Torturous oppression of hero Bradley Manning continues

[MobBoss]

You readily admit you know nothing about the rules of engagement that particular day.

And neither do you. I do however, know the regulations that cover how RoEs are established and implemented - you dont. That gives me insight and knowledge that you simply dont have.

That you are merely speculating what may have been considered to be acceptable.

No, I am able to apply the regulatory standard to what I see on the video. You dont.

Of course many acknowledged experts disagree with your obviously biased personal opinions in this matter. Here's one such expert mentioned from the same Wiki article:

Using your own logic....was that guy there the day it happened?

No?

Ah well, then, we can discount his opinion based on that then.

has stated that there is "a case to be made that a war crime may have been commited

I assume you know the difference in saying 'may have been committed' and 'were committed' right?

'Experts' from Norway can allege whatever they want all day long, and you may even find it pleasing to your ears to hear it if it feeds the conspiracy angle. But it really has no more real bearing on the issue than your or my opinion does.

You keep trying to portray this incident as only being able to be linterpreted one way, which exactly how you try to rationalize and defend just about all such incidents.

No, I have said that there are some things which occur in the video which I dont agree with, I simply dont think they actually cross the line to be labeled 'warcrime'. A word your generally quite quick to use when taling about the US military regardless of the facts established.

There are clearly two sides to this story.

There are always two sides to every story. A point I make often around here.

But you are convinced you must be right and anybody who disagrees with you must be wrong.

Isnt that the point of arguing a position? Dont you think your're right in your opinion?

Seriously, Form. It seems your're upset simply because I am being effective in arguing my position.

Thanks!

 

[Formaldehyde]

And neither do you.

Great comback.

Unlike you, I readily admit that it is all my personal opinion. That I have no access to any information which isn't available to everybody else. And apparently neither do you.

I do however, know the regulations that cover how RoEs are established and implemented - you dont. That gives me insight and knowledge that you simply dont have.

You mean the "insight and knowledge" that acknowledged experts in this matter do have and you obviously don't?

When you try to use an appeal to authority logical fallacy, it is best to actually cite an expert.

Once again, there are clearly two sides to this story. And the military was obviously much less than forthcoming about the details and even changed many of them over time.

There are always two sides to every story. A point I make often around here.

Yet you are apparently ignoring it in this particular case, as you frequently seem to do when you try to defend the military no matter the reason.

Isnt that the point of arguing a position? Dont you think your're right in your opinion?

I'm not the one trying to portray myself as the expert.

But no, I don't think my opinions are necessarily "right". That is why they are called opinions instead of facts. And I occasionally even change my mind now and then. Does that mean I am "right" now when I was "wrong" before?

But this is really off the topic. If you really wish to discuss this incident yet again, why don't you start a different thread or resurrect the old one? This is supposed to be about much more recent military atrocities.

 

[Patroklos]

Its like reading Pravda.

 

[JollyRoger]

Its like reading Pravda.

Come on Pat, not even Mobby's posts are this far right:

Barry Sotero, AKA Barack Obama, along with the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission have successfully ignored a Federal Lawsuit asking him to produce a valid Birth Certificate. When the time to respond to that lawsuit expired, under Federal Court Rules, they all admitted that he was not a citizen of The United States of America and deemed to have committed fraud. A normal man would have been found to have admitted he was not a US citizen.

But the man with no visible past, was blessed by a light shining from above on a Federal Judge, by having the lawsuit against him dismissed, three weeks after his non-response was proof that he is not a US citizen.

That lawsuit has since been taken to the US Supreme Court, where Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission have until December 1, 2008 to answer the complaint made against them.

Another lawsuit by another attorney against him to prove he is a US citizen has been scheduled for a conference of Justices of the US Supreme Court on December 5, 2008

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/02-12-2008/106778-Amazing_Obama-0/

 

[Patroklos]

Your quip was anticipated, thus not effective. Avoid the obvious rebuttal.

 

[JollyRoger]

Your quip was anticipated, thus not effective. Avoid the obvious rebuttal.

