Firing Squad?

No one has argued that the deaths of those you cite are of no consequence. But they have nothing to do with our human rights record nor do they justify, excuse, or lessen the immorality or inexusability of the conduct on these soldiers. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Those deaths are pertinent. A distorted, one-sided, out-of-context presentation of the facts does hurt the U.S.'s image on human rights. I know you know better. You're a lawyer! You would never allow the other side to prejudice the case against your client - you know unchallenged distortions will lead the judge and jury to rule against your client. My questions remain: If Assange is so morally outraged, altruistic, and politically detached, why is it that he declaims only the actions of the U.S. and remains mute on the excesses of our enemy? Why did he misrepresent what happened during that incident in Iraq? Did that misrepresentation hurt or help the U.S.'s image regarding human rights?

. . . nor do they justify, excuse, or lessen the immorality or inexusability of the conduct on these soldiers. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

If you are referring to the soldiers in the OP's original post, I agree. OTH, if you are referring to the death of the reporters, I maintain it is excusable as an accident of war. Per Clausewitz, "War is the continuation of politics by other means," and I do not know anything quite as amoral as politics.

How are the deaths of others relevant to murder by soldiers in the line of duty, pray tell? In a murder trial, no one gets to introduce evidence that someone else was killed, by somebody else, at another time, for other reasons, in unrelated circumstances.

And for that matter, what does Assange and the release of a hand full of mildly embarrassing State Department cables have to do with the subject. All of that is just deflection from the main point.

I hear Libya has a great record on Human Rights -- they must, the U.N. put them on the Commission overseeing everyone else.

My questions remain: If Assange is so morally outraged, altruistic, and politically detached, why is it that he declaims only the actions of the U.S. and remains mute on the excesses of our enemy? Why did he misrepresent what happened during that incident in Iraq? Did that misrepresentation hurt or help the U.S.'s image regarding human rights?

If you are referring to the soldiers in the OP's original post, I agree. OTH, if you are referring to the death of the reporters, I maintain it is excusable as an accident of war. Per Clausewitz, "War is the continuation of politics by other means," and I do not know anything quite as amoral as politics. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Assange did not only talk about the USA. He talked a lot about western world in general. Also Austria and Germany and Switzerland have gotten their fair share of justified criticism.

I do agree with you that Assange is also political as are any others. Plus, the image of whatever country is always distorted, no matter who represents it. I think - pardon me - also the USA did their fair share of misrepresenting other countries. Assange is just one of the players in a huge field. I don`t really understand the rumours about him though. If he has nothing to say, why bother? No journalist gets in prison and no journalist gets withdrawn bank accounts and funding. This screams manipulation. We live in a society where we are free to have an opinion. I don`t see Assange`s opinion as mor e important than any others. But its interesting. It brings colour to the news channels. And btw: what`s new?
Anyone that has ever considered wars can be measured with the Geneva convention was deluded in the first place.

I do agree with the second incident with the reporter as a fatal mistake. That is what happens in war, sad but true. It is also good we can discuss such things rather than have them under the table? I am always good or better with reality than a distorted view of reality in second hand authorities. Of course we never know what is true unless we have been there and done that, but we can take all these different viewpoints and colours of viewpoints to broaden our horizon that is. I have learned a valuable thing in this discussion about the portrayal of what happened in the video with the journalists.

How are the deaths of others relevant to murder by soldiers in the line of duty, pray tell? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Again, you are being too vague here. Specify which incident you are referencing.

In a murder trial, no one gets to introduce evidence that someone else was killed, by somebody else, at another time, for other reasons, in unrelated circumstances. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Excuse me? It's exactly the evidence you would use to sustain a defense of justifiable homicide by reason of self-defense for yourself or another in imminent danger.

And for that matter, what does Assange and the release of a hand full of mildly embarrassing State Department cables have to do with the subject. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Mildly embarrassing? He blatantly and maliciously accused the U.S. of murder and posted an editorialized version of the video to support his accusation. He highlighted the reporters, and in doing so, he obscured the men with weapons - it was a contemptible attempt to distort the truth.

All of that is just deflection from the main point. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Deflection? I am referring to the Court of World opinion. Maybe I misunderstood when you introduced the U.S. human rights record - which can only truly exist in comparison to other foreign states. Otherwise, like dark without light, it has no stance or meaning.

but we can take all these different viewpoints and colours of viewpoints to broaden our horizon that is. Originally Posted by ninasastri

Those of us who live in free societies in the West can do this. In other parts of the world, where free access to information is censored and controlled, many times only the negative images of the U.S. are perpetuated.

