Chelsea Manning is a Hero

[pebbles]

When unlawful combatants hide and fight among those who should be considered considered non-combatants, they, in effect, militarize the civilians through the "fog of war."

Wow, Just Wow.

That's a very technical way of saying
"I can murder whoever I like."

Because that's tantamount to your Orwellian interpretation... What limitations are US forces subjected to when killing civilians under that reading?
Answer: None

I wonder if the rest of the world agrees with that interpretation.

[Jamie D]

Wow, Just Wow.

That's a very technical way of saying
"I can murder whoever I like."

Because that's tantamount to your Orwellian interpretation... What limitations are US forces subjected to when killing civilians under that reading?
Answer: None

I wonder if the rest of the world agrees with that interpretation.

Not at all.  The reason the Geneva Conventions and the Protocols exist, is to protect non-combatants, and to ensure the humanitarian treatment of lawful combatants when they are captured or wounded.

The reason guerillas, insurgents, spies, and other types of unlawful combatants are condemned in the Conventions, is precisely because they put protected persons at risk.  When, for instance, an Hamas terrorist fires a missile at Israel, from a school playground in Gaza, the terrorist makes the playground a target.

Also, "murder" requires evil intent.  It is never murder to kill lawful or unlawful combatants who are capable of resisting.  Civilians also have the positive obligation to depart a war zone.  A population that clothes, feeds, and arms unlawful combatants are themselves belligerents.

If you are a humanitarian, then you too should condemn the unlawful actions of al Queda, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, etc, who endanger the innocent.  You really should read up on the Conventions so that you understand the issues.

EDIT: Let me add that I respect your pacifist point of view.  I believe, however, your rhetoric is misguided.

[CalmRage]

Not at all.  The reason the Geneva Conventions and the Protocols exist, is to protect non-combatants, and to ensure the humanitarian treatment of lawful combatants when they are captured or wounded.

The reason guerillas, insurgents, spies, and other types of unlawful combatants are condemned in the Conventions, is precisely because they put protected persons at risk.  When, for instance, an Hamas terrorist fires a missile at Israel, from a school playground in Gaza, the terrorist makes the playground a target.

Also, "murder" requires evil intent.  It is never murder to kill lawful or unlawful combatants who are capable of resisting.  Civilians also have the positive obligation to depart a war zone.  A population that clothes, feeds, and arms unlawful combatants are themselves belligerents.

If you are a humanitarian, then you too should condemn the unlawful actions of al Queda, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, etc, who endanger the innocent.  You really should read up on the Conventions so that you understand the issues.

and the us military.

[Jamie D]

and the us military.

Not so. In the recent conflicts the US Military has conducted itself within the scope and parameters of the Conventions.

They are in compliance with the Laws of War.

[CalmRage]

Not so. In the recent conflicts the US Military has conducted itself within the scope and parameters of the Conventions.

They are in compliance with the Laws of War.

that's what they say, but probably not what they actually did.

[Ltl89]

Conventions or not, the Apache attack was shameful in my opinion.  There is a reason the government wouldn't respond to Reuters request for further information on the incident.  It may or many not be illegal, but I think there is a good reason for the public to be outraged by some of the military's actions.   Having said that, it's not right to put the U.S. government in the same camp with al-queda, the taliban or hamas.   One may hate the drone wars, but at the very least they are targeted strikes at terrorists as opposed to random attacks on civilians.  Still, there has been too much civilian causalities in the cross fire and we are responsible to hold our government accountable for perceived wrongs and voice our disapproval. 

[ttim0324]

I honestly think Manning was treated unfairly and didnt recieve the attention and support deserved because everyone was focusing on the Martin/Zimmerman nonsense. But just because you can relate to someone doesn't make them a hero. It's the same thing with Brandon Teena who is revered by ftm's to be some transgender deity when in reality he was a terrible person who lied, cheated, stole, and hurt everyone around him.

So no, I can't say Manning is any kind of hero. I'm sure the dictionary definition has been posted in this thread already, and Manning would certainly not fall under it.

[Ltl89]

In other Whistleblower news...
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/23/breaking_ex_fbi_agent_pleads_guilty_to_major_leak/singleton/

I think this is relevant because there has been a large discussion over the role of whistleblowing and it's possible justification and further implications.  I'll be interested to learn more once the story continues to break. 

[Ltl89]

Here is a more in-depth article on the breaking story.  http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/23/225491628/former-fbi-agent-to-plead-guilty-in-leak-case

I should note, it's more a leak story than a whistleblower one, but many of the talks about leaks can perhaps add to the overall conversation. 

[Jamie D]

Conventions or not, the Apache attack was shameful in my opinion.  There is a reason the government wouldn't respond to Reuters request for further information on the incident.  It may or may not be illegal, but I think there is a good reason for the public to be outraged by some of the military's actions.   Having said that, it's not right to put the U.S. government in the same camp with al-queda, the taliban or hamas.   One may hate the drone wars, but at the very least they are targeted strikes at terrorists as opposed to random attacks on civilians.  Still, there has been too much civilian causalities in the cross fire and we are responsible to hold our government accountable for perceived wrongs and voice our disapproval.

Shameful and unlawful are two different things.  War is shameful (but some wars displaced murderous tyrants).  Dropping atomic bombs were shameful (but they likely saved many more lives than they took).

By far and away, most of the "civilian" casualties in Iraq have come from secular Sunni vs Shi'a violence.

When an American soldier has been accused of crimes in these war zones, they have been tried by a military court.  Who provides justice for the gassed Kurds, the Taliban atrocities, and al Qaeda terrorism?  How are they held accountable?

[Ltl89]

Shameful and unlawful are two different things.  War is shameful (but some wars displaced murderous tyrants).  Dropping atomic bombs were shameful (but they likely saved many more lives than they took).

By far and away, most of the "civilian" casualties in Iraq have come from secular Sunni vs Shi'a violence.

When an American soldier has been accused of crimes in these war zones, they have been tried by a military court.  Who provides justice for the gassed Kurds, the Taliban atrocities, and al Qaeda terrorism?  How are they held accountable?

On your first point, I can agree.  Nonetheless, we still have a right to call out what we see as wrong.

On your second point, I didn't claim otherwise.

Lastly, I'm not defending any extremist group.  I specifically stated that the U.S should not be lumped into that category even if you don't care for all of our actions.  Our intent is different and we do have laws procedures to address the wrongs; although, I don't always feel they are used. I don't know why you would ask me why you would ask about who holds the extremists accountable when I argue there is an important distinction.  In any case, I could care less about who holds them accountable as long as they are prevented from harming more people in this world.  As for the U.S. this is my government and I have the right to raise my voice when I see a wrong.  Furthermore, I don't want my moral compass to be guided by the fact that we are at least better than the terrorists.  They may act like animals, but that doesn't mean we should either.  I'm not saying we are acting in that way, but that's why it's important for there to be a form of redress for the wrongs and we should raise our voice when we don't believe they have worked.  Please don't take what I say as the U.S is the same as monsters as the al-Queda.  That is far from my view even if I don't agree with everything our military does.  It's not always your either with us or with the terrorists. 

[Jamie D]

The problem with some of the earlier posts, is that the poster tried to draw a moral equivalency between the lawful actions of a trained military, and the immoral and lawless actions of terrorists.

[dalebert]

Furthermore, I don't want my moral compass to be guided by the fact that we are at least better than the terrorists.

Exactly. Jamie, your arguments seem to largely rely on pointing out how the U.S. military is not as bad as the terrorists. Being not as bad as others doesn't mean you're not behaving badly. It seems to rely on George Bush reasoning, i.e. "You're either with us or your with the terrorists." and I just don't buy into that false dichotomy.

[Marissa]

One of the main reasons I applaud Manning's action is that our government (I'm American too) has become too adept at sidestepping checks and balances that were intended since the American Revolution.  How can the American people (or any people for that matter) ensure that groups of elite individuals don't pass the point where necessity falls away and atrocity comes into play if those groups can operate in complete secret?

We have absurd levels of 'National Security,' and levels of classification without unbiased oversight.  There are cases where information really does need to be kept secret, but I would bet that they make up less than 1% of the documents that are classified. 

Potential embarrassment is not a sufficient reason for classifying information IMHO.  I really think it should be a criminal act to mark a document 'top secret' without sufficient evidence that it poses a threat.  I can't spell out exactly what level of evidence is necessary; it would probably take a group of experts a significant amount of time to make that call, but  I think it's time to reclaim governmental oversight from the military-industrial oligarchy. We need much more transparency!

[Tessa James]

Transparency is needed for citizens to be well informed and I appreciate more info even if it comes from so called whistle blowers.

The Iraq war was an illegal invasion based on lies and an unwarranted occupation of a sovereign nation.  We owe them an apology IMO.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who have experienced the horrors and waste of war would revisit it for "a cause" with the blood of their children.

War is not the answer it is the enemy.  Does killing for peace really make any sense?