Its like reading Pravda.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

 

[MobBoss]

Great comback.

Why thank you. You've used it on me so often I thought I would return the favor.

Unlike you, I readily admit that it is all my personal opinion.

I admit that too, with the exception that my opinion is also backed up by Army Regulation.

That I have no access to any information which isn't available to everybody else. And apparently neither do you.

Actually, I probably could if I wanted to dig, but would be prevented in sharing it with you due to your lack of clearance.

Thus our conversation is limited to whats on the table. And yes, I am aware of how much that makes one's conpiracy sense tingle.

You mean the "insight and knowledge" that acknowledged experts in this matter do have and you obviously don't?

I didnt realize some guy from Norway is an acknowledge expert on US military regulation. I wonder if he has as much time as I do working these issues?

When you try to use an appeal to authority logical fallacy, it is best to actually cite an expert.

Compared to you, I am indded an expert on things military. I am sure you are an expert yourself in something compared to me. Feel free to claim that status when in a thread talking about your area of expertise, whatever that actually is.

Once again, there are clearly two sides to this story. And the military was obviously much less than forthcoming about the details and even changed many of them over time.

/meh. Thats the way it is in trying to get information from a warzone. By its very nature initial reports can be wrong. Its part of how communication works. What really did or didnt happen often doesnt come out until long after the event occurred.

I'm not the one trying to portray myself as the expert.

Good for you.

 

[JollyRoger]

I just heard an extraordinary remark from State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. He was speaking to a small audience at MIT on “the benefits of new media as it relates to foreign policy”, an event organised by the Center for Future Civic Media.

Around twenty of us were sitting around the table listening to his views on social media, the impact of the Twittersphere, the Arab uprisings, and so on, in a vast space-age conference room overlooking the Charles River and the Boston skyline. And then, inevitably, one young man said he wanted to address “the elephant in the room”. What did Crowley think, he asked, about Wikileaks? About the United States, in his words, “torturing a prisoner in a military brig”? Crowley didn’t stop to think. What’s being done to Bradley Manning by my colleagues at the Department of Defense “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” He paused. “None the less Bradley Manning is in the right place”. And he went on lengthening his answer, explaining why in Washington’s view, “there is sometimes a need for secrets… for diplomatic progress to be made”.

http://philippathomas.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/the-state-department-spokesman-and-the-prisoner-in-the-brig/

 

[MobBoss]

http://philippathomas.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/the-state-department-spokesman-and-the-prisoner-in-the-brig/

Odd. He didnt call it 'torture', 'warcrime', 'illegal', or violation of his consitutional rights or anything like that?

Musta been disappointing for ya.

Edited for accuracy.

 

[JollyRoger]

Odd. He didnt call it 'torture', 'warcrime', 'illegal', or anything like that?

Musta been disappointing for ya.

I didn't call it anything like either, other than a violation of possible Constitutional rights. But at least he's fair and balanced as I'm sure you don't agree with his characterization of the DoD as ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.

 

[MobBoss]

I didn't call it anything like either, other than a violation of possible Constitutional rights. But at least he's fair and balanced as I'm sure you don't agree with his characterization of the DoD as ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.

Why i've hardly ever seen anything ridiculous, counterproductive or stupid in my years of service....

Yeah, right.



Of course it can be all of those things. But that doesnt make it wrong/illegal/warcrime/torture/unconstitutional/etc. etc. etc.

 

[JollyRoger]

Of course it can be all of those things. But that doesnt make it wrong/illegal/warcrime/torture/unconstitutional/etc. etc. etc.

You are correct and I never stated otherwise, so obvious point is obvious. It is my opinion that they are violating the 5th and the 8th, but the only risk there is to not be able to use the evidence gathered at trial.

The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that they will use lawsuits in this type of situation to issue landmark civil procedure decisions (see Ashcroft v. Iqbal) rather than put a government official at risk on the merits of the case.

 

[Archbob]

I don't consider someone who leaks government secrets a hero, so you'll have to throw the "hero" part out at least. And assange is an A-hole. He could of leaked it to someone better.