Those of us who live in free societies in the West can do this. In other parts of the world, where free access to information is censored and controlled, many times only the negative images of the U.S. are perpetuated. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The problem with this observation is that here in the US we tend to look at the US through rose colored glasses. IOW, the US can do no wrong. And although I would agree that info in the US has an easier access, I would not go so far as to say it is NOT censored and controlled. I think the govt, at the very least, tries to spin it if not alter it completely.

It's kinda like the "God's on our side" argument. All you gotta do is read Mark Twain's "War Prayer" in order to get the point.

The problem with this observation is that here in the US we tend to look at the US through rose colored glasses. IOW, the US can do no wrong. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I disagree. One can be a proud American and yet recognize the terrible travesties of justice that have occurred as it has developed. As a proud American, I have the right to defend the U.S. against a slanderous foreigner, like Assange, who goes out his to fabricate allegations against the U.S. in order to impugn its reputation.

And although I would agree that info in the US has an easier access, I would not go so far as to say it is NOT censored and controlled. I think the govt, at the very least, tries to spin it if not alter it completely. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

And others choose to look only through a glass, darkly. I must admit, I pity the many who choose to listen only to Rachel Maddow and/or Jon Stewart; thus, they have a distorted view of current and historical events. But we live in a free society, and these poor, unfortunate souls have made the choice to limit themselves.

It's kinda like the "God's on our side" argument. All you gotta do is read Mark Twain's "War Prayer" in order to get the point. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I think anyone who has even slightly acquainted with the American Civil War would see Mark Twain’s point. Preachers, leaders, soldiers, mothers and wives on both sides prayed to the same God for victory, yet—even at the time—everyone knew there could ultimately be but one victor.

.

I disagree. One can be a proud American and yet recognize the terrible travesties of justice that have occurred as it has developed. As a proud American, I have the right to defend the U.S. against a slanderous foreigner, like Assange, who goes out his to fabricate allegations against the U.S. in order to impugn its reputation.

OK, I admit I haven't followed the Assange history very well. I know about Wikileaks. But you infer he has slandered the US here. Just exactly what has he said that you find slanderous about the US (recognizing, of course, in the strictest sense, one cannot slander a country)?

And others choose to look only through a glass, darkly. I must admit, I pity the many who choose to listen only to Rachel Maddow and/or Jon Stewart; thus, they have a distorted view of current and historical events. But we live in a free society, and these poor, unfortunate souls have made the choice to limit themselves.

When it comes to news (or even opinion), I find no one really that balanced. I'm not lucky enough to have the time to listen to all POVs. That would be the optimal situation. But listening to Rachel or Jon solely or Rush or Bill or Sean solely is a recipe for ignorance. I like to think I know what the polar POVs are. Am I predisposed to the left? Yes. But being on this SHMB has broadened my POV to a great extent, to be honest. I was surprised by the number of conservatives here. I didn't expect that. I was surprised by the number of smart and well educated people here. I didn't expect that either. So, for me, the polar opposite boundaries have been filled in by the dialogue here. It hasn't changed my basic bent, but it has made me more acutely aware of the nuances.

I think anyone who has even slightly acquainted with the American Civil War would see Mark Twain’s point. Preachers, leaders, soldiers, mothers and wives on both sides prayed to the same God for victory, yet—even at the time—everyone knew there could ultimately be but one victor.

IDT Twain's point was the "one victor" so much as the physical, mental and emotional waste that war would bring. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Just exactly what has he said that you find slanderous about the US (recognizing, of course, in the strictest sense, one cannot slander a country)? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The video Nina refers to at Post 12:

Also , i may remind of that video posted by someone who outed it to wikileaks. Its similar scenario where the Reuters reporters are killed and innocent children. They were eager to shoot and they shot. Originally Posted by ninasastri

Two Reuter’s journalist were killed by an Apache gun ship in Iraq in July, 2007. Assange released an illegally obtained, editorialized, classified, Apache gun-camera video. The released video had been edited—ostensibly to highlight the reporters—but in doing so, it also obscured the men carrying weapons. Furthermore, Assange gave the video a title: "Colateral Murder," and it was dubbed over with an editorial narration which claimed the attack was cold-blooded murder.