[Devlyn]

Transparency is needed for citizens to be well informed and I appreciate more info even if it comes from so called whistle blowers.

The Iraq war was an illegal invasion based on lies and an unwarranted occupation of a sovereign nation.  We owe them an apology IMO.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who have experienced the horrors and waste of war would revisit it for "a cause" with the blood of their children.

War is not the answer it is the enemy.  Does killing for peace really make any sense?

There's an anti-war thread in Politics, we figured out that depending on your source, all of humankind has generated somewhere between eight to two hundred years of peace. Humans always have, and likely will, always fight.

[Danielle Emmalee]

Killing for peace in the name of 300,000,000 people is difficult to justify. Even if the majority of those 300,000,000 people agree with you, some don't.  Killing for peace in your own name or in the name of a group that is in unanimous agreement may be justifiable (self defense or the defense of others who cannot defend themselves).

[DriftingCrow]

I am pretty sure no one said it's okay to kill people without just cause, but sometimes there's little options otherwise than to go to war (hey, it would've been nice if King George just said "okay America, go free, I support your Independence" or if the South said "okay, let's all work together, and we're willing to give up slavery"). I am not saying that I completely agree with the recent wars, or that I totally agree with all the decisions the US government has ever made. I feel awful when innocent civilians get hit in cross fire and so on. The fact is that all wars (justified or not) get messy, and innocent people on both sides get killed. Soldiers who don't have the proper support and mental health services can do awful things.

I do think it's unfair to make all soldiers, or anyone who isn't a 100% dedicated pacifist out to be complicit in war crimes, or to not be a moral person. Transparency is good, and it can help us make our military better, though like every action a person does, leakers/whistle blowers need to take steps to ensure there's no (or little) negative impact on innocents. (and yes, I know no one got hurt from Manning's disclosures, I am speaking in general here, if Manning could do it, so can and likely will other soldiers). Sometimes if there's something you feel strongly about, to you, it's worth it to go to prison. There's some things I think I'd willingly go to prison for. The next person who makes disclosure might not be as good-intentioned as Manning seemed to have been, and the repercussions could be very serious depending on what the next person releases and to whom. (The military does need to smarten up though about who they let near classified information, as well as other government agencies, if they want to prevent more leaks.)

[chrissydr]

Definitely would not call her a hero. I think she went about it the wrong way and took matter into her own hands. Despite having the best intentions, she still went about it in a way that could have potentially harmed a great deal of people if it had been just a tiny bit different. You do things in certain ways, because in order to preserve life and the balance of things, you must do them that way. The government keeps tons of secrets and some are considered to be important as a secret because of some small detail, that we don't realize is best kept that way. Even a line of a sentence can get someone killed if someone read it the wrong way. "Loose lips, sink ships" and all that.

I don't agree with a lot of things the military has done, but those who do them in the US, have a better track record of being held accountable for their crimes. As far as I see it, some people are calling her a hero for simply coming out as transgender after the fact and forgetting about the crimes that she did commit. Almost as if to say, its ok to break the law and endanger people, because you know, we are behind you coming to grips with your real gender and doing what you can to align your body in the right way.

[Tessa James]

There's an anti-war thread in Politics, we figured out that depending on your source, all of humankind has generated somewhere between eight to two hundred years of peace. Humans always have, and likely will, always fight.

Devlyn i admire your support of those who have served.  Individual soldiers do not start wars.  My intention here is to speak to the collective responsibility we have for living in a cooperative, collaborative and peaceful world.  We really only have a small slice of human history that has any written record.  Many researches speculate, with some evidence, that there was a thousand+ year era when peaceful human coexistence reigned on earth.  War is not part of every culture and modern warfare kills many times more civilians than soldiers.  Warfare could now lead to our extinction and that of thousands of neighboring species.  It is the ultimate threat by our own hand.

We can fight for any number of good reasons and I want us to fight for justice, civil liberties and to know the truth.  We can do that without killing.  As trans people we may have a particular inside look at what a lifetime of hiding the truth does for us.  Secrecy can seriously erode our ability to be informed citizens.  Do we really need to spend millions to spy on everyone?  Does that foster trust?

If the truth was known about the Gulf of Tonkin incident we might have avoided that tragic war in VietNam.  If the truth was known about the non existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction we might have skipped that invasion too?  Governments derive legitimate power from the consent of the governed.  I feel it is our responsibility to speak truth (as best we can determine it) to power or take it back.

Thank you Chelsea Manning for helping us know more of the truth.  Best of luck with your transition.