6 ms·

1. I like how they attack the strawman with their "aiding the enemy" means "the public is the enemy?!?" claim. They were suspiciously quiet about the news OBL (

by mpyne 13y ago

1. I like how they attack the strawman with their "aiding the enemy" means "the public is the enemy?!?" claim. They were suspiciously quiet about the news OBL (presumably an enemy) had information leaked by Pfc. Manning. But I suppose propaganda techniques are only wrong when it's the government or McDonald's, eh? 2. Manning has explicitly been removed from death penalty consideration earlier in the trial process. The prosecutor had to make that declaration already, so it's not something they can back out of. But I guess lies are only wrong when said by the government? 3. I'm not so sure that they would want him to take credit for the tens of thousands of persons killed in the aggregate from Arab Spring uprisings. Even if we consider the formation of democracies a benefit worth the price, that same exact logic would also justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq... 3a. "There is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information...". Contrast with "The information that Bradley gave to the public has been a catalyst for pro-democracy movements in the Arab world...". Alright guys, either have the cake, or eat the cake. If he truly catalyzed the Arab Spring then some number of persons died as a result of the leaked information. If no one died because of information he leaked then why try to claim credit for those uprisings?

streptomycin 13y ago
About 3... so you're saying that foreign aggression based on lies is morally equivalent to a local revolution as long as both ostensibly have some similarities in their end goals?
- mpyne 13y ago
  You if you can claim with a straight face that you'd trade 40,000 lives and a despot for a democracy, then what would your reasoning be to quibble about whether the results were achieved by local revolution or foreign aggression? Do you think every Libyan who died was either for the regime or for the revolution? Many just wanted to live their lives and neither side spoke for them. What does a "local revolution" even mean in a place like Iraq with sectarian tension all across the country? Most of the Iraqis who died were killed by other Iraqis, not by the U.S. So even if a local revolution had started the conflict in Iraq, do you think that local revolution would have been able to speak for every group with an interest in the stakes?
  - mercurial 13y ago
    I don't know, what about the American Revolution? Was it morally wrong as well? You certainly have a point wrt to how many people's interest is represented in the Arab Spring. It looked like the Egyptian revolution was mostly due to urban population, for instance. But, well, you can't expect everybody to agree with a revolution, you will always find plenty of people who want to keep the old regime because it is (or they think it is) more closely aligned with their interests, and other people who won't take sides. That's still "local revolutions". That's not a conflict originally triggered by the mistakes of a third party, in order to further its own selfish interests.
- ameister14 13y ago
  Since unless a revolution succeeds it's morally wrong, yes, they can be morally equivalent.
jivatmanx 13y ago
3:Democracy is self-rule by the people. If it's forced from outside, it's not a Democracy. Besides, Democracy promotion wasn't even the original rationale for the war. That was "Saddam helped do 9/11". Then it was WMD. Only when those failed was Democracy promotion used as the final fallback rationale. I'm not saying that Iraq cannot possibly be a legitimate Democracy, but it hasn't yet had the moment of national consensus that that real ones have had at their formation.
- comefrom20 13y ago
  While we're (sort of but not really) on the subject of 9/11: There's a very interesting video about 9/11 that every American really, really, really should watch put out by a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
ekianjo 13y ago
mpyne, funny I see you a lot around these kind of topics these days :) Anyway, you make good points. But regarding the Arab Spring, even if Manning was indeed a catalyst for these movements (which I highly doubt), having an uprising does not always lead to thousands of deaths. As you can see those who were responsible for the deaths in these countries were the government leaders who refused to listen to the crowd and sent the army and tanks instead of promoting dialog. The responsibility for these deaths is very clear and it would have nothing to do with Manning. And your reference to the "invasion of Iraq" as "formation of democracy" is dubious at best. Installing a puppet Pro-US government is hardly anything democratic, and the elections process in Iraq have been showing many issues (threats on voters, fraud, etc...). Hardly a good example of a "democracy at work".
- mpyne 13y ago
  Think of it though, if I set a bomb somewhere and someone else tells you to walk over near it, that person bears some measure of responsibility as well, because they know the consequences that must result from a bomb detonation. If Manning is to take some of the credit for the Arab Spring then he must also bear some of the responsibility. You don't topple despots without bloodshed, so by all means take credit for your good deeds but don't try to weasel out of the negative effects you should also have known about. Of course, I don't know if Pfc. Manning himself even knows that people are making this claim for him, so I don't ascribe it to him personally. In fairness to your latter point, we also call the U.S. a democracy despite the threads on voters, fraud, etc. ;)
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    > In fairness to your latter point, we also call the U.S. a democracy despite the threads on voters, fraud, etc. ;) Democracy is not only about the election process. I was just highlighting the fact that you cannot even START a democracy if you do not have proper elections in the first place. The US may have issues as well but it's an established democracy for a number of other reasons and it would not stop being one unless drastic measures are taken against accepted civil liberties.
  - jussij 13y ago
genwin 13y ago
If the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to establish democracy you'd have a point on #3. I'm still waiting for a leader of Iraq to be elected by its people.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I'm not sure that even the neocons could tell you the actual reason they went to war. Only the WMD thing even made a bit of sense (in the aftermath of 9/11). But even most of the normal tinfoil theories (e.g. blood for oil) wouldn't have made practical sense. Puzzles me to this day.
  - genwin 13y ago
    $Trillions in war spending is sufficiently plausible reason for me.
  - mixmastamyk 13y ago
    Saudi Arabia (like Kuwait) doesn't have much of a military, but it is absolutely crucial to the world energy market. The US will apparently spare no expense to protect it. That and genwin's reason.
    - neurotech1 13y ago
      Saudi Arabia has one of the largest and well supported Air Forces in the middle east, other than Israeli AF. The RSAF has 250+ fighter/attack aircraft in service. F-15s and Tornado's mainly. Also another 120 F-5E/F fighter "trainers" available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force#Current_aircraft_inventory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force#Current_a...
      - mixmastamyk 13y ago
        That's fine. It would still have been quite vulnerable to a ~1990 Iraq. Even a ~2000 era Iraq wouldn't need to conquer the country, but merely strike critical oil infrastructure. They were thought to have chemical weapons, etc. If you don't believe the US cares much about such things, I recommend the book (unfortunately titled) "Blood and Oil" by M. Klare.
nikcub 13y ago
800 people died in Egypt, 300 in Tunisia, 8 in Algeria, 120 in Bahrain To put this into context, over 2000 people died in Iraq in only the last month. This is years after the war being 'over' and many more years after mission accomplished, and the monthly death total is still greater than the net total of the Arab Spring revolutions You can't compare Iraq to the Arab spring nations that democratized peacefully. You can't even compre Iraq to the Arab Spring countries that democratized via conflict - 25,000 in Lybia, 90,000 in Syria so far. Over six hundred thousand people died in Iraq and the war completely destabilized the region. We are only beginning to understand the effects of the Shi'a awakening in the Middle East. Iran was essentially handed an enlarged sphere of influence courtesy of the USA. The rest of the Arab world will achieve a much better end result at a scale that is an order of magnitude lower in deaths. There is also the fact that the people who die in handovers in Algiers, Tunis or Cairo are giving their lives to a cause they believe in. 90% of the people who died in Iraq didn't get that choice - they were shot at and blown up as they went to the market, dropped their kids of at school and attempted to make a life for themselves. The Arab spring countries were stuck and they were only getting out of their situation in a tough way. That is why there has been a status quo in the region for so long - the cold war put a lid on it but it was always simmering. If you ask them which prescription they prefer - the American invasion or the America document leak, I know which way 100% of them are going to go. The treatment of Manning was so poor[1], that Obama's own white house checked with the Pentagon to make sure what they were doing was legal (keeping him in solitary, naked for months). See what Amnesty and others had to say: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/us-accused-inhumane-treatment-over-wikileaks-soldier-case-2011-01-24 http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/us-accused-inhuma... see also 'What did Bradely Manning experience': http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/05/extreme-solitary-confinement-what-did-bradley-manning-experience.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/05/extreme-sol... I know the reason why they put him through that - it is because Manning was expecting life in prison or to be executed for what he did. He was smiling as he was picked up at his FOB in Iraq, and that must have frustrated the military to know this guy had the balls to stand up to them and not cower when caught. All of the fear mongering about the damage caused by Mannings leaks (the government knew what would leak before Wikileaks released it since WL had sat on it for a while) turned out to be completely false. The USA is still a superpower, diplomats are still diplomats and it didn't result in a terrorist attack, or worse. The same playbook is being used against Snowden - attack the personal character of the leaker to distract from the information (this has happen with Assange, Manning and now Snowden) and label him a traitor who is aiding the enemy (the charge of aiding the enemy against Manning is completely ludicrous and surreal. UBL also had copies of the NY Times, he also had pornography). IMO 'aiding the enemy' is one of those bullshit catch-all laws that is widely interpreted just like 'money laundering' and 'tax evasion' - to be used when you want to jail someone but don't have much else. Or even better, an extra few charges and 20 year in sentencing guideline that can be plead down and avoid a trial (since that is what happens in 90% of federal trials - they don't even make the court, the prosecutors stack the charges and overwhelm the defense, having them plead down to what appears as a good deal). 'Aiding the enemy' doesn't actually require any actual evidence of direct aid to the enemy or the enemy receiving a benefit. [1] I don't know how you don't mention the treatment of Manning. It was a major international news item for months, with most official government press conferences being tied up around questions of his treatment, a lot of international bodies lobbying the US government to do something about it, other foreign leaders speaking up about it, etc.
riggins 13y ago
my beef with your post. "There is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information...". Contrast with "The information that Bradley gave to the public has been a catalyst for pro-democracy movements in the Arab world..." IMO, it's normal to read "There is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information..." as "There is no evidence that [US soldiers, intelligence assets, allies] died as a result of the leaked information"
- mpyne 13y ago
  Wasn't Ambassador Stevens in Libya?
- exposing_truth 13y ago
  Evidence shows intelligence assets and allies were in fact killed due to the leaked information. Some key items were redacted, but the names of many Afghans were left in plain text ... and they met terrible fates as a result. http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/28/murphy-rides-again/?singlepage=true http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/28/murphy-rides-...
  - gruseom 13y ago
    This is a troll. The link contains no evidence at all, just a purple fantasy.
jussij 13y ago
> that same exact logic would also justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq... Tony Blair dragged the Brits to war by lying in parliament when he said there was evidence Saddam's military had a WMD capability that could reach London and could be ready to go within 45 minutes. Colin Powell stood up in the UN a rattled of another bunch of lies with assertions of mobile Iraqi biological-warfare labs and a "sinister nexus" between Iraq and al-Qaeda terrorists. The war was started on lie after lie and the administration is still lying about it today.
- pekk 13y ago
  That's an overstatement, for example Powell himself has expressed regret about those statements
  - jussij 13y ago
    It is a known fact Powell lied to the UN (since he is obviously offering an apology for something) but by saying sorry somehow that makes it all ok? Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of that lie! How is that an overstatement?
gasull 13y ago
> If no one died because of information he leaked then why try to claim credit for those uprisings? Apples and oranges. The Government claimed that the leaked cables were putting informants at the risk of dying. No informant has died because of the leaks. So yes, "there is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information".

by mpyne 13y ago

streptomycin 13y ago

About 3... so you're saying that foreign aggression based on lies is morally equivalent to a local revolution as long as both ostensibly have some similarities in their end goals?

mpyne 13y ago
You if you can claim with a straight face that you'd trade 40,000 lives and a despot for a democracy, then what would your reasoning be to quibble about whether the results were achieved by local revolution or foreign aggression? Do you think every Libyan who died was either for the regime or for the revolution? Many just wanted to live their lives and neither side spoke for them. What does a "local revolution" even mean in a place like Iraq with sectarian tension all across the country? Most of the Iraqis who died were killed by other Iraqis, not by the U.S. So even if a local revolution had started the conflict in Iraq, do you think that local revolution would have been able to speak for every group with an interest in the stakes?
- mercurial 13y ago
  I don't know, what about the American Revolution? Was it morally wrong as well? You certainly have a point wrt to how many people's interest is represented in the Arab Spring. It looked like the Egyptian revolution was mostly due to urban population, for instance. But, well, you can't expect everybody to agree with a revolution, you will always find plenty of people who want to keep the old regime because it is (or they think it is) more closely aligned with their interests, and other people who won't take sides. That's still "local revolutions". That's not a conflict originally triggered by the mistakes of a third party, in order to further its own selfish interests.
ameister14 13y ago
Since unless a revolution succeeds it's morally wrong, yes, they can be morally equivalent.

jivatmanx 13y ago

3:Democracy is self-rule by the people. If it's forced from outside, it's not a Democracy. Besides, Democracy promotion wasn't even the original rationale for the war. That was "Saddam helped do 9/11". Then it was WMD. Only when those failed was Democracy promotion used as the final fallback rationale. I'm not saying that Iraq cannot possibly be a legitimate Democracy, but it hasn't yet had the moment of national consensus that that real ones have had at their formation.

comefrom20 13y ago
While we're (sort of but not really) on the subject of 9/11: There's a very interesting video about 9/11 that every American really, really, really should watch put out by a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg

ekianjo 13y ago

mpyne, funny I see you a lot around these kind of topics these days :) Anyway, you make good points. But regarding the Arab Spring, even if Manning was indeed a catalyst for these movements (which I highly doubt), having an uprising does not always lead to thousands of deaths. As you can see those who were responsible for the deaths in these countries were the government leaders who refused to listen to the crowd and sent the army and tanks instead of promoting dialog. The responsibility for these deaths is very clear and it would have nothing to do with Manning. And your reference to the "invasion of Iraq" as "formation of democracy" is dubious at best. Installing a puppet Pro-US government is hardly anything democratic, and the elections process in Iraq have been showing many issues (threats on voters, fraud, etc...). Hardly a good example of a "democracy at work".

mpyne 13y ago
Think of it though, if I set a bomb somewhere and someone else tells you to walk over near it, that person bears some measure of responsibility as well, because they know the consequences that must result from a bomb detonation. If Manning is to take some of the credit for the Arab Spring then he must also bear some of the responsibility. You don't topple despots without bloodshed, so by all means take credit for your good deeds but don't try to weasel out of the negative effects you should also have known about. Of course, I don't know if Pfc. Manning himself even knows that people are making this claim for him, so I don't ascribe it to him personally. In fairness to your latter point, we also call the U.S. a democracy despite the threads on voters, fraud, etc. ;)
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > In fairness to your latter point, we also call the U.S. a democracy despite the threads on voters, fraud, etc. ;) Democracy is not only about the election process. I was just highlighting the fact that you cannot even START a democracy if you do not have proper elections in the first place. The US may have issues as well but it's an established democracy for a number of other reasons and it would not stop being one unless drastic measures are taken against accepted civil liberties.
- jussij 13y ago

genwin 13y ago

If the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to establish democracy you'd have a point on #3. I'm still waiting for a leader of Iraq to be elected by its people.

mpyne 13y ago
I'm not sure that even the neocons could tell you the actual reason they went to war. Only the WMD thing even made a bit of sense (in the aftermath of 9/11). But even most of the normal tinfoil theories (e.g. blood for oil) wouldn't have made practical sense. Puzzles me to this day.
- genwin 13y ago
  $Trillions in war spending is sufficiently plausible reason for me.
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  Saudi Arabia (like Kuwait) doesn't have much of a military, but it is absolutely crucial to the world energy market. The US will apparently spare no expense to protect it. That and genwin's reason.
  - neurotech1 13y ago
    Saudi Arabia has one of the largest and well supported Air Forces in the middle east, other than Israeli AF. The RSAF has 250+ fighter/attack aircraft in service. F-15s and Tornado's mainly. Also another 120 F-5E/F fighter "trainers" available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force#Current_aircraft_inventory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force#Current_a...
    - mixmastamyk 13y ago
      That's fine. It would still have been quite vulnerable to a ~1990 Iraq. Even a ~2000 era Iraq wouldn't need to conquer the country, but merely strike critical oil infrastructure. They were thought to have chemical weapons, etc. If you don't believe the US cares much about such things, I recommend the book (unfortunately titled) "Blood and Oil" by M. Klare.

