I am trying to understand why you are so convinced that it was illegal.
As far as I'm aware neither the UN nor any other governing body has sanctioned the USA or the UK, nor has any law organisation declared/decreed/ruled that the Iraq War was illegal.
However, even if there was such a ruling, it would not alter the fact that at the time of the invasion the members of the armed forces had no legal right to refuse to obey orders to invade, which is what the other member is claiming.
If you're really suggesting that the UN would sanction the United States then you are either disingenuous or out of your mind. The idea that the invasion of Iraq couldn't be illegal because the US and Britain weren't punished is laughable. Waging a war of aggression is illegal. The Iraq War is/was clearly a war of aggression, that's hardly even up for dispute.
Second of all, the crime I was talking to was the shooting of the innocent people by the helicopter pilots. That incident was not an isolated one. Look for example, at the testimony of Ethan McCord. Why are these soldiers not on trial like Manning is?
If you're really suggesting that the UN would sanction the United States then you are either disingenuous or out of your mind. The idea that the invasion of Iraq couldn't be illegal because the US and Britain weren't punished is laughable. Waging a war of aggression is illegal. The Iraq War is/was clearly a war of aggression, that's hardly even up for dispute.
However, the position of the UK and USA is that the UN Resolutions 660, 678 and 1441 were still in force and thus the invasion was legal. That has never been tested in any court of international law. If you cannot post without making personal insults - don't bother posting at all.
Second of all, the crime I was talking to was the shooting of the innocent people by the helicopter pilots. That incident was not an isolated one. Look for example, at the testimony of Ethan McCord. Why are these soldiers not on trial like Manning is?
And as I pointed out to you it was a nonsense post as it bears no relation to the matter under discussion. If you want an answer to your question, then I suggest you fill in the necessary form which you will find here;
And by virtue of his position, he would or should have been aware of that.
He was and has pleaded guilty. He knows that he'll go to prison for some of the charges. The point is, he exposed illegal acts by American troops and is being pushed for revealing them. Those committing the acts are not being punished.
He was and has pleaded guilty. He knows that he'll go to prison for some of the charges. The point is, he exposed illegal acts by American troops and is being pushed for revealing them. Those committing the acts are not being punished.
How do you know those involved are not being punished?
Any court case relating to those matters will no doubt require Manning as a witness, therefore it is entirely possible that such cases will only proceed, after his case has been dealt with.
However, the position of the UK and USA is that the UN Resolutions 660, 678 and 1441 were still in force and thus the invasion was legal. That has never been tested in any court of international law. If you cannot post without making personal insults - don't bother posting at all.
And as I pointed out to you it was a nonsense post as it bears no relation to the matter under discussion. If you want an answer to your question, then I suggest you fill in the necessary form which you will find here;
Mark it for the attention of the US Army JAG Corps
Well obviously the USA and UK aren't going to say that their own invasion was illegal. But the fact is, they invaded another country based on false evidence that was clearly a pretext. That is a war of aggression.
As for the second bit, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Manning being arrested but those whose actions he revealed escaped uninhibited. He admits that he leaked the files and knows he faces jail. It's not as if he's claiming otherwise. It was a matter of principle.
But that doesn't forgive the US for treating him appallingly or for their hypocrisy.
He was and has pleaded guilty. He knows that he'll go to prison for some of the charges.
So why are people calling for his release?
The point is, he exposed illegal acts by American troops and is being pushed for revealing them. Those committing the acts are not being punished.
Nope. He release a shedload of official secrets and is being punished for that. Some people took that, edited it into stuff like the 'Collateral Murder' video you mentioned earlier and released it as propaganda.
Well obviously the USA and UK aren't going to say that their own invasion was illegal. But the fact is, they invaded another country based on false evidence that was clearly a pretext. That is a war of aggression.
Of course they're not, thay have however cited 3 UN Resolutions which they claim makes the invasion legal. No court has ruled one way or the other on the matter.
As for the second bit, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Manning being arrested but those whose actions he revealed escaped uninhibited. He admits that he leaked the files and knows he faces jail. It's not as if he's claiming otherwise. It was a matter of principle.
But that doesn't forgive the US for treating him appallingly or for their hypocrisy.
As I said before, it may be that once Manning's case has been dealt with, then others may follow. To have Manning in the witness box before his case would no doubt result in a long list of "5th Amendment" replies.
