• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bradley Manning and Julian Assange Both Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

How is it a war crime? You can prove a criminal intent to murder non-combatants, in cold blood, just for the hell-of-it? Or, is the reality that there's no way that you, nor anyone else can say with any amount of certainty what the prespective was of the soldiers doing the shooting and that it was just another unfortunate incident that happens in war?

It's really ****ed up, that American servicemen have to worry more about being fingered for a war crime, than being killed by the enemy.

I know what I saw. People trying to crawl away for their lives. Not a single weapon ever pointed up at the apache way high in the sky. There should be a rule that if someone is crawling on their belly with zero weapons you cant shoot them. Let alone opening fire on drivers that haven't been assessed yet. When you are in war you should be 100% certian of your targets or you dont fire. Even if your life is in danger.

It was obvious the routers guy never had a weapon and yet they go to great lengths to purposely terminate him. After he is obviously just struggling to stay alive, pose no threat. I guess dead witnesses can't defend themselves when it comes to legal battles. Looked alot like a full-snuff operation to me. That chopper wanted to make sure everyone was dead and was indescriminate with no care for what he targeted.

You could argue thats what had to be done because there are no rules for surrendering to aircraft. So the only option was full-kill. But minutes after this happened this area was swarmed with US foot troops. Seems to me like the chopper gunner wanted to kill them all and let god sort them out before ground troops arrived. Well the dead here didnt volunteer their lives. Our troops did.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion Julian Assange needs to be nominated as an enemy combatant and give the similar justice as Anwar al-Aulaqi. Maybe with a little less extreme prejudice.

Assange is for sure an enemy of the free world. Governments have to have secret papers and operations and Assange has placed the lives of others in jeopardy, and for that he need to be locked up along with anyone on the payroll because it should fall under the RICO Act, because they are involved in criminal acts, in my book.
 
I know what I saw. People trying to crawl away for their lives. Not a single weapon ever pointed up at the apache way high in the sky. There should be a rule that if someone is crawling on their belly with zero weapons you cant shoot them. Let alone opening fire on drivers that haven't been assessed yet. When you are in war you should be 100% certian of your targets or you dont fire. Even if your life is in danger.

It was obvious the routers guy never had a weapon and yet they go to great lengths to purposely terminate him. After he is obviously just struggling to stay alive, pose no threat. I guess dead witnesses can't defend themselves when it comes to legal battles. Looked alot like a full-snuff operation to me. That chopper wanted to make sure everyone was dead and was indescriminate with no care for what he targeted.

You could argue thats what had to be done because there are no rules for surrendering to aircraft. So the only option was full-kill. But minutes after this happened this area was swarmed with US foot troops. Seems to me like the chopper gunner wanted to kill them all and let god sort them out before ground troops arrived. Well the dead here didnt volunteer their lives. Our troops did.

You know what you saw. There's absolutely no way you can say with any amount of certainty what the pilot and gunner of that gunship saw.

It may be obvious from watching the video, with replay, slow-motion and pause ability. In a helicopter, with only a couple of seconds to make a decision, it's a completely different story.

Which all boils down to one thing: There's no more irrational school of thought in the world, than to suggest that an American soldier agreed to sacrifice his life, just to make you feel good. If that's how you feel, then your way past due to enlist.
 
This is bullcrap. They shouldn't get a Peace Prize for "exposing" things to the public. First of all, they have no idea if they have the whole story. Second of all, we have no idea if they got more of the story that painted things in a different light than what they released. And last, if they really felt something was being covered up, there are legal methods of going about this that do not include putting people in danger for their own selfish reasons.

I don't know what was in the video or anything else from Wikileaks, since I am not allowed to view it. Of course, I also understand that even if I could view it, I'd probably not know what exactly was going on, nor would I likely have much info about before or after. If they did wrong, they deserve to be punished, but there are still other ways to go about exposing them that would have been a lot better than what was done.
 
I have no respect for the Nobel Peace prize anymore.... so they can give it to whomever they feel like and I won't care...

I lost respect for that worthless thing when they gave it to Obama for absolutely nothing...its a political toy nothing more...it does not represent any accomplishment
 
This is bullcrap. They shouldn't get a Peace Prize for "exposing" things to the public. First of all, they have no idea if they have the whole story. Second of all, we have no idea if they got more of the story that painted things in a different light than what they released. And last, if they really felt something was being covered up, there are legal methods of going about this that do not include putting people in danger for their own selfish reasons.

I don't know what was in the video or anything else from Wikileaks, since I am not allowed to view it. Of course, I also understand that even if I could view it, I'd probably not know what exactly was going on, nor would I likely have much info about before or after. If they did wrong, they deserve to be punished, but there are still other ways to go about exposing them that would have been a lot better than what was done.

How do you know there are better sure fire ways to bring this to light? If the guy had to leak it, it must have been a last stitch, hail mary effort. So supposedly this pilot honestly thought that the camera was an RPG. Ok. Where is the footage of this camera and why hasnt the routers camera content been released? It may not provide much insight seeing as an apache would be a dot in the sky but It would have the conversations of the people under fire and more of their intent.

