Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 152 of 152

Thread: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

  1. #151
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-21-16 @ 02:10 AM

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And if he's not committing a crime in disclosing.
    And if the disclosure is judged to be altogether reasonable.
    Neither would make it "very limited" as you said. If the abuse being disclosed is serious, ongoing, or likely to repeat that goes towards justifying disclosure.

    You also gloss over the requirement that the leaker show that an attempted disclosure to his superiors would result in a detriment. In practice, requirements like this are often the toughest to overcome, and I see no indication that it would have been met here.
    Actually Bradley Manning recounting his past encounter over an article about corruption would certainly justify him "reasonably believing" this, the only requirement. It also allows this if there is reason to believe the information will be concealed or destroyed.

    This is just wrong. I don't really know how else to say it, but you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Stealing and leaking 400,000 classified military documents and diplomatic cables is a crime. That is not an "open question."
    Under the UK law the information needs to be considered "damaging" to constitute a crime. Granted, their definition of "damaging" is sufficiently broad to allow them to argue anything that reflects badly on them including exposure of rampant abuses constitutes an offense.

    What's your point? He's not a whistleblower under US law, which is the only thing that really matters to him right now.
    He is a whistleblower and that is what matters. Do you always believe only what the government says?

    As I explained to you above, that particular picture was offered to refute your nonsense assertion that they weren't anywhere near the group. Had you gone to the link I provided, you would have seen the other weapons.
    I did look at the link and the one gif just shows the people I talked about who hung around the street corner, but did not appear to be near the journalists that got fired on.

    Unless you want to argue that that gun is actually a fake and that the government (and the soldiers who were on the scene) are lying about the fact that the other AK47s and RPGs were found there, you're wrong. If you are arguing that, let me know so I can stop wasting my time.
    Those pictures are censored to the point of being useless. We can only clearly see an Ak-47. As far as lying, it is quite possible. You apparently think the military hasn't lied before.

    It's not a "live battlefield" exception, it's the fact that the particular section that you were referring to discussed what signatories were required to do after they had taken combatants into their power.
    The convention does not just apply to people who have been detained if that is what you are saying. If it did Article 18 would make no damn sense. This article would not make a lot of sense either:

    Art. 15. At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.
    Notice that it says "at all times" not just when there is no fighting going on. If this only pertained to the wounded being "within their power" and that meants detained then there is no reason why collecting the wounded would be mentioned. "Within their power" most likely means only that the party has the power to do something against them. Hell, if the First Geneva Convention was referring only to people who had already been detained they would be considered POW's and so it would not make sense to have the Third Geneva Convention explicitly dealing with the treatment of POW's.

    There is no restriction on firing on wounded people on a battlefield. That would be exceedingly stupid.
    The hell there isn't. If a person is not obviously seriously wounded that may be the case, but generally that person will still be acting hostile so it is a moot point. They are not permitted to fire on people who are unarmed and/or wounded so badly as to prevent them from defending themselves.

    Moreover, you still haven't acknowledged or even discussed the fact that these things only apply to lawful combatants who satisfy the aforementioned criteria.
    Article 18 concerned whether civilians would be allowed to spontaneously care for wounded people. I do not think the idea of that article is that a person can be killed for a spontaneous act of kindness simply because a wounded guy with a gun doesn't have an emblem on his shoulder.

    Well, there's nothing I can really do to argue against reasoning like this. You can think what you want to think.
    Do you mean the reasoning that an unarmed person evacuating a wounded unarmed person cannot reasonably be presumed to be a combatant?

    What part are you saying is incorrect there?

    Are you seriously saying there is nothing in the Geneva Conventions prohibiting soldiers from firing on unarmed civilians?
    Last edited by Demon of Light; 10-24-10 at 08:41 PM.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #152
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    05-17-16 @ 11:03 AM

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    A murderous dictator? I can't believe you're actually defending Saddam!
    We didn't go into Iraq to save Iraqis seeing we were the ones who gave Saddam weapons and propped it up.
    The moral bull**** arguement doesn't work on me.

    When is US going to invade African countries if it's so moral in wanting to stop such horrors or does genocide only count when it affects the countries self interest?

    Saddam would have forced our--not ya'll, but our--hand 'fore long. We would have been invading Iraq at some point. It's a good thing we did it, before Saddam's forces were strong enough to repel our attack. We saved no telling how many hundreds of thousands of lives.
    Yeah right.
    We took how many lives and for nothing.
    Iraq was a war of choice not necessity. We had no reason to get involved

    Is it because they're the good guys and get a free pass?
    There is no good guys in this war.

    You don't defend their actions, but you sure as hell defend their motives.
    I don't defend anyone's action but I do understand. If my country was invaded, I'd fight for it. Why do I expect any less from others?

    To somehow believe we are liberators rather than what we really are, which is invaders. We have brought nothing but destruction and death to Iraq. We have allowed extremists to gain a foothold, torture to continue and Iran to gain and spread it's influence.
    Last edited by Laila; 10-25-10 at 11:17 AM.

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts