7
   

Obama's Pardons and Commutations

 
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 04:44 am
@hightor,
A lot of Americans seem to gloss over the fact that Assange, Manning and Snowden have exposed war crimes. If America had acted within the law these leaks would not have happened.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 05:42 am
@izzythepush,
What "war crimes" were exposed? I'm not challenging your assertion but just want to know what specific instances you're referring to — Abu Ghraib?

My point would be that the smart, quasi-ethical thing to do would have been to only release the data that directly exposed a particular crime instead of just handing over access to hundreds of thousands of pages exposing diplomatic back chatter and domestic security concerns.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 06:33 am
@hightor,
It would be the smart thing to do. It wouldn't be remotely ethical though because they would have hushed it up.

This is what a quick google search brings up. They are war crimes, and I'm not playing the game where people ask for details and then refuse to acknowledge it.

Quote:
According to the Iraq Body Count project, a sample of the deaths found in about 800 logs, extrapolated to the full set of records, shows an estimated 15,000 civilian deaths that had not been previously admitted by the US government. 66,000 civilians were reported dead in the logs, out of 109,000 deaths in total. The IBC has so far added a total of 3,334 of these previously unrecorded civilian deaths to its database from their ongoing analysis of the war logs. A list of these incidents, added as of 2 January 2013, has been published on the IBC website.
The Guardian stated that the logs show "US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers"; the coalition, according to The Guardian, has "a formal policy of ignoring such allegations", unless the allegations involve coalition forces.

Sometimes US troops classified civilian deaths as enemy casualties. For example, the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike by US helicopter gunships which killed two Reuters journalists along with several men thought to be armed suspected to be insurgents. They, including the journalists, were all listed as "enemy killed in action".
Wired Magazine said that even after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse incident came to light in 2004, abuse of prisoners or detainees by Iraqi security forces continued; in one recorded case, US troops confiscated a "hand cranked generator with wire clamps" from a Baghdad police station, after a detainee claimed to have been brutalized there.
One report analyzed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism seems to show that "the US military cleared an Apache helicopter gunship to open fire on Iraqi insurgents who were trying to surrender".
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 07:29 am
@izzythepush,
Well I'm not interested in playing games either. I'm sticking to my point. It would have been a lot classier and probably more effective if they'd released particular pieces of evidence that pertained to specific instances. They could have arranged to talk to journalists like Seymour Hersh or other independent reporters and presented a compelling case. Leaking hundreds of thousands of pages just shows them as lazy and unprincipled sneaks.

By the way, the figures on civilian deaths in Iraq are all over the place. The figures people choose to refer to often reflect their opinions about the war and I don't know if any of the numbers pass the test of objectivity. I think deaths by "collateral damage" are less deserving of being labeled "war crimes" than widespread torture and abuse of prisoners. Ideally I'd like to see all criminal actors subject to justice and remove the "license to kill" because some government declares "war".
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:49 am
@izzythepush,
Since you keep harping on the alleged extradition to the US as the reason Assange refuses to face his charges of rape in Sweden, I searched it and got a little lucky fairly quickly as to finding a similar instance when such a situation failed in the US court system. Not saying it automatically would in Assange's case, I am saying it would be an uphill battle and Assange has a good defense in being a publisher.

Quote:
But such an approach would be breaking new legal ground, experts said.

Unlike Manning, charged with handing over a massive cache of secret State Department cables and military intelligence logs to WikiLeaks, Assange is not a US government employee obliged to withhold classified documents.

The United States has "never really successfully prosecuted a non-government official for taking documents that were classified," Ratner said.

His defense attorneys portray him as a publisher, who merely came into possession of sensitive information. But US investigators would likely try to paint Assange as a plotter who helped Manning spill secrets, with the aim of tarnishing Washington.

Assange's supporters can take comfort from a recent case against two pro-Israel lobbyists accused of passing on classified information to Israel, the first time civilians were charged under the Espionage Act.

After a long legal battle, prosecutors eventually dropped the charges in 2009.

The seminal case that proved the limits of government authority over publishing secrets came in 1971 over the Pentagon Papers, when President Richard Nixon tried to stop The New York Times from publishing classified documents on the Vietnam War.

The bid failed, with the courts citing the free speech rights enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Renowned First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who worked on the Pentagon Papers case, said Assange's website raises questions about the limits of freedom of expression, including the publishing of names of Afghans cooperating with the US government.

Some of Assange's public comments have seemed to suggest a desire to undermine US foreign policy, comments that could backfire on him in court, Abrams said.

"WikiLeaks has a First Amendment argument, and it is a serious First Amendment argument, if it is ever charged," Abrams said on C-Span television in 2010.

"At the same time, the government has a genuine and serious national security argument to be made with respect to the behavior, often the misbehavior, of WikiLeaks."



source
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 01:37 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

After pressure from Bernie Sanders, Puerto Rican independence activist wins commutation
Washington Post - ‎12 hours ago‎
Oscar Lopez Rivera, a Puerto Rican independence activist convicted 35 years ago of a conspiracy against the U.S. government, will be freed from prison after President Obama commuted his sentence.


Disgraceful and dangerous.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 01:38 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I'm thrilled for Manning, and want Snowden and Assange freed.

The brave whistleblowers who reveal crimes against the people should be rewarded, and the criminals prosecuted. What a fucked up judicial system we have.


