Footage of US Slaughter Leaked

[Billy Castell 0]

"Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that." Bush on Iraq

 

Didn't his family - in particular his Grandfather - make their fortune selling arms to the Nazis in the 30s?

 

I think his grandad did make his fortune in working with the Nazis. Bush's quote is a joke, as the people who profited were his mates with oil contacts like Dick Head Cheney, and all manner of chancers and con men. And Tony Blair, who works for the hedge fund that controls Iraqi banking.

[Guest alex]

The whole fucking conflict stinks to high heaven. I wonder how the people who took us there can sleep at night.

[Park Life 71]

The whole fucking conflict stinks to high heaven. I wonder how the people who took us there can sleep at night.

 

Well Blair's hair has gone all white.

[Mr Lahey 0]

Apparently Wikileaks are sitting on some "History making" news at the minute. Anybody up for some wild predictions? I cant choose just one.

[1892 0]

Apparently Wikileaks are sitting on some "History making" news at the minute. Anybody up for some wild predictions? I cant choose just one.

 

Well we're getting nearer to 2012 each day...

[Happy Face 29]

The U.S. today charged Bradley Manning with a variety of crimes relating to his alleged leaks of classified material to WikiLeaks, most prominently including the Apache attack video that spawned worldwide debate over the American occupation. The 22-year-old whistle-blower faces 52 years in prison. Marcy Wheeler has interesting analysis of the charges, including some contradictions with the account previously offered by Wired, and I'll have more on this shortly, but for now, I just wanted to review the contemporary rules governing the Rule of Law in the U.S.:

 

• If you torture people or eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law, you receive Look-Forward Imperial Immunity.
  
• If you shoot and kill unarmed rescuers of the wounded while occupying their country and severely wound their unarmed children sitting in a van -- or if you authorize that conduct -- your actions are commended.
  
• If you help wreck the world economy with fraud and cause hundreds of millions of people untold suffering, you collect tens of millions of dollars in bonuses.
  
• If you disclose to the world evidence of war crimes, government lawbreaking, or serious corruption, or otherwise embarrass the U.S., you will be swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and face decades in prison.
  

 

I hope those rules are clear because, as this all shows, Justice is Blind and We're All Equal Before the Law. In America -- clearly -- these are not mere slogans. WikiLeaks said today, and I agree, that "if the charges against Manning are true, he will be the Daniel Ellsberg of our times." Ellsberg himself has said the same. Perhaps Manning should have tortured people or criminally eavesdropped on Americans as he leaked these documents; then he could have availed himself of that sweet Presidential protective shield. As was true for Ellsberg, the issue isn't that Manning is being prosecuted; the issue is the extreme disparities in how such decisions are made and what that reveals about the objectives and priorities of those responsible for these decisions.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr.../law/index.html

[Geordieracer 0]

Tragic that innocents were killed but as pointed out above this had been happening for thousands of years. Humans are combatative by nature and there will always be war and incidents such as this will always happen.

 

Interesting that some on here seem to be more outraged by the cover up attempt rather than the killings themselves. Is is the difference between accident and design?

[NJS 4052]

I don't know why people are still holding on to hope that Obama is something different when it's clear he's just another cunt.

[Geordieracer 0]

I don't know why people are still holding on to hope that Obama is something different when it's clear he's just another cunt.

 

Bingo. The Septics I work with don't rate him at all.

[Happy Face 29]

I don't think anyone's particularly hopeful there's any long term liberal utopia coming down the line. People either see it for what it is or are as blinkered over Obama's abuses as much as Bush supporters were of his and are happy for them to continue.

 

There was widespread opposition to Bush, the Republicans were crushed largley because of the way they waged war. Many democrats and much of the media that condemned Bush voiciferously now defend exactly the same action and much much worse because it's their guy doing it.