nikcub 13y ago

800 people died in Egypt, 300 in Tunisia, 8 in Algeria, 120 in Bahrain To put this into context, over 2000 people died in Iraq in only the last month. This is years after the war being 'over' and many more years after mission accomplished, and the monthly death total is still greater than the net total of the Arab Spring revolutions You can't compare Iraq to the Arab spring nations that democratized peacefully. You can't even compre Iraq to the Arab Spring countries that democratized via conflict - 25,000 in Lybia, 90,000 in Syria so far. Over six hundred thousand people died in Iraq and the war completely destabilized the region. We are only beginning to understand the effects of the Shi'a awakening in the Middle East. Iran was essentially handed an enlarged sphere of influence courtesy of the USA. The rest of the Arab world will achieve a much better end result at a scale that is an order of magnitude lower in deaths. There is also the fact that the people who die in handovers in Algiers, Tunis or Cairo are giving their lives to a cause they believe in. 90% of the people who died in Iraq didn't get that choice - they were shot at and blown up as they went to the market, dropped their kids of at school and attempted to make a life for themselves. The Arab spring countries were stuck and they were only getting out of their situation in a tough way. That is why there has been a status quo in the region for so long - the cold war put a lid on it but it was always simmering. If you ask them which prescription they prefer - the American invasion or the America document leak, I know which way 100% of them are going to go. The treatment of Manning was so poor[1], that Obama's own white house checked with the Pentagon to make sure what they were doing was legal (keeping him in solitary, naked for months). See what Amnesty and others had to say: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/us-accused-inhumane-treatment-over-wikileaks-soldier-case-2011-01-24 http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/us-accused-inhuma... see also 'What did Bradely Manning experience': http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/05/extreme-solitary-confinement-what-did-bradley-manning-experience.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/05/extreme-sol... I know the reason why they put him through that - it is because Manning was expecting life in prison or to be executed for what he did. He was smiling as he was picked up at his FOB in Iraq, and that must have frustrated the military to know this guy had the balls to stand up to them and not cower when caught. All of the fear mongering about the damage caused by Mannings leaks (the government knew what would leak before Wikileaks released it since WL had sat on it for a while) turned out to be completely false. The USA is still a superpower, diplomats are still diplomats and it didn't result in a terrorist attack, or worse. The same playbook is being used against Snowden - attack the personal character of the leaker to distract from the information (this has happen with Assange, Manning and now Snowden) and label him a traitor who is aiding the enemy (the charge of aiding the enemy against Manning is completely ludicrous and surreal. UBL also had copies of the NY Times, he also had pornography). IMO 'aiding the enemy' is one of those bullshit catch-all laws that is widely interpreted just like 'money laundering' and 'tax evasion' - to be used when you want to jail someone but don't have much else. Or even better, an extra few charges and 20 year in sentencing guideline that can be plead down and avoid a trial (since that is what happens in 90% of federal trials - they don't even make the court, the prosecutors stack the charges and overwhelm the defense, having them plead down to what appears as a good deal). 'Aiding the enemy' doesn't actually require any actual evidence of direct aid to the enemy or the enemy receiving a benefit. [1] I don't know how you don't mention the treatment of Manning. It was a major international news item for months, with most official government press conferences being tied up around questions of his treatment, a lot of international bodies lobbying the US government to do something about it, other foreign leaders speaking up about it, etc.

riggins 13y ago

my beef with your post. "There is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information...". Contrast with "The information that Bradley gave to the public has been a catalyst for pro-democracy movements in the Arab world..." IMO, it's normal to read "There is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information..." as "There is no evidence that [US soldiers, intelligence assets, allies] died as a result of the leaked information"

mpyne 13y ago
Wasn't Ambassador Stevens in Libya?
exposing_truth 13y ago
Evidence shows intelligence assets and allies were in fact killed due to the leaked information. Some key items were redacted, but the names of many Afghans were left in plain text ... and they met terrible fates as a result. http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/28/murphy-rides-again/?singlepage=true http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/28/murphy-rides-...
- gruseom 13y ago
  This is a troll. The link contains no evidence at all, just a purple fantasy.

jussij 13y ago

> that same exact logic would also justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq... Tony Blair dragged the Brits to war by lying in parliament when he said there was evidence Saddam's military had a WMD capability that could reach London and could be ready to go within 45 minutes. Colin Powell stood up in the UN a rattled of another bunch of lies with assertions of mobile Iraqi biological-warfare labs and a "sinister nexus" between Iraq and al-Qaeda terrorists. The war was started on lie after lie and the administration is still lying about it today.

pekk 13y ago
That's an overstatement, for example Powell himself has expressed regret about those statements
- jussij 13y ago
  It is a known fact Powell lied to the UN (since he is obviously offering an apology for something) but by saying sorry somehow that makes it all ok? Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of that lie! How is that an overstatement?

gasull 13y ago

> If no one died because of information he leaked then why try to claim credit for those uprisings? Apples and oranges. The Government claimed that the leaked cables were putting informants at the risk of dying. No informant has died because of the leaks. So yes, "there is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information".