it - we fear some video getting out and being prosecuted for simply defending ourselves. When I was in Afghanistan I didn't agree with most of what was going on, but I had a duty, a duty to the guy next to me. We didn't care about the politics of why we were here, we cared about helping each other get through this awful thing.

You can seek to justify murder all you want but at the end of

the day murder is murder. If there is one constant throughout history it is empires rise and empires fall. It is a gravity of human nature. That which is propelled upward using force must come down. There are a whole lot of other wise sayings. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The sins of fathers are visited upon their children. What comes around goes around.

The same Americans who declared all men are free condoned slavery and persecuted native peoples. The same Americans who declared all men are free declared a civil war on their brothers and sisters. I don't think it is a coincidence at all that the concept of person hood used to legally justify slavery or persecute native aliens has been used to economically enslave American posterity. There was no such thing as federal citizenship prior to the Civil War. Following the war one form of property, slaves, were converted to a different form of property, federally protected United States citizens. As the privileges and benefits of this protected class of federal property has been expanded people have voluntarily chosen to operate as United States persons instead of using capacities as free men and women recognized by natural birth. In the 150 years since the Civil War have the American people addressed the injustice of second class federal citizenship? No. Now everyone is beholden to an over reaching federal government, many don't understand how it happened, and I think it is just. The sins of the fathers have been visited on posterity.

One day, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not ten years from, and maybe not fifty years from now ... but some day there will be foreign initiated hostilities on American soil. It will be a pre-emptive war of aggression, there will be many war crimes, atrocities will be visited upon the posterity, and it will be just. What goes around, comes around.

You made a big todo about duties, obligations, and following orders. Free men have a fundamental duty and obligation to recognize the difference between an unjust war of aggression and a war of self defense. Free men have a fundamental duty and obligation to not blindly follow orders in ignorance and resist immoral, unjust orders.

Don't take anything herein personal. We are all born ignorant and our fathers don't like to tell us any dirty secrets of their sins similar to the movie Godfather. Nor are the cycles of human ignorance or violence anything new. I suspect they will continue repeating themselves as long as the human race exists but that doesn't alleviate any duty or obligation of a free man to act responsibly.

If a police officer shoots

If a police officer shoots and kills a kid with a toy gun in the course of duty, is that murder? No, it's a tragic accident, brought together by a whole bunch of different things. The officer walks around on constant edge because of our modern culture. There are gangs running around shooting cops. They are fearful for their own lives. The kid is taught to disrespect the police and other forms of authority. A lot of "wrongs" can be pointed at that led to the incident, none of them the fault of the officer. He's doing the best he can in a sorry situation.

This tripe about empires rising and falling. Ok, great, what does that have to do with the fact than Manning didn't "expose" any crimes?

You bring up slavery, again, what does this have to do with anything? You're making my point for me. Was it "wrong" for the American settlers to push against the native Americans? Not just no, but HELL NO. This is how the world turns, son. You plant your flag and you defend it with your blood. The native americans had no more "right" to that land than anybody else on the face of the earth. If my options are live as a slave to the British King or conquer the American frontier, I choose conquer the frontier. The indians could have happily shared the land, and some of them did, but most didn't. They were a savage, ignorant, war-like people spread out among hundreds of different tribes that constantly fought among themselves. They didn't play nice with their white neighbors, so they got beat down. Boo hoo.

You talk about slaves, again a different subject, and one where the context is distorted. The modern perception of slavery is not really how things were. I'm not saying it was a good thing, not saying bad things didn't happen, I'm just saying you have to put things in the proper context. Not all cultures are the same. Slavery is in the bible. There are prophets of old who were supposedly near-perfect men who had slaves. In the context of our modern American culture slavery is an evil comparable with Hitler, in the context of the 1700s and 1800s though that's not how things were. The fact that some of the founders had some slaves doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are plenty of "free" people today who exist in far worse circumstances than slaves back then.