 

Having embraced and extended the shredding of the constitution, Obama has ensured there can be no democratic opposition to such abuses when he's out of office. There's no hope to be placed in him now. The damage is done.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

I don't think anyone's particularly hopeful there's any long term liberal utopia coming down the line. People either see it for what it is or are as blinkered over Obama's abuses as much as Bush supporters were of his and are happy for them to continue.

 

There was widespread opposition to Bush, the Republicans were crushed largley because of the way they waged war. Many democrats and much of the media that condemned Bush voiciferously now defend exactly the same action and much much worse because it's their guy doing it.

 

Having embraced and extended the shredding of the constitution, Obama has ensured there can be no democratic opposition to such abuses when he's out of office. There's no hope to be placed in him now. The damage is done.

 

Not just democrats.

 

A product of the perverse psychology of leadership in America. The Republican leader was blasted by fellow Republicans for criticising Obama on Afghanistan. "we must stand behind the President"? Why? Because if not, you are criticising and offending the 10 + million US Army families, their loved ones, the soldiers, everyone putting their neck on the line.

 

On another note, law-makers (who are not all Democrats) run the legal system, not Obama. If they want to prosecute, they use the law, fuck all Obama can do about it.

 

I sometimes think people have this view of society as some sort of coherent hierarchical structure with efficient distribution of authority and power. If the world looked like that (and you can attribute every action to the executive) there would no such thing as politics.

[Happy Face 29]

Tragic that innocents were killed but as pointed out above this had been happening for thousands of years. Humans are combatative by nature and there will always be war and incidents such as this will always happen.

 

Interesting that some on here seem to be more outraged by the cover up attempt rather than the killings themselves. Is is the difference between accident and design?

 

That's exactly the point.

 

Why would anyone be surprised that there's a war going on and that people get killed?

 

No-one's surprised things like this happen because the people in the helicopter were just following orders.

 

Not sure what your last question means, but the outrage is not that these soldiers did this. The killings (while sad) are just a drop in the ocean of hundreds of thousands (millions?) killed, part of the statistic. The outrage in this story is that the people giving the orders, the people ultimately responsible for murder, torture and cover-up receive immunity from investigation but the people that reveal the truth of it face decades of imprisonment from a government trying to scare anyone else thinking about coming forward with other evidence of the truth of the war.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

I don't think anyone's particularly hopeful there's any long term liberal utopia coming down the line. People either see it for what it is or are as blinkered over Obama's abuses as much as Bush supporters were of his and are happy for them to continue.

 

There was widespread opposition to Bush, the Republicans were crushed largley because of the way they waged war. Many democrats and much of the media that condemned Bush voiciferously now defend exactly the same action and much much worse because it's their guy doing it.

 

Having embraced and extended the shredding of the constitution, Obama has ensured there can be no democratic opposition to such abuses when he's out of office. There's no hope to be placed in him now. The damage is done.

 

Not just democrats.

 

A product of the perverse psychology of leadership in America. The Republican leader was blasted by fellow Republicans for criticising Obama on Afghanistan. "we must stand behind the President"? Why? Because if not, you are criticising and offending the 10 + million US Army families, their loved ones, the soldiers, everyone putting their neck on the line.

 

Aye, most republicans defend it now as they did when Bush was doing it.

 

Michael Steele used the occupation for party political petty point scoring against Obama, which no-one in Washington wants. A consensus has been reached that the endless war will continue so both parties have rounded on him. The illusion of opposition between the parties will only be restricted to the economy, health and other domestic issues.

 

The most embarrassing thing about the episode is that the DNC responded with a statement saying how Steele was "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan" and that it was "unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops". It reads like something Karl Rove wrote a few years back whenever some democrat had a similar pop at Bush.

 

On another note, law-makers (who are not all Democrats) run the legal system, not Obama. If they want to prosecute, they use the law, fuck all Obama can do about it.

 

I sometimes think people have this view of society as some sort of coherent hierarchical structure with efficient distribution of authority and power. If the world looked like that (and you can attribute every action to the executive) there would no such thing as politics.

 

You said the same thing about healthcare legislation, as if Obama wields no power whatsoever.

 

It's not like he'd like to see investigations but his hands are tied. He's said ""I'm a strong believer that it's important to look forward and not backwards". He has no interest in prosecuting war crimes but has a vested interest in prosecuting those that reveal them. His DOJ is not prosecuting war crimes but is prosecuting those that reveal them. If you think his DOJ appointees (Eric Holder direct from the Obama campaign team as attorney general for example) is not acting in Obama's interests you're pretty naive.

[Happy Face 29]

Even when the department of Justice go out and do something constitutional (like giving an accused terrorists a proper trial) Obama's white house just overule it if there's any political fallout as a result....

 

President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

Edited July 7, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

I don't think anyone's particularly hopeful there's any long term liberal utopia coming down the line. People either see it for what it is or are as blinkered over Obama's abuses as much as Bush supporters were of his and are happy for them to continue.

 

There was widespread opposition to Bush, the Republicans were crushed largley because of the way they waged war. Many democrats and much of the media that condemned Bush voiciferously now defend exactly the same action and much much worse because it's their guy doing it.

 

Having embraced and extended the shredding of the constitution, Obama has ensured there can be no democratic opposition to such abuses when he's out of office. There's no hope to be placed in him now. The damage is done.

 

Not just democrats.

 

A product of the perverse psychology of leadership in America. The Republican leader was blasted by fellow Republicans for criticising Obama on Afghanistan. "we must stand behind the President"? Why? Because if not, you are criticising and offending the 10 + million US Army families, their loved ones, the soldiers, everyone putting their neck on the line.

 

Aye, most republicans defend it now as they did when Bush was doing it.

 

Michael Steele used the occupation for party political petty point scoring against Obama, which no-one in Washington wants. A consensus has been reached that the endless war will continue so both parties have rounded on him. The illusion of opposition between the parties will only be restricted to the economy, health and other domestic issues.

 

The most embarrassing thing about the episode is that the DNC responded with a statement saying how Steele was "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan" and that it was "unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops". It reads like something Karl Rove wrote a few years back whenever some democrat had a similar pop at Bush.

 

On another note, law-makers (who are not all Democrats) run the legal system, not Obama. If they want to prosecute, they use the law, fuck all Obama can do about it.

 

I sometimes think people have this view of society as some sort of coherent hierarchical structure with efficient distribution of authority and power. If the world looked like that (and you can attribute every action to the executive) there would no such thing as politics.

 

You said the same thing about healthcare legislation, as if Obama wields no power whatsoever.

 

It's not like he'd like to see investigations but his hands are tied. He's said ""I'm a strong believer that it's important to look forward and not backwards". He has no interest in prosecuting war crimes but has a vested interest in prosecuting those that reveal them. His DOJ is not prosecuting war crimes but is prosecuting those that reveal them. If you think his DOJ appointees (Eric Holder direct from the Obama campaign team as attorney general for example) is not acting in Obama's interests you're pretty naive.

 

It was more a general point that those in power use the law and those not in power find it hard to use the law. And as you point out, everyone in power has to keep the war strategy on track as they all have to support it. The point is always to counter the supposition that Obama wields all the power, which is equally naive. You think he controls the US? Corporations control the US.

 

This soldier has leaked massive amounts classified information too, not just the footage. The charges againt him were brought under the military code of justice and could result in a trial by court-martial. I wasnt aware that Obama's people were driving that? New information to me so link me up, happy to accept i was naive thinking it wasnt, just going on the fact that i read Manning was charged by the military.

 

I was right about healthcare legislation too as i explained many times the process of bringing legislation to the statute is bi-partisan. Going to cost a lot of money, provide economic stimulus (by the back door) and improve outcomes. There are already big changes being implemented in US healthcare which are improving access to care for millons of citizens (we have just launched a new Prostate cancer drug in US). I claim complete vindication for my support of Obama on that issue.

[Happy Face 29]

I don't think anyone's particularly hopeful there's any long term liberal utopia coming down the line. People either see it for what it is or are as blinkered over Obama's abuses as much as Bush supporters were of his and are happy for them to continue.

 

There was widespread opposition to Bush, the Republicans were crushed largley because of the way they waged war. Many democrats and much of the media that condemned Bush voiciferously now defend exactly the same action and much much worse because it's their guy doing it.

 

Having embraced and extended the shredding of the constitution, Obama has ensured there can be no democratic opposition to such abuses when he's out of office. There's no hope to be placed in him now. The damage is done.

 

Not just democrats.

 

A product of the perverse psychology of leadership in America. The Republican leader was blasted by fellow Republicans for criticising Obama on Afghanistan. "we must stand behind the President"? Why? Because if not, you are criticising and offending the 10 + million US Army families, their loved ones, the soldiers, everyone putting their neck on the line.

 

Aye, most republicans defend it now as they did when Bush was doing it.

 

Michael Steele used the occupation for party political petty point scoring against Obama, which no-one in Washington wants. A consensus has been reached that the endless war will continue so both parties have rounded on him. The illusion of opposition between the parties will only be restricted to the economy, health and other domestic issues.

 

The most embarrassing thing about the episode is that the DNC responded with a statement saying how Steele was "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan" and that it was "unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops". It reads like something Karl Rove wrote a few years back whenever some democrat had a similar pop at Bush.

 

On another note, law-makers (who are not all Democrats) run the legal system, not Obama. If they want to prosecute, they use the law, fuck all Obama can do about it.

 

I sometimes think people have this view of society as some sort of coherent hierarchical structure with efficient distribution of authority and power. If the world looked like that (and you can attribute every action to the executive) there would no such thing as politics.

 

You said the same thing about healthcare legislation, as if Obama wields no power whatsoever.

 

It's not like he'd like to see investigations but his hands are tied. He's said ""I'm a strong believer that it's important to look forward and not backwards". He has no interest in prosecuting war crimes but has a vested interest in prosecuting those that reveal them. His DOJ is not prosecuting war crimes but is prosecuting those that reveal them. If you think his DOJ appointees (Eric Holder direct from the Obama campaign team as attorney general for example) is not acting in Obama's interests you're pretty naive.

 

It was more a general point that those in power use the law and those not in power find it hard to use the law. And as you point out, everyone in power has to keep the war strategy on track as they all have to support it. The point is always to counter the supposition that Obama wields all the power, which is equally naive. You think he controls the US? Corporations control the US.

 

This soldier has leaked massive amounts classified information too, not just the footage. The charges againt him were brought under the military code of justice and could result in a trial by court-martial. I wasnt aware that Obama's people were driving that? New information to me so link me up, happy to accept i was naive thinking it wasnt, just going on the fact that i read Manning was charged by the military.

 

I was right about healthcare legislation too as i explained many times the process of bringing legislation to the statute is bi-partisan. Going to cost a lot of money, provide economic stimulus (by the back door) and improve outcomes. There are already big changes being implemented in US healthcare which are improving access to care for millons of citizens (we have just launched a new Prostate cancer drug in US). I claim complete vindication for my support of Obama on that issue.

 

I'm not arguing that the soldier shouldn't face a court....I'm arguing that terrorists and war criminals should too, but that Obama, The White house, the Democrats, corporate executives (whichever individual or collective body you want to interpret as wielding the ultimate power...usually defined as being the president) won't allow that, it's not a justice department implementation of law.

 

...and there was no bi-partisanship in the healthcare reform act that was passed. They didn't get a single Republican vote. Not sure how Obama could be powerless on Healthcare and could only watch events unfold in the house, but also have vindicated your support in how he shaped the final result. Surely it can't be both.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

...and there was no bi-partisanship in the healthcare reform act that was passed. They didn't get a single Republican vote. Not sure how Obama could be powerless on Healthcare and could only watch events unfold in the house, but also have vindicated your support in how he shaped the final result. Surely it can't be both.