I have a feeling the routers camera content will never be revealed. It would probably go to show these guys were innocent and therefore will never see the light of day.

It boils down to how many shots did the victims fire? Zero. How many shots did occupying forces fire? Enough to kill all the adults. Turned out to be a reporter. Its obvious the pilot did something wrong. Its sad this had to be leaked the way it did just to have some chance at justice.
 
Last edited:
How do you know there are better sure fire ways to bring this to light? If the guy had to leak it, it must have been a last stitch, hail mary effort. So supposedly this pilot honestly thought that the camera was an RPG. Ok. Where is the footage of this camera and why hasnt the routers camera content been released? It may not provide much insight seeing as an apache would be a dot in the sky but It would have the conversations of the people under fire and more of their intent.

I have a feeling the routers camera content will never be revealed. It would probably go to show these guys were innocent and therefore will never see the light of day.

It boils down to how many shots did the victims fire? Zero. How many shots did occupying forces fire? Enough to kill all the adults. Turned out to be a reporter. Its obvious the pilot did something wrong. Its sad this had to be leaked the way it did just to have some chance at justice.

The thing you could never prove--outside of fantasyland--is that there was an intent to intentionally kill non-combatants.

Something else that has to be taken into consideration, is judging by the delay between the muzzle blast and the round impact, the gunship was orbiting about 1,200 yards away from the target. The reason they men were so relaxed looking, probably has alot to do with the gunship being over a mile away and they didn't have any idea they were being lazed.
 
Exposing a war that was built off of lies and deceit is an admirable action, not one of treason. If anyone committed treason, it is the war-mongers who got us into this quagmire, killing over a 100,000 citizens and over 4,000 US Soldiers.

As one of America's most famous "traitors", Daniel Ellsberg says, "I think what the Pentagon Papers showed with 7,000 pages was that there was a lack of any good reason for doing what we were doing," Ellsberg told CNN. "My strong expectation is these 92,000 pages will not convey any good reason for the dying and killing and the enormous money we're spending over there in a time we cannot afford it."

... "The possibility for the kind of transparency that is very good for democracy has been enhanced by this technology and by WikiLeaks' willingness to put out this kind of material."

Ellsberg: 92,000 pages will not convey reason for Afghan war – Afghanistan Crossroads - CNN.com Blogs

Ellsberg: From Vietnam to Afghanistan


...
 
It's not a quagmire, but the reason it's taking longer than the Libbo play says it should, is because there are so many Libbos that keep encouraging the enemy to hang on.
 
I have a feeling the routers camera content will never be revealed. It would probably go to show these guys were innocent and therefore will never see the light of day.

It boils down to how many shots did the victims fire? Zero. How many shots did occupying forces fire? Enough to kill all the adults. Turned out to be a reporter. Its obvious the pilot did something wrong. Its sad this had to be leaked the way it did just to have some chance at justice.

Innocent of what? They were armed men in combat zone near a locations where it was reported that ground forces came under fire. The Apaches were called in for air cover. Perhaps you should re-watch the video, its quite clear that the men the reporters with were armed. And its pretty easy to see how a camera with a telephoto lens can be easily mistaken for an RPG when viewed through the FLIR display.
 
It's not a quagmire, but the reason it's taking longer than the Libbo play says it should, is because there are so many Libbos that keep encouraging the enemy to hang on.

The longest war in history is not a quagmire? What exactly is this "Libbo play" that is dragging on this war? Didn't Bush and his neocon buddies have plenty of time to end this war. After all, they declared Mission Accomplish in 2003 after their cute dog and pony show on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Then six years later, Bush and Pals were still at war. However, you claim that it is because of this "Libbo play".

While liberal foreign policy is atrocious since it is replica of neocon foreign policy, I don't understand how liberals are 100% responsible for these quagmires.
 
Manning didn't access that information all by himself. I think they should hold his nuts to the fire and see how many of his accomplices he gives up.

So a man the reports a war crime is a bad man?
Your starting to sound like a fascist
 


.......The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know...........

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I .am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion..........

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.


Read more at the American Presidency Project: John F. Kennedy: Address "The President and the Press" Before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City. John F. Kennedy: Address "The President and the Press" Before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City.
 
The longest war in history is not a quagmire? What exactly is this "Libbo play" that is dragging on this war? Didn't Bush and his neocon buddies have plenty of time to end this war. After all, they declared Mission Accomplish in 2003 after their cute dog and pony show on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Then six years later, Bush and Pals were still at war. However, you claim that it is because of this "Libbo play".

While liberal foreign policy is atrocious since it is replica of neocon foreign policy, I don't understand how liberals are 100% responsible for these quagmires.

Longest war in history? What history book you been reading?

The reason Libbos are responsible, is because they act as a propaganda machine for the enemy, just like during Vietnam.
 
Innocent of what? They were armed men in combat zone near a locations where it was reported that ground forces came under fire. The Apaches were called in for air cover. Perhaps you should re-watch the video, its quite clear that the men the reporters with were armed. And its pretty easy to see how a camera with a telephoto lens can be easily mistaken for an RPG when viewed through the FLIR display.