Disgraceful and dangerous.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 01:43 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

After pressure from Bernie Sanders, Puerto Rican independence activist wins commutation
Washington Post - ‎12 hours ago‎
Oscar Lopez Rivera, a Puerto Rican independence activist convicted 35 years ago of a conspiracy against the U.S. government, will be freed from prison after President Obama commuted his sentence.


Disgraceful and dangerous.

Disgraceful and dangerous to subject her to the sort of punishment she had to endure.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 07:14 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Disgraceful and dangerous to commit so many crimes against humanity, betray decency, and punish the ones who revealed it instead of the ones who perpetrated it.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:28 pm
@izzythepush,
I guess you would know about dickheads.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:30 pm
@hightor,
But in relation to other sentences 24 years was excessive.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:34 pm
@RABEL222,
Putting a transgender in that setting was beyond reasonable.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:37 pm
@hightor,
Bush and Chaney were wrong re Iraq. He set up most of the isis terrorist organizations. On a stupid lie in order to cover up their screw up on 9-11.
EDIT This is what politicians do. Start wars to increase their popularity. Ronnie did it Bush did it and I'm scared to death that tRump will do it because he cant stand his popularity ratings now.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:45 pm
@hightor,
Bush and Chaney were wrong re Iraq. He set up most of the isis terrorist organizations. On a stupid lie in order to cover up their screw up on 9-11.
EDIT Starting wars is how politicians gain popularity. Reagan did it, Bush did it and I'm scared to death that tRump will do it with his historically loe popularity ratings as he comes into office.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2017 01:43 am
@revelette1,
America has an excessively punitive legal system, it's not about justice it's about punishment, Manning's sentence proves that. And the rich man can always get off, look at Michael Jackson. I don't blame Assange for staying put.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2017 01:45 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

They could have arranged to talk to journalists like Seymour Hersh or other independent reporters and presented a compelling case.


Really? Do you remember the run up to the illegal war in Iraq when the American Media relentlessly pushed the case for the illegal war? There wasn't a lot of independent, or truthful, reporting then.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2017 01:47 am
@RABEL222,
Yes, I have been to America.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2017 01:48 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
A lot of Americans seem to gloss over the fact that Assange, Manning and Snowden have exposed war crimes.

Not one of them exposed a single war crime.


izzythepush wrote:
If America had acted within the law these leaks would not have happened.

America did act within the law.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2017 01:49 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
What "war crimes" were exposed?

None at all, in fact.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2017 01:51 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
hightor wrote:
My point would be that the smart, quasi-ethical thing to do would have been to only release the data that directly exposed a particular crime instead of just handing over access to hundreds of thousands of pages exposing diplomatic back chatter and domestic security concerns.

It would be the smart thing to do. It wouldn't be remotely ethical though because they would have hushed it up.

Nonsense. Exposing the identities of secret democracy activists so that they could be murdered (or otherwise silenced) by their dictatorships did not do anything to prevent anything from being hushed up.


izzythepush wrote:
This is what a quick google search brings up. They are war crimes,

Mostly war crimes committed by the Iraqi government. You had referred to wrongdoing by the US.

We are not responsible for the acts of the Iraqi government, especially when we were pressuring them to not take the actions in question and they did it against our will.

And even with the war crimes committed by the Iraqi government, these traitors did not expose anything. Anyone who followed the news at the time already knew that the Iraqi government was kidnapping people and their tortured corpses were being dumped by the river. Releasing US documentation of these Iraqi crimes didn't tell anyone anything new.


Quote:
According to the Iraq Body Count project, a sample of the deaths found in about 800 logs, extrapolated to the full set of records, shows an estimated 15,000 civilian deaths that had not been previously admitted by the US government. 66,000 civilians were reported dead in the logs, out of 109,000 deaths in total. The IBC has so far added a total of 3,334 of these previously unrecorded civilian deaths to its database from their ongoing analysis of the war logs. A list of these incidents, added as of 2 January 2013, has been published on the IBC website.
The Guardian stated that the logs show "US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers"; the coalition, according to The Guardian, has "a formal policy of ignoring such allegations", unless the allegations involve coalition forces.

As I noted above, the US is not responsible for crimes committed by Iraqis. We were pressuring the Shia majority to make peace with the Sunnis. It's not our fault they chose to massacre them instead.


Quote:
Sometimes US troops classified civilian deaths as enemy casualties. For example, the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike by US helicopter gunships which killed two Reuters journalists along with several men thought to be armed suspected to be insurgents. They, including the journalists, were all listed as "enemy killed in action".

Not a war crime to list figures wrong on an internal list that no one was ever meant to see in the first place.


Quote:
Wired Magazine said that even after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse incident came to light in 2004, abuse of prisoners or detainees by Iraqi security forces continued; in one recorded case, US troops confiscated a "hand cranked generator with wire clamps" from a Baghdad police station, after a detainee claimed to have been brutalized there.

As I noted above, the US is not responsible for crimes committed by Iraqis. We were pressuring the Shia majority to make peace with the Sunnis. It's not our fault they chose to massacre them instead.


Quote:
One report analyzed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism seems to show that "the US military cleared an Apache helicopter gunship to open fire on Iraqi insurgents who were trying to surrender".

This is the only one that even might be an American war crime. But it looks more like a situation that had never been encountered in international law before. As such, the blanket assertion that it was definitely a war crime seems overblown.

It sounds like something that lawyers need to sit down and draft new rules for. What exactly are we supposed to do when someone offers to surrender to an aircraft that is not able to capture them?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 08:32:16