 

Each piece of the legislation was drawn up by 5 committees made up of members from both parties. Then it got debated on the floor and the two houses merged the 5 committe proposals into one law proposal.

 

The final vote was based on 'there are elements of this we dont like' but not all elements were drafted by Democrats.

 

Hence its content was bi-partisan.

[ChezGiven 0]

Its the military who have brought the charges, not the White House then?

[Happy Face 29]

Its the military who have brought the charges, not the White House then?

 

Like you said. The White house don't charge anyone for anything.

 

It's well within their power to stop charges they don't want being placed though.

[ChezGiven 0]

Its the military who have brought the charges, not the White House then?

 

Like you said. The White house don't charge anyone for anything.

 

It's well within their power to stop charges they don't want being placed though.

I'm not so sure it is since the stink that would create in the military would be huge. Essentially a national security threat (from the other leaked documents) being let off by the white House would make Obama look like the terrorist in disguise the far-right try to portray him as. I do accept your fundamental point that this is a huge injustice as its about holding the military to account. Without that accountability (and this case will deter others from whistle-blowing), then the war is just a form of terrorism itslelf. In fact i agree with everything apart from the 'Obama is just a cunt like the rest of them' bit. Which you didnt say.

[NJS 4052]

In fact i agree with everything apart from the 'Obama is just a cunt like the rest of them' bit. Which you didnt say.

 

He's had ample opportunity to state that there are problems with Bush's legacy laws even if he admitted he coudn't change them - instead he has defended, strengthened and extended them - I don't see how citing the power of the institution of government is any excuse.

[Happy Face 29]

Its the military who have brought the charges, not the White House then?

 

Like you said. The White house don't charge anyone for anything.

 

It's well within their power to stop charges they don't want being placed though.

I'm not so sure it is since the stink that would create in the military would be huge. Essentially a national security threat (from the other leaked documents) being let off by the white House would make Obama look like the terrorist in disguise the far-right try to portray him as. I do accept your fundamental point that this is a huge injustice as its about holding the military to account. Without that accountability (and this case will deter others from whistle-blowing), then the war is just a form of terrorism itslelf. In fact i agree with everything apart from the 'Obama is just a cunt like the rest of them' bit. Which you didnt say.

 

[ChezGiven 0]

Its the military who have brought the charges, not the White House then?

 

Like you said. The White house don't charge anyone for anything.

 

It's well within their power to stop charges they don't want being placed though.

I'm not so sure it is since the stink that would create in the military would be huge. Essentially a national security threat (from the other leaked documents) being let off by the white House would make Obama look like the terrorist in disguise the far-right try to portray him as. I do accept your fundamental point that this is a huge injustice as its about holding the military to account. Without that accountability (and this case will deter others from whistle-blowing), then the war is just a form of terrorism itslelf. In fact i agree with everything apart from the 'Obama is just a cunt like the rest of them' bit. Which you didnt say.

 

 

It wasnt that much of a back-peddle.

[ChezGiven 0]

In fact i agree with everything apart from the 'Obama is just a cunt like the rest of them' bit. Which you didnt say.

 

He's had ample opportunity to state that there are problems with Bush's legacy laws even if he admitted he coudn't change them - instead he has defended, strengthened and extended them - I don't see how citing the power of the institution of government is any excuse.

 

Which ones did you have specifically in mind?

[NJS 4052]

In fact i agree with everything apart from the 'Obama is just a cunt like the rest of them' bit. Which you didnt say.

 

He's had ample opportunity to state that there are problems with Bush's legacy laws even if he admitted he coudn't change them - instead he has defended, strengthened and extended them - I don't see how citing the power of the institution of government is any excuse.

 

Which ones did you have specifically in mind?

 

I admit to no detailed knowledge (as ever) but I understood he introduced the one where he can order an assassination of anyone including US citizens based on intelligence with no due legal process.