Oddly enough, it was Stephen Colbert, ostensibly a comedian, who made this observation:
"The army described this as a group that gave resistance at the time, that doesn’t seem to be happening. But there are armed men in the group, they did find a rocket propelled grenade among the group, the Reuters photographers who were regrettably killed, were not identified…You [Assange] have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called ‘collateral murder.’ That’s not leaking, that’s a pure editorial."
Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create "maximum political impact."
Assange: “The promise we make to our sources is that… we will attempt to get the maximum political impact for the materials they give to us.”
Colbert: “So ‘Collateral Murder’ is to get it political impact?”
Assange: “Absolutely. Our promise to the public is that we will release the full source material… it’s there for them to analyze and assess.”
Colbert: “Actually I admire that, I admire someone who is willing to put ‘Collateral Murder’ on the first thing people see knowing that they probably won’t look at the rest of it. That way you have manipulated the audience into the emotional state you want before something goes on the air. That is an emotional manipulation. [...]
Assange: “That’s true...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrik e

Note how nefariously and perniciously effective Assange was. The slander has spread not only here in the U.S., but also throughout the rest of the world. Ask Nina.

I find no one really that balanced. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Neither do I. I sample a little here and a little there and try to get a glimpse of the real picture.

IDT Twain's point was the "one victor" so much as the physical, mental and emotional waste that war would bring. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

It is poignant. I incorrectly assumed he was writing in regards to the American Civil War. After further research, it appears he was writing about Philippine-American War. Unfortunately, it won’t change human nature or end war.

It appears the best we can do with Assange is to give him the respect he deserves...which appears to be none.

I must say one point. The soldiers that did commit murder are being tried and should be convicted for serious crimes against other humans that did not deserve to die and they should face very severe punishment. The one factor I must put into place and this relates to the journalists killed as well as other innocent civilians. The military serves at the convenience of the civilian government. They only go to war when committed by the civilian government whatever the reason right or wrong. Another fact is in combat, you have one split second decision to determine to kill or not kill. During that split second can mean the difference in you taking another breath or not and ever seeing your family again or not. For those that have never been placed in combat, please do not throw stones at the good soldiers trying to do their duty. Innocents get killed in war and it is not a desirable outcome, but when you are on the end of a rifle or whatever weapon you use and facing an unknown, sometimes you will err in judgement because it can mean the difference in you living or dying and you may make the mistake that you will live with forever. The other side is if that risk is real and you wait too long to determine your actions, you come back to your family in a body bag.

War is not pretty and not desirable, because there are never any true winners.

Just a few words from an old soldier.

Top

Again, you are being too vague here. Specify which incident you are referencing. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The incidents you bring up in post #26.

Excuse me? It's exactly the evidence you would use to sustain a defense of justifiable homicide by reason of self-defense for yourself or another in imminent danger. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The soldiers have admitted that there was no self-defense. They murdered innocent civilians. Furthermore, the incidents you cite occurred in other places, other times, and were committed against other people. You can't defend yourself from an act committed against another person.

Read the story in all it's sordid details. I did. It's revolting in several respects. First that anyone would do this. And just as bad or worse, no one apparently gave a shit as the entire matter was apparently widely suspected and no one took any steps to investigate.

http://www.rollingstone.com/kill-team

Mildly embarrassing? He blatantly and maliciously accused the U.S. of murder and posted an editorialized version of the video to support his accusation. He highlighted the reporters, and in doing so, he obscured the men with weapons - it was a contemptible attempt to distort the truth. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're referring to the video of the helicopter kill. I thought you were referring to the State Department memos. In either case, Assange simply exposed that occurred or was written. If the videotape was altered as you say -- and I have no idea one way or the other, as I didn't really follow the story -- the remedy is for the U.S. to release the more accurate version of the tape and set the record straight.

Deflection? I am referring to the Court of World opinion. Maybe I misunderstood when you introduced the U.S. human rights record - which can only truly exist in comparison to other foreign states. Otherwise, like dark without light, it has no stance or meaning. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It is deflecting in that nothing you're posting excuses the grossly criminal conduct of these soldiers.

The incidents you bring up in post #26. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

My post @ 26 is about the helicopter incident. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12...hdad_airstrike

The soldiers have admitted that there was no self-defense. They murdered innocent civilians. Furthermore, the incidents you cite occurred in other places, other times, and were committed against other people. You can't defend yourself from an act committed against another person. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I can use lethal force to defend myself and any member of my family—these are other people. I know of an instance where one man—a bystander—shot and killed a second man as he was attacking, seriously beating, a third—unrelated—man. There was an police investigation, but no charges were filed because the first man had a weapons permit, and by his action, he saved the third man’s life. In combat, a soldier defends himself, other U.S. and friendly force service personnel and innocent civilians: ask Obama.

Read the story in all it's sordid details. I did. It's revolting in several respