No, actually i pointed out earlier that the cable revealed that the US put diplomatic pressure on germany to not prosecute those involved.
I don't expect you to read this since you're a moral coward:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831
I have a feeling that you'd be the type of asshole that would have not stepped in during the Mai Lai Massacre (and probably would have participated 'under orders') and would have witheld that information from the press instead of leaking it because of you HAVE no sense of integrity/honor/brains.
If your assumption were correct the government would have covered up the taliban threat of killing informants.
Why wouldn't the government have done the same in other cases?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6vMT7WGBAM
You have made the claim that if the Taliban executed an informant we would never hear about it, but I've read many stories and seen many videos of this happening before I'd heard of wikileaks.
Most of them are now living in areas controlled by the Taliban, we have no access to these territories at all.
But if you know absolutely nothing, you can always claim that you held your opinion out of ignorance when the truth eventually becomes known, right?
"omg, i didn't know" and all is well by that statement, right? It's not like it's among the first hundred times that statement has been used by ignorant twats spouting off regarding warfare, is it?
You'll have to excuse me, but we don't take our orders from US politicians (and by politicians i mean commanders) we didn't do so when we laughed them off when they requested we should attack an airfield filled with Russian troops and we haven't done so in Afghanistan nor Iraq either.
Are we clear on this or do you have some kind of comprehension problem about who i am?
I have a feeling that you'd be the type of asshole that would have not stepped in during the Mai Lai Massacre (and probably would have participated 'under orders') and would have witheld that information from the press instead of leaking it because of you HAVE no sense of integrity/honor/brains.
It's called a hypothetical. In a situation where there's an attrocity going on, you WOULD be the type to participate and/or cover it up, because of your twisted definition of 'honor'.
And LOL and you thinking you're country is somehow better, you fucking idiots went along with us to invade a country that didn't have jack shit in terms of being a threat to either your country or ours.
If you actually read this thread instead of spouting off like an asshole you would see I made that point myself.
What the fuck are you even saying? And who are you to give lectures on what goes on in warfare?
Perhaps you don't understand what i am saying, read it again.
I don't take orders that are wrong, i refuse them and i can do so in my own right.
Everyone here, INCLUDING YOU, knows what i think about the invasion of Iraq and that i blame UK intelligence MI6 as being a part of it, yet you conveniently forget that to try to make a point that is both dishonest and something you know is a lie?
AND you got it wrong, not only did we provide the evidence used to justify the invasion, not only did we start the invasion but it was SAS Task Force Black, that is ME, that was the first team on the ground.
You can blame me all you want for that, i know i do at times but at the time i did trust the intelligence provided to me, i didn't learn about the MI6 ordered findings until much later.
Indeed.Magnificent raving from a gaggle of self righteous dimwits. Manning's treatment at the hands of the military is shameful, particularly in view of the way real traitors & spies are treated, notably Ames and Pollard. What he did was wrong, no doubt, but it doesn't even approach the malfeasance of those two.
Magnificent raving from a gaggle of self righteous dimwits. Manning's treatment at the hands of the military is shameful, particularly in view of the way real traitors & spies are treated, notably Ames and Pollard. What he did was wrong, no doubt, but it doesn't even approach the malfeasance of those two.
He doesn't make them look that way. They do. He just doesn't look that way himself.
Magnificent raving from a gaggle of self righteous dimwits. Manning's treatment at the hands of the military is shameful, particularly in view of the way real traitors & spies are treated, notably Ames and Pollard.
Ames and Pollard are both serving life sentences. Robert Hanson is locked up in a Supermax prison for the rest of his life, and only avoided facing the death penalty because he cooperated with investigators. How much harsher could we be towards them?
Magnificent raving from a gaggle of self righteous dimwits. Manning's treatment at the hands of the military is shameful, particularly in view of the way real traitors & spies are treated, notably Ames and Pollard. What he did was wrong, no doubt, but it doesn't even approach the malfeasance of those two.
Don't act the twit, OK? We could treat them the way Manning is treated.
Why are you so afraid to compare your beliefs about Loughner? You're being intellectually dishonest. That's why. You know that there are people who have been only accused of crimes that you are happy to judge. Stop repeating repeating that Manning deserves a trial. Of course he does. That's not the issue here as he's going to get one.
I don't blame YOU personally, but your post absolutely reeked of nationalistic pride and you need to be taken down a peg or two for it.
<sip>
Again, an innocent person (as defined as he has yet been convicted of anything) has been treated horribly, locked up in solitary for 6 months.
Why is he being treated unfairly (differently then any other accused person)?
Post some evidence that other military personally accused of crimes are locked up for 6months like this. If you can't find it, then why on earth is he being treated this way? Come on, post some facts instead of hand waving about other people.
<snip>
It is the choice of the military and their procedures. They have their reasons. He has an appointed lawyer that will have appealed his holding if not covered by regs
There may not be other military that have been accussed of the crime. IF none, then no comparison as to the method or pre-trial confinement can be done.
The civilian rules do not apply.
The military operates under slightly different rules and when in wartime, it is stricter than normal
You seem to have some sort of anger problem where you can't think straight and just rant.
As for my opinion, the guy's getting what he deserves. I'm sorry if the punishment for massive acts of treason, from a solider who is subject to military justice, isn't as cuddly as he hoped. He made his bed, now he's welcome to lay in it, and has no right or justification to get off easy.
According to who's definition of being treated badly? Your rules are civilian/liberal. Being civilian, they do not apply/count to the military which is CONTROLLED BY the USMJ.In other words, they're treating him badly because they can, and because a certain % of idiots in this country like it, right?
It is the choice of the military and their procedures. They have their reasons. He has an appointed lawyer that will have appealed his holding if not covered by regs
There may not be other military that have been accussed of the crime. IF none, then no comparison as to the method or pre-trial confinement can be done.
The civilian rules do not apply.
The military operates under slightly different rules and when in wartime, it is stricter than normal
According to who's definition of being treated badly? Your rules are civilian/liberal. Being civilian, they do not apply/count to the military which is CONTROLLED BY the USMJ.
He is in the military and not subject to civilian rules. He agreed to those rules when he enlisted.
On Wednesday January 19, 2011, the defense filed an Article 138 complaint with the Quantico base commander, Colonel Daniel Choike. The Article 138 complaint is a complaint filed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to address a perceived wrong against a soldier by his command. The defense asserts that the action of holding PFC Manning in Maximum (MAX) custody, under Prevention of Injury (POI) watch for over five months and recently placing him under suicide risk was an abuse of CWO4 James Averhart’s discretion, and a wrong within the meaning of Article 138, UCMJ. As redress, the defense has requested that Colonel Choike order PFC Manning’s removal from suicide risk and POI watch and that he order the reduction of PFC Manning classification level from MAX to MDI.
By way of background, PFC Manning was transferred to the Quantico Brig on July 29, 2010. Upon his arrival, he was placed in MAX custody and under suicide risk. On August 6, 2010, the forensic psychiatrist for the Brig recommended that he be moved from suicide risk to POI watch. That recommendation was followed and PFC Manning was moved to POI watch. Due to his improvement and adjustment to confinement, on August 27, 2010, the Brig’s forensic psychiatrist recommended that PFC Manning be taken off of POI watch and that his confinement classification be changed from MAX to Medium Custody In (MDI).
Over the course of the following three months, two separate forensic psychiatrists consistently stated that there was no medical reason for PFC Manning to be under POI watch. The only exception to this was on December 10, 2010 when it was recommended that PFC Manning remain under POI watch for one week. The following week, the forensic psychiatrist once again recommended that PFC Manning be removed from POI watch. Despite these consistent recommendations, PFC Manning has remained on POI watch and in MAX custody.