"Free men have a fundamental duty and obligation to recognize the difference between an unjust war of aggression and a war of self defense"

What is this self-righteous banter supposed to mean? Take a moment and look around - not very many people agree with you. Show me a combat veteran who thinks Manning is a hero. The only people cheering him are people like you, kids on the internet that have no grasp on the real world in which we live. Just like Manning, you have zero regard for or comprehension of the potential consequences of what he did. Should police officers only enforce the laws they personally agree with? When you signup for the military you are agreeing to do your country's bidding, not only when you "agree" with it. And as for whether the war is just, well, much debate can be had there. It's not a black and white thing.

If the point of any

long winded self righteous banter wasn't clear it was to illustrate bad actions have consequences irregardless of any legal or other arbitrary justification. Those consequences may not manifest immediately but history has clearly shown there are eventually consequences.

As free men and women we can recognize this and act accordingly or (using one of those self righteous phrases of wisdom) perish due to our own lack of knowledge.

Care to translate that into

Care to translate that into English?

"history has clearly shown there are eventually consequences"

What does that mean? Stay on topic. Manning either exposed criminal acts or he didn't. Nothing you have said is relevant to that discussion.

Your reading

comprehension is not my problem.

He clearly uncovered at least one act involving wrong doing. Which is not verified by any individual opinion I possess but it is clearly verified by many media publications without redaction titled:

"Bradley Manning Uncovered U.S. Torture, Abuse, Soldiers Laughing As They Killed Innocent Civilians"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/bradley-manning-lea...

History Will Pardon Manning, Even If Obama Doesn't
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/08/hi...

'Ha ha, I hit 'em': Top secret video showing U.S. helicopter pilots gunning down 12 civilians in Baghdad attack leaked online

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263822/WikiLeaks-vi...

Leaked U.S. video shows deaths of Reuters' Iraqi staffers
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journa...

and hundreds if not thousands of similar news articles. It is further verified by the millions of comments on youtube, facebook, news sites, and forums all over the internet discussing the video. Any claim or inference the vast majority of people who watched the video were not outraged or shocked by what they seen is ludicrous. The evidence wrong doing of something exists by the millions, possibly billions of comments all over the internet is irrefutable.

You try to justify wrong doing with some absurd claim the environment warrants such action. I am happy to report millions of people disagree with you. I am happy knowing millions of people deem what they seen as the murder of innocent civilians. I am happy Bradley Manning had the moral courage to give the video to wikileaks.

I can't speak to all of the other documents but I can comment on some other documents wiki leaks has obtained such as cables from a U.S. Ambassador to Iraq verifying former administration officials plainly lied.

Nor do I have any specific comments about the trial or any legal justifications of a tribunal devoid of moral obligations.

I can also say the world is changing. 35 years is a long time and it will dam sure be a measure used against officials who are convicted of wrong doing in the future and if you think the American people are going to keep tolerating wrong doing by officials ... look around. Government trust is at an all time low and trust is the only real currency government possesses.

Don't worry about what I think or whether it is relevant. I am presently in a minority. However since bad actions have consequences I am 100% confident I will eventually be a majority whether I live to see it or not. I will patiently wait until the time is right but woe to thieves and murderers when that day comes. They will get everything they are due including a minimum of 35 years for intentionally keeping secret from the American people any official wrong doing. Since grace, mercy, and forgiveness have been absent from the official administration of justice it will also be absent when the American people administer justice against officials who have performed wrong doing.

Please calm down and take a

Please calm down and take a moment to read your own articles. All of those articles essentially say the exact same thing, and that is, they say nothing. Yes, a laundry list of various points of information that was in the material he released... Yes, obviously, there was information in those documents. He didn't release blank pages. Duh. But, and this is the point, NONE OF IT WAS A CRIME.

And frankly, none of it was really all that secret either. He didn't release anything that was all that "revealing."

I especially laugh at your first link, which reads, "They also showed that the U.S. routinely failed to investigate reports of prisoner abuse and summary execution by the Iraqi military."

