njb902 wrote:The United States is not committing genocide in Afghanistan or Iraq. The United States has engaged in a limited war in both of those countries, civilian casualties, while regrettable, do happen. I'm sure there have been cases of murder and willful destruction of civilian property, which should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the UCMJ, but calling it genocide is a exaggeration.
First of all, no - the USMJ should have absolutely nothing to do with prosecution of US soldiers for war crimes. Any and all war crimes should be tried by the International Criminal Court at the Hague. This holds true for any country whose soldiers stand accused of war crimes. Yet the US continued to show a flagrant disregard for International law by doing so- which btw is why the US is so hated throughout the world (ironically if it lived up to the ideals of the Founding Fathers in its foreign policy, it would actually be one of the most loved and respected countries in the world).
A classic example of this was Abu Ghirab. Had those war criminals been tried before the Hague they would have been either behind bars for 20 years or hanging from a gallows. However the US did exactly what happens when a nation tries itself for war crimes - turned the proceedings into a farce, created a few scapegoats and handed out wrist slaps.
Second of all the numbers once And exactly how far past 3.5 million unarmed civilians in Afghanistan, several million unarmed civillians in Iraq, indisrciminate use of an internationally recognised chemical weapon like white phosphorus in urban areas and millions of refugees (3-4 million in Afghanistan alone, before genocide ceases to be an exaggeration in your mind?
njb902 wrote:I also agree with you that governments should not be allowed to get away with covering up military crime. You are however missing part of my point, the war's in Iraq and Afghanistan where only the topics of a portion of the documents stolen.
Yet it is these documents, rather than a few embarrassing cables which have been what has prompted the "aiding the enemy" charge, as these documents have blown apart the heavily scripted narrative of the war of
terror in the media which the US and her allies have crafted that has them baying for blood. The fact is that if noone were aboove the law, Howard, Gillard, Bush, Obama, Blair, Brown and Cameron, as well as others who were equally culpable, would be either swinging from a gallows or spending decades behind bars, and the documents on Iraq and Afghanistan exposed war crimes they would rather keep buried.
njb902 wrote:Documents that were about our opinions of other countries and their leadership where also stolen. I believe that hurt our standings with other countries more so than the documents on the wars, I believe other countries seem to be more knowledgeable about what happens Iraq and Afghanistan then we here in the states are.
They also embarrassed Australia as well, but you don't see me being angry at wikileaks for that. The fact is that if we are to have an accurate historical record, these documents should be privy to public scrutiny. The fact is if said diplomats actually practiced the art of diplomacy properly, their would never have been anything embarrassing in said cables to begin with.
njb902 wrote:Manning could have went up the chain of command or went to the militarie's civilian oversight. Instead he betrayed his oath and his country by giving unrelated documents to a inappropriate source.
That is an incredibly naive and shortsighted understanding of the situation on your part. The fact is that this was coming from the top of the chain of command, under a Patriot Act where any dissent, no matter how valid, can see someone regarded as an enemy of the state.
Decisions were made from the top to open Abu Ghirab. Decisions were made from the top to ship prisoners over to Egypt to bypass the Geneva Convention so suspects could be brutally tortured. Decisions were made from the top to run Guantanimo Bay as a one stop torture shop. The fact is that said war crimes ran right up to the level of Bush upto 2008, and then subsequently Obama. In that climate where war crimes go right to the top, and where the military operates under the paradigm of the Nuremberg defense, just what kind of outcomes do you think are going to be achieved by running it up the very chain of command besides it being buried?
What you think he should have done sounds great in theory, however in reality, the whole reason that people become whistle-blowers is because they clearly recognise that accountability within the chain of command has deteriorated. That is precisely what he did. If you have an issue with why he didn't take it up the chain of command, then I put it to you that you need to ask questions about why he couldn't do that.