Just because a person has a gun doesn't mean they are an imminent threat. Shots fired by victims. Zero. Shots fired by Occupying forces. Enough to kill all the adults. How do you feel about american private security firms guarding people with fully automatics?

I haven't watched the video since it debuted. I remember it looking like 1 guy maybe had a gun. Or maybe some odd thing with a shoulder strap.

It doesn't change the fact that the trigger puller still knowingly fired on people that had no weapons shown and posed zero threat. This demonstrates he is willing to fire on innocent threatless people because of his "targeting laws". The video clearly shows people without weapons getting fired on by this gunship. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
 
Just because a person has a gun doesn't mean they are an imminent threat. Shots fired by victims. Zero. Shots fired by Occupying forces. Enough to kill all the adults. How do you feel about american private security firms guarding people with fully automatics?

I haven't watched the video since it debuted. I remember it looking like 1 guy maybe had a gun. Or maybe some odd thing with a shoulder strap.

It doesn't change the fact that the trigger puller still knowingly fired on people that had no weapons shown and posed zero threat. This demonstrates he is willing to fire on innocent threatless people because of his "targeting laws". The video clearly shows people without weapons getting fired on by this gunship. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

On a battlefield, you don't wait to get shot at. It's totally ignorant to suggest that we should force our soldiers to follow such rules of engagement.
 
If it's not a crime, yes.

Explain to me how this is not a crime....



Or tell me how a lot of other gov "crimes" Wikileaks has uncovered, tell me how that is at all a bad thing?
 
Just because a person has a gun doesn't mean they are an imminent threat. Shots fired by victims. Zero. Shots fired by Occupying forces. Enough to kill all the adults. How do you feel about american private security firms guarding people with fully automatics?

I haven't watched the video since it debuted. I remember it looking like 1 guy maybe had a gun. Or maybe some odd thing with a shoulder strap.

It doesn't change the fact that the trigger puller still knowingly fired on people that had no weapons shown and posed zero threat. This demonstrates he is willing to fire on innocent threatless people because of his "targeting laws". The video clearly shows people without weapons getting fired on by this gunship. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Guess you're kind of confused. You appear to be applying standard law enforcement use of force protocols with with combat rules of engagement. They're very different and with combat ROEs, you don't have to wait to be shot at to engage.

Perhaps you should watch the video again. With the exception of the camera men (again, their equipment was mistaken for weapons which based solely on the video, is totally understandable) several of the men with them had AK-47s. The air support was called in at the request of ground forces nearby that had been attacked.

Wanna know the real outrage here? WTF is Reuters doing letting their reporters embed with armed insurgents in a US controlled combat zone when said insurgents are a fully authorized target? Frankly, authorizing this is absolutely gross negligence on the part of Reuters as well as the two men who took the assignment.

This like a local newspaper wanting to see what the deer's perspective is like by sending their reporters out dressed up in a deer suit on opening day of hunting season. Would it be a surprise if the reporter was shot by a hunter?
 
I think Manning should be locked away for treason as its clear and unquestionable his actions were.

The actual legal requirements for treason are either levying war on the United States, which Manning did not do, or adhering to the enemies of the United States, which Manning also did not do. The intent behind the act must be to assist with war efforts against the United States. Calling out leaders of the United States for committing crimes, even during war time, does not even come close to satisfying this requirement. Even the often mentioned "giving aid and comfort" standard is insufficient to qualify as a treasonous act. No actual US court of law could find Manning guilty of treason. His actions do not fall under the legal standard for treason in the US.

Seriously, how are any of the "small government" types not in favor of watchdogs making sure the government can't overstep its bounds? Does it only matter when it comes to your bank account, but it's fine when governments are murdering people? It's fine if it's happening to someone else? There is nothing that Wikileaks has done that is any different from Carl Burnstein and Bob Woodward investigating Watergate. Is anyone now going to suggest that Nixon's crimes should not have been exposed?
 
Explain to me how this is not a crime....



Or tell me how a lot of other gov "crimes" Wikileaks has uncovered, tell me how that is at all a bad thing?


That is not a crime. And what other "crimes" has been uncovered by Wikileaks....specifically?
 
Explain to me how this is not a crime....



Or tell me how a lot of other gov "crimes" Wikileaks has uncovered, tell me how that is at all a bad thing?


Prove some kind of intent on the part of the American personel. Prove that those men weren't the enemy. Prove they weren't armed--one of them is carrying what appears to be what looks like a squad machine gun. Give us the identification and credible back ground information on every person that was fired upon in that group and prove that they didn't have and never did have any kind of connection to any insurgent group operating in Iraq.

You're all about due process, right? I'm not a lawyer--far from it--but if I was a jury member, those are the questions that I would want answered before I called these men guilty of a crime.
 
They both deserve it more than Obama did. I still think it's ridiculous that he was given the award. And this is coming for someone who supported him in 2008 and will more than likely support him in 2012.
 
Back
Top Bottom