Oh, I thought you were a non-interventionist? You're complaining that the US military didn't force itself on Iraqi military prison policy? Yeah, so I thought that link "revealed" torture. I didn't see any mention of the US military engaging in widespread torture.

You don't seem to understand the material he released yourself. And that's where it gets interesting, Manning didn't really know what he was releasing either, and this is the point. He hadn't read those 700,000+ documents. He literally had no idea what he was releasing. And it was the same for the video. He watched the video and was "horrified". Yeah, he's not an Apache pilot. He never saw combat in any form. He doesn't understand ROEs or the situation on the ground in Iraq, he wasn't privy to all the intelligence that led to this incident. He was a no-knowledge PFC that had access to a computer system just like millions of other servicemen with the same security clearance level. And the fact that all this information was readily available to someone like Manning should say something... about the nature of the government, which in of itself argues against you.

Yeah, there are thousands of articles talking about the documents Manning released. SO WHAT? None of them - NONE OF THEM - reveal any crimes committed by ANYONE.

There are thousands of articles talking about Clinton getting a blow job too. And thousands of articles about Ron Paul being a nut case. Don't believe the opinions of every talking head on the internet.

Millions of people online disagree with me? Great, what percent of people in the USA have served in the military? And then what % of those have actually been to Afghanistan? And then what % of those have actually been in combat? Yeah, we're a pretty small group of people, the fact that a million nobodies surfing the web are horrified by an out-of-context video doesn't really bother me. Millions of people think 911 was an inside job. Millions of people thought the world was going to end in 2000, and then again in 2012. Millions of people think Obama is a Muslim. Millions of people think Ron Paul is a pot smoking, nazi-loving jew hater. Would you like to brag more about what people on the internet think?

You asked if

Manning either exposed criminal acts or he didn't.

It is clear he exposed at least one instance of wrong doing. If the question is did he expose anything then clearly he did and anything you have to say about other documents is irrelevant. I already made it perfectly clear I am not commenting to argue the trial, tribunal, or all of the documents.

"Yeah, we're a pretty small group of people, the fact that a million nobodies surfing the web are horrified by an out-of-context video doesn't really bother me ... "

I love a little pride and arrogance. It is my favorite vanity and I have been guilty of it on many occasions. You know what they say ... pride goeth before the fall and it sure does. I sure as hell am not going to begrudge you for something I am guilty of but that whole nobody attitude will get you nowhere fast. Like the rest of veterans you will discover that once your military career ends decorations mean little and you will be relying upon some of those alleged nobodies, directly or indirectly, for your very existence because no one is 100% self sufficient.

It may very well be true millions of people hold irrational beliefs. I have at times held irrational beliefs and may still have irrational beliefs. Who am I to begrudge people because they are born ignorant, enrolled in public schools, and still ignorant upon graduation? I am not in control of nature to change any condition of birth nor am I in control of public education. However, I do boast about what people think all the time. When people demand a police state and get it I celebrate for everyone who gets to experience first hand any tyranny that has been demanded. When they demand a central banking cartel to place them in a position of indebtedness in order to transact commerce I celebrate for everyone who doesn't have a chair when the music stops. I am a huge fan of what millions of people think because when you get down to the brass tax of why any company stays in business or any government for that matter ... it all derives from what millions of people think.

So ya I will continue to brag about what people think irregardless of whether they are on the internet because if a vast majority of them start believing turds are divine miracles which should be celebrated, granted person hood, and appointed as wise overlords instead of flushing them ... I will be smelling the same shit along with everyone who demanded a bunch of glorified holy turds. You can also bet if that happened I would celebrate anytime someone gets a whiff of the shit.

Now you're changing from

Now you're changing from "crime" to "wrong doing". Moving the goal posts like a typical liberal. Explain to me, in a few words please, what it is the pilots did that was wrong?

What the Apache pilots did wasn't criminal. It was not against the law in any way, it was in accordance with their orders. Using callous language in the course of their job isn't a crime. Reactions to the video are purely emotional, based on the manner in which the pilots are speaking. Guys like Assange also edited the video, engaged in selective editing, adding commentary to change the meaning of the video, ASSuming things that aren't true. They slowed down sections showing the reuters pilots to make identification easier... yeah, well the pilots didn't have a "pause" setting. They were doing many things at once - like flying a helicopter. There are whole sections of the video that are gone, removed by Wikileaks, why? The video as is tells but a portion of the story and distorts even that small portion.

The pilots got permission before engaging any targets, and they had justifiable cause for doing so. And understanding that justifiable cause requires understanding the overall context of the environment they were in.

In 2007 how many helicopters were shot down by insurgents? Many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and...

At this time they were in the midst of a very bloody insurgency. Hundreds of people dying on a daily basis, and these were insurgent-caused casualties, not the US military. The US military was by and large a police force trying to keep the peace and prevent Iraqis from killing other Iraqis, with many Americans killed in the crossfire.

Why were the reporters in plain unmarked clothes running around with a band of heavily armed guys with RPGs and such? Who was this band of guys to begin with? Those questions still haven't been answered years later, btw. As the video shows, the group they were with was armed! This point is not in dispute. What were these guys doing, why were the reporters with them?

Baghdad was under martial law. This was 4 years into a very bloody war and they were in the middle of a severe insurgency at its peak. It was not common for a large group of guys to move around with weapons like this. The general public had been specifically told not to do such things. And this is the whole point of martial law... to make it easier for the military to identify and engage threats... to prevent innocent deaths.

The reporters were acting against guidance they had been given. Right before this incident the Apache had made contact with insurgents who had been wreaking havoc in this area. People were dying, helicopters were getting shot down, our troops were dying left and right on the ground. The Apache's were there to protect our ground troops first and foremost. In that environment the pilots saw what was very suspicious behavior. They had been called in response to attacks in the immediate area and they come across a group of armed guys. They were in an active environment, had to react quick or people could die, seconds count, and they made a call with the information they had.

Wikipedia has a pretty good rundown of the whole thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike

Did Manning's leak reveal any new information? Sure. We got some more details about what happened with the reuter's reporters. But, again, not a crime. An accident perhaps, but even that doesn't seem appropriate. Being intellectually honest, the reporters are largely to blame for their own deaths... as are the so-called innocent civilians for running around in a large group with weapons.

The revealed information raises just as many questions as it answers. Before the leaked info it was already public knowledge that the reporters died in an Apache attack. Nothing new there. Military openly acknowledged this. It gave some more details, but those details raise many questions. Why did they have RPGs???? Why did they have AKs? If they hadn't been with a group of armed guys in an area where there was active insurgent activity they wouldn't have been fired on. Perhaps nothing more than bad timing and bad luck. But nothing, nothing, about it suggests any criminal activity.

So, back to Manning, what did leaking this video achieve? NOTHING. All it did was generate some bad PR. At best it gave some idiots on the internet something to bitch about. At worst it inspired insurgents to fight harder and kill more people.

Now you are just diving off the deep end ...

"Using callous language in the course of their job isn't a crime. Reactions to the video are purely emotional, based on the manner in which the pilots are speaking."

I got a news flash for you. The only reason you do something is only known by you. In order to discern intent all one can observe is the means you employ. Kind of like the Zimmerman trial. Was it murder or self defense? What Zimmerman or Martin were thinking is unobservable. Only their actions can be observed. Of course callous language is not a crime but if you think one's actions do not evidence intent your crazy.

"The Apache's were there to protect our ground troops first and foremost."

The ground troops that took forever to arrive? Are those the ground troops in the immediate area you are referring too?

"As the video shows, the group they were with was armed!"

I find it hilarious you would opine speech is not a crime but infer being armed is a crime in and of itself. The hypocrisy is well illustrated.

"What were these guys doing, why were the reporters with them?"

Great question because it is plain as day what they weren't doing which was engaging in any hostilities which is the only thing a member of the armed services should be concerning themselves with to make any determinations regarding the use of deadly force when patrolling an area which is not a live combat zone. As a USMC veteran I am 100% confident service members receive instruction in the ethics of war:

• Marines fight only enemy combatants.
• Marines do not harm enemy soldiers who surrender. Marines disarm
enemy soldiers and turn them over to superiors.
• Marines do not torture or kill enemy prisoners of war or detainees.
• Marines collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.
• Marines do not attack medical or religious personnel, facilities or
equipment.
• Marines destroy no more than the mission requires.
• Marines treat all civilians humanely.
• Marines do not steal; they respect private property and possessions.
• Marines do their best to prevent violations of the Law of War, and
report all violations to their superiors.

I suggest you read the whole thing but check out page 23:

"Attacking individual civilians who are not actively engaged in
direct hostilities against friendly forces or the civilian population."

Marine Corps MCRP (Marine Corps Reference Publication) 4-11.8B, War Crimes
https://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usmc/mcrp4-11-8b.pdf

I don't care how you want to describe it because anyone who watches the video can plainly see deadly force is used against civilian persons not actively engaged in any hostilities. Furthermore when you consider the comments made in the video it does not put using deadly force on individuals not actively engaged as enemy combatants in a better light.

Furthermore if someone does not take ethics training regarding laws of war and rules of engagement seriously by giving it their full undivided attention whose fault is that?

In addition, I don't want to hear any bullshit about the environment or helicopters getting shot down. That is part of the fucking job. The job is to identify and engage enemy combatants engaged in hostilities. Just because it is a stressful, tense environment doesn't give anyone a license to use deadly force without exercising good judgement.

"In order to discern intent

"In order to discern intent all one can observe is the means you employ. Kind of like the Zimmerman trial. Was it murder or self defense? What Zimmerman or Martin were thinking is unobservable."

Who the heck are you, or anybody else, that you suppose yourself to be in a position of authority over those Apache pilots, to pass judgement on them?

Those who truly were in authority over them, from the lowest-level commander all the way up to the highest-level 4-star or the president, they didn't find any fault. What makes you right and them wrong? What special information do you have that they don't?

"The ground troops that took forever to arrive? Are those the ground troops in the immediate area you are referring too?"

The ground troops were already there, idiot. Another example of your arrogance. The apache's were called out by people already on the ground. You are referring to a different group of people that moved into that location. And this too demonstrates your ignorance, you assume that because things are in proximity people move around quickly, well, they don't. On the ground we move very slowly and methodically, often hours and hours just to move a mile down the road because that's how high the threat level is.

"I find it hilarious you would opine speech is not a crime but infer being armed is a crime in and of itself. The hypocrisy is well illustrated."

Again, you're an idiot. This is you passing judgement on something you know nothing about. Iraq was under martial law. Movements were controlled. These people had illegal weaponry and based on the context of the environment, were suspicious. If the men who fought the American revolution had engaged in this utterly stupid logic we'd all be British right now, or probably German.

"Great question because it is plain as day what they weren't doing which was engaging in any hostilities"

No, that wasn't clear. The apache's were in a very hot area, responding to a report of contact in the area. They find a group of heavily armed guys with unauthorized weapons, they requested permission, got it, engaged.

It is still not known whether those people were enemy combatants or not. It seems apparent that some of them were innocent, but it has never been explained what they were doing moving together and why they had RPGs.

But again, even if their actions were totally innocent. And even if the pilots did make an error.... IF.... that's NOT murder. That's a mistake, a tragic mistake, an accident, not a crime.

"I don't care how you want to describe it because anyone who watches the video can plainly see deadly force is used against civilian persons not actively engaged in any hostilities. "

No, that isn't plain. If it were, most people wouldn't disagree with you. And if it were, Assange wouldn't need to selectively edit the video.

"In addition, I don't want to hear any bullshit about the environment or helicopters getting shot down. That is part of the fucking job. The job is to identify and engage enemy combatants engaged in hostilities. Just because it is a stressful, tense environment doesn't give anyone a license to use deadly force without exercising good judgement."