Nope. He release a shedload of official secrets and is being punished for that. Some people took that, edited it into stuff like the 'Collateral Murder' video you mentioned earlier and released it as propaganda.
People are calling for his release because they see him as a hero. He helped to expose lots of crime and corruption when he could well have either stayed silent or just sold the information to the highest bidder. Look at what he is being charged with - 'aiding the enemy.' This is clear nonsense because there is not one shred of evidence that the leaks in any way harmed national security or American personnel.
But he did reveal serious things; up to 15,000 unlisted civilian deaths in Iraq, American ignoring of prisoner abuse, US diplomats spying on UN officials, pressuring foreign governments not to prosecute CIA agents for torture, lies by both the US and Yemeni presidents about conflict in that country, use of torture by the Indian government, UK training of Bangladeshi 'death squad' police force, the Pop's refusal to cooperate in sex abuse investigations and more.
Manning may have committed a crime, but it seems to me that he is being punished more for revealing the crimes of others. Would you really be more comfortable for governments to keep secrets like this from its people or is it better that we have people like Manning willing to sacrifice themselves to expose the truth? I know what my answer would be.
We have to look at this in a broader context. Look at what the Obama administration wants to do. They are going after whistleblowers and even those who report on them. Treating Manning so appallingly (months of solitary confinement, having his clothing seized etc.) and keeping him imprisoned for three years before trial is a warning shot. It's a threat to whistleblowers and to notions of government accountability.
Of course they're not, thay have however cited 3 UN Resolutions which they claim makes the invasion legal. No court has ruled one way or the other on the matter.
As I said before, it may be that once Manning's case has been dealt with, then others may follow. To have Manning in the witness box before his case would no doubt result in a long list of "5th Amendment" replies.
This doesn't make much sense. Manning leaked the information but it was already known to the military and the government. They could've prosecuted whoever they wanted before the info was leaked but they instead kept it secret.
This doesn't make much sense. Manning leaked the information but it was already known to the military and the government. They could've prosecuted whoever they wanted before the info was leaked but they instead kept it secret.
I merely suggested a possible answer to your question. For a more definitive one you'll need to contact JAG as per my previous link.
People are calling for his release because they see him as a hero.
People are often idiots.
He helped to expose lots of crime and corruption when he could well have either stayed silent or just sold the information to the highest bidder.
So how many prosecutions have followed based on the stuff Manning leaked? As for selling the information, that was Assange's problem.
Look at what he is being charged with - 'aiding the enemy.' This is clear nonsense because there is not one shred of evidence that the leaks in any way harmed national security or American personnel.
To quote St Julian-
"Well, they're informants, so if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
So maybe some of the US's human sources did get killed. Maybe they just stopped being informants. Maybe people (or governments) who had been planning to share information with the US decided not to.
Whoever wins the war makes the rules once in power....
"'As political and economic freedom decreases, sexual freedom tends to increase, and the dictator, unless he needs cannon fodder, or families, will do well to encourage that freedom, in conjunction to daydream under the influence of narcotics, the movies and the tv and radio, it will do well to condition the subjects to the servitude that is their fate' - Julian Huxley"
Of course they're not, thay have however cited 3 UN Resolutions which they claim makes the invasion legal. No court has ruled one way or the other on the matter.
As said before the US and the UK hold a veto in the UN security council - it's not going to get through.
The three old sanctions where used an excuse after the UN refused to provide a new resolution.
There was no hard evidence relating to Bin Laden (at least for a number of years afterwards - IE not before Afghanistan) and 9/11 but the majority of people assume his guilt. And has a court of law actually found him guilty of the crimes they do have evidence for?
I doubt whether Manning in reality would have time to process hundreds of thousands of information/secrets. I mean just to look at him; he looks like he couldn't tie his own shoolaces never mind pick up a gun and fight the enemy! Manning is just one of those greedy elite offspring who delights in disinfo to create a fake reality that it may be possible to bring down a government by sharing secrets to a fake, CIA, MI6 created website called WIKILEAKS.
It is designed along with the other fake terror plots like Woolwich, Sandy Hook, Aurora & Boston to create a new kind of terrorist who could live next door who is liable to become radicalised who they say he or she is capable of committing a terrorist attack because of any political thoughts they might have but in reality the only dangerous people are the secret services and the people in power who make the decisions to invade other countries in the name of peace to then confiscate their resources, enslave the population and install their own version of democracy (or demo-crazy). The thing is, the vast majority of people believe all this BS that is fed to them. Question everything. Yes, it is all our fault and the government are just doing their job (tongue in cheek).
I doubt whether Manning in reality would have time to process hundreds of thousands of information/secrets. I mean just to look at him; he looks like he couldn't tie his own shoolaces never mind pick up a gun and fight the enemy! Manning is just one of those greedy elite offspring who delights in disinfo to create a fake reality that it may be possible to bring down a government by sharing secrets to a fake, CIA, MI6 created website called WIKILEAKS.
It is designed along with the other fake terror plots like Woolwich, Sandy Hook, Aurora & Boston to create a new kind of terrorist who could live next door who is liable to become radicalised who they say he or she is capable of committing a terrorist attack because of any political thoughts they might have but in reality the only dangerous people are the secret services and the people in power who make the decisions to invade other countries in the name of peace to then confiscate their resources, enslave the population and install their own version of democracy (or demo-crazy). The thing is, the vast majority of people believe all this BS that is fed to them. Question everything. Yes, it is all our fault and the government are just doing their job (tongue in cheek).
So it's a meta-conspiracy? This is even more bonkers than the posts defending the US government.
There was no hard evidence relating to Bin Laden (at least for a number of years afterwards - IE not before Afghanistan) and 9/11 but the majority of people assume his guilt. And has a court of law actually found him guilty of the crimes they do have evidence for?
The UN Security Council is not the only international court and no court has ruled that the 3 resolutions were invalid.
OBL chose his own court.
What does 'chose his own court' mean? That if you take on the US, you should be expected to be killed without trial? The point is that America presented no clear evidence of his guilt and yet they invaded a country to get him and entered another one to kill him.
If you want to play this game of 'if a court didn't try them so they can't be acting illegally' then it works both ways.
Comments
The fact that the information he released can and probably was of some use to an enemy is what is important.
Yes, if they thought the war was illegal.
No country is going to go to war and claim it was illegal are they?
If I was a soldier at the time of the Iraq war I would have flat out refused to go. **** the prison sentance.
Yeah the occupied really need video evidence to hate invading forces don't they?
Do you think no-one talks or something?
Thinking that something is illegal is no defence when facing a court martial.
I was thinking more along the lines of the transcripts of confidential Embassy emails and other communications actually.
If you're really suggesting that the UN would sanction the United States then you are either disingenuous or out of your mind. The idea that the invasion of Iraq couldn't be illegal because the US and Britain weren't punished is laughable. Waging a war of aggression is illegal. The Iraq War is/was clearly a war of aggression, that's hardly even up for dispute.
Second of all, the crime I was talking to was the shooting of the innocent people by the helicopter pilots. That incident was not an isolated one. Look for example, at the testimony of Ethan McCord. Why are these soldiers not on trial like Manning is?
That's why I said eff the prison sentance. If I thought something was illegal I wouldn't do it.
Perhaps. I'm sure they all do it anyway.
Like Obama who has to brown nose Israel at every opportunity, off mike basically said he thinks Netenyahu is a dick who he has to deal with everyday.
However, the position of the UK and USA is that the UN Resolutions 660, 678 and 1441 were still in force and thus the invasion was legal. That has never been tested in any court of international law. If you cannot post without making personal insults - don't bother posting at all.
And as I pointed out to you it was a nonsense post as it bears no relation to the matter under discussion. If you want an answer to your question, then I suggest you fill in the necessary form which you will find here;
http://www.goarmy.com/talk-with-us.html
Mark it for the attention of the US Army JAG Corps
And by virtue of his position, he would or should have been aware of that.
He was and has pleaded guilty. He knows that he'll go to prison for some of the charges. The point is, he exposed illegal acts by American troops and is being pushed for revealing them. Those committing the acts are not being punished.
How do you know those involved are not being punished?
Any court case relating to those matters will no doubt require Manning as a witness, therefore it is entirely possible that such cases will only proceed, after his case has been dealt with.
Well obviously the USA and UK aren't going to say that their own invasion was illegal. But the fact is, they invaded another country based on false evidence that was clearly a pretext. That is a war of aggression.
As for the second bit, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Manning being arrested but those whose actions he revealed escaped uninhibited. He admits that he leaked the files and knows he faces jail. It's not as if he's claiming otherwise. It was a matter of principle.
But that doesn't forgive the US for treating him appallingly or for their hypocrisy.
So why are people calling for his release?
Nope. He release a shedload of official secrets and is being punished for that. Some people took that, edited it into stuff like the 'Collateral Murder' video you mentioned earlier and released it as propaganda.
Of course they're not, thay have however cited 3 UN Resolutions which they claim makes the invasion legal. No court has ruled one way or the other on the matter.
As I said before, it may be that once Manning's case has been dealt with, then others may follow. To have Manning in the witness box before his case would no doubt result in a long list of "5th Amendment" replies.
People are calling for his release because they see him as a hero. He helped to expose lots of crime and corruption when he could well have either stayed silent or just sold the information to the highest bidder. Look at what he is being charged with - 'aiding the enemy.' This is clear nonsense because there is not one shred of evidence that the leaks in any way harmed national security or American personnel.
But he did reveal serious things; up to 15,000 unlisted civilian deaths in Iraq, American ignoring of prisoner abuse, US diplomats spying on UN officials, pressuring foreign governments not to prosecute CIA agents for torture, lies by both the US and Yemeni presidents about conflict in that country, use of torture by the Indian government, UK training of Bangladeshi 'death squad' police force, the Pop's refusal to cooperate in sex abuse investigations and more.
Manning may have committed a crime, but it seems to me that he is being punished more for revealing the crimes of others. Would you really be more comfortable for governments to keep secrets like this from its people or is it better that we have people like Manning willing to sacrifice themselves to expose the truth? I know what my answer would be.
We have to look at this in a broader context. Look at what the Obama administration wants to do. They are going after whistleblowers and even those who report on them. Treating Manning so appallingly (months of solitary confinement, having his clothing seized etc.) and keeping him imprisoned for three years before trial is a warning shot. It's a threat to whistleblowers and to notions of government accountability.
This doesn't make much sense. Manning leaked the information but it was already known to the military and the government. They could've prosecuted whoever they wanted before the info was leaked but they instead kept it secret.
I merely suggested a possible answer to your question. For a more definitive one you'll need to contact JAG as per my previous link.
People are often idiots.
So how many prosecutions have followed based on the stuff Manning leaked? As for selling the information, that was Assange's problem.
To quote St Julian-
"Well, they're informants, so if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
So maybe some of the US's human sources did get killed. Maybe they just stopped being informants. Maybe people (or governments) who had been planning to share information with the US decided not to.
"'As political and economic freedom decreases, sexual freedom tends to increase, and the dictator, unless he needs cannon fodder, or families, will do well to encourage that freedom, in conjunction to daydream under the influence of narcotics, the movies and the tv and radio, it will do well to condition the subjects to the servitude that is their fate' - Julian Huxley"
As said before the US and the UK hold a veto in the UN security council - it's not going to get through.
The three old sanctions where used an excuse after the UN refused to provide a new resolution.
There was no hard evidence relating to Bin Laden (at least for a number of years afterwards - IE not before Afghanistan) and 9/11 but the majority of people assume his guilt. And has a court of law actually found him guilty of the crimes they do have evidence for?
I doubt whether Manning in reality would have time to process hundreds of thousands of information/secrets. I mean just to look at him; he looks like he couldn't tie his own shoolaces never mind pick up a gun and fight the enemy! Manning is just one of those greedy elite offspring who delights in disinfo to create a fake reality that it may be possible to bring down a government by sharing secrets to a fake, CIA, MI6 created website called WIKILEAKS.
It is designed along with the other fake terror plots like Woolwich, Sandy Hook, Aurora & Boston to create a new kind of terrorist who could live next door who is liable to become radicalised who they say he or she is capable of committing a terrorist attack because of any political thoughts they might have but in reality the only dangerous people are the secret services and the people in power who make the decisions to invade other countries in the name of peace to then confiscate their resources, enslave the population and install their own version of democracy (or demo-crazy). The thing is, the vast majority of people believe all this BS that is fed to them. Question everything. Yes, it is all our fault and the government are just doing their job (tongue in cheek).
So it's a meta-conspiracy? This is even more bonkers than the posts defending the US government.
The UN Security Council is not the only international court and no court has ruled that the 3 resolutions were invalid.
OBL chose his own court.
What a load of odious shite. Obviously somewhere in this country, there is a village which is missing its idiot. :rolleyes:
What does 'chose his own court' mean? That if you take on the US, you should be expected to be killed without trial? The point is that America presented no clear evidence of his guilt and yet they invaded a country to get him and entered another one to kill him.
If you want to play this game of 'if a court didn't try them so they can't be acting illegally' then it works both ways.