23 ms·

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

by 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.

mpyne 13y ago
I'm glad you think the war in Iraq was bad, because so do I. But why would it be OK for someone to have a hand in 116,000+ deaths for democracy but not be OK to have a hand in 600,000+? There's no good answer to this question, which is why I don't see why Manning would want to be known as the instigator of it all. The rest of your points, even if we simply specify them as true, don't really explain why Manning's own supporters engage in lies and propaganda. So while it's nice to see them again after so long, we pretty much do already know about those claims. E.g. the maltreatment; the trial judge agrees with you and Amnesty International, so why was that not put on the website? At least that would have been truthful. I would think it would also further the cause of the site in getting the "aiding the enemy" charge dropped, if that's really what they were about. > 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. If what you say is true, then the military would also have mistreated Sgt. Bales, but they didn't. Murder is a capital offense too, in the military. On the other hand, Manning's own lawyer said that Manning "joked" about killing himself, which is typically a fairly solid plan for landing yourself on Prevention of Suicide Watch status in a military prison. Doesn't excuse keeping him in that status after his military psychiatrist deemed him not a suicide risk, which is why the judge reduced his sentence, but nor does it require some massive conspiracy to explain his treatment. So, if I were a supporter of Manning I wouldn't even worry a bit about the charge of "aiding the enemy", which is almost trivially proven by the prosecution given the way the UCMJ is written. All they really have to prove is that there exists at least one classified document that Manning felt would be posted to the Internet by WikiLeaks, and that there exists at least one enemy of the U.S. with direct or indirect access to WikiLeaks. Instead his supporters should focus on getting his eventual sentence reduced (though Manning himself is doing far better to help his cause than his supporters are, IMHO).
- rowanseymour 13y ago
  But why would it be OK for someone to have a hand in 116,000+ deaths for democracy but not be OK to have a hand in 600,000+? There's no good answer to this question, which is why I don't see why Manning would want to be known as the instigator of it all. "have a hand" is a little too ambiguous don't you think? There is a significant moral difference between "providing information" (what Manning did), and "invading a sovereign state using fairly indiscriminate bombing after a propaganda campaign about WMDs" (what the coalition forces did)

by nikcub 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

I'm glad you think the war in Iraq was bad, because so do I. But why would it be OK for someone to have a hand in 116,000+ deaths for democracy but not be OK to have a hand in 600,000+? There's no good answer to this question, which is why I don't see why Manning would want to be known as the instigator of it all. The rest of your points, even if we simply specify them as true, don't really explain why Manning's own supporters engage in lies and propaganda. So while it's nice to see them again after so long, we pretty much do already know about those claims. E.g. the maltreatment; the trial judge agrees with you and Amnesty International, so why was that not put on the website? At least that would have been truthful. I would think it would also further the cause of the site in getting the "aiding the enemy" charge dropped, if that's really what they were about. > 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. If what you say is true, then the military would also have mistreated Sgt. Bales, but they didn't. Murder is a capital offense too, in the military. On the other hand, Manning's own lawyer said that Manning "joked" about killing himself, which is typically a fairly solid plan for landing yourself on Prevention of Suicide Watch status in a military prison. Doesn't excuse keeping him in that status after his military psychiatrist deemed him not a suicide risk, which is why the judge reduced his sentence, but nor does it require some massive conspiracy to explain his treatment. So, if I were a supporter of Manning I wouldn't even worry a bit about the charge of "aiding the enemy", which is almost trivially proven by the prosecution given the way the UCMJ is written. All they really have to prove is that there exists at least one classified document that Manning felt would be posted to the Internet by WikiLeaks, and that there exists at least one enemy of the U.S. with direct or indirect access to WikiLeaks. Instead his supporters should focus on getting his eventual sentence reduced (though Manning himself is doing far better to help his cause than his supporters are, IMHO).

rowanseymour 13y ago
But why would it be OK for someone to have a hand in 116,000+ deaths for democracy but not be OK to have a hand in 600,000+? There's no good answer to this question, which is why I don't see why Manning would want to be known as the instigator of it all. "have a hand" is a little too ambiguous don't you think? There is a significant moral difference between "providing information" (what Manning did), and "invading a sovereign state using fairly indiscriminate bombing after a propaganda campaign about WMDs" (what the coalition forces did)