They exercised excellent judgement. You are just plain silly to say the context of their environment doesn't matter. That context is what the ROEs are based on, and the pilots followed them to the letter. I'm sorry innocent people get killed in war - that's war! It happens. It would be nice if we could have a perfect standard, a perfectly just world, but people aren't perfect and that's not reality. Reality is working with what we've got. Pilots made a judgement call. Perhaps they made a bad one in this case, but that isn't a crime. But in truth, you can't even say it was a bad call, because you can't 100% without a doubt prove that those people were completely innocent.

"Who the heck are you, or

"Who the heck are you, or anybody else, that you suppose yourself to be in a position of authority over those Apache pilots, to pass judgement on them?"

I am a judge of the world.

"Or do you not know that the Lord's people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?" - 1 Corinthians 6:2

"These people had illegal weaponry and based on the context of the environment, were suspicious"

Suspicion is not a license or warrant to use deadly force in and of itself.

"It is still not known whether those people were enemy combatants or not"

But despite not knowing deadly force was used.

"But in truth, you can't even say it was a bad call, because you can't 100% without a doubt prove that those people were completely innocent."

I can say with certainty any use of deadly force against civilian persons not acting as enemy combatants or engaged in hostilities is subject to a determination of wrong doing. There is no burden of proof for innocence. Innocence is always presumed. The only thing which can defeat any presumption of innocence is observing an individual perform a wrong action. If suspicion is observed it may warrant certain responses but certainly not a use of deadly force for mere suspicion. If possession of an illegal weapon is observed it may warrant a certain response but certainly not a use of deadly force if not an enemy combatant or while engaged in any hostilities. If an enemy combatant is observed it may warrant certain responses possibly including a use of deadly force depending on their compliance or non-complaince. If an enemy combatant engaged in hostilities is observed any use of deadly force is beyond reproach in accordance with ROE.

So even you admit the only thing observed was suspicious activity possibly involving possession of illegal weaponry by persons not engaged in any hostilities and it is still not known whether the people were enemy combatants but some of them have been proven to be civilian journalists and despite those facts you claim:

"Those who truly were in authority over them, from the lowest-level commander all the way up to the highest-level 4-star or the president, they didn't find any fault. What makes you right and them wrong? What special information do you have that they don't?"

What special information do they have?

"But again, even if their actions were totally innocent. And even if the pilots did make an error.... IF.... that's NOT murder. That's a mistake, a tragic mistake, an accident, not a crime."

The UCMJ does not have any punitive category for war crimes called mistakes. If one is guilty of a war crime under the UCMJ they are charged under one of the punitive codes.

Lol ... mistake. Hey Bradley ... just tell them you made an honest mistake bro.

There you go again, taking

There you go again, taking things out of context, this time the scriptures! Try reading verse 1 and then proceed. Those verses are talking about the saints, aka church members, not fighting one another in the courts. The saints have the spirit and they should be above such squabbles. The context of judging the world is not in this life, but in the hereafter. The saints in this life are those that will judge the world in the councils of the afterlife.

The repetition is growing tired. As previously stated, the Apache pilots at worst made a mistake. They followed ROEs, had sufficient cause to engage, requested permission, got it, acted.

You sir were not there. You sir don't understand the context of what was going on, aren't and weren't privy to their orders. The long and short of it is that you literally don't know what you're talking about. The military is not reticent to prosecute soldiers who break the ROEs. You speak as though there is some grand coverup here and everybody in the freaking military is in on it, it's the big band of murderous brothers out terrorizing the landscape.

And if that were the case, you wouldn't hear them asking for permission at all. And they wouldn't be recording videos of their actions. Those soliders didn't choose to go to war, they were ordered to do so. If you have issues with the war, talk to the politicians that sent them. Acting criminally and trying to bring harm to the soldiers and local nationals isn't in any way a good response. That's the sort of justification a terrorist uses for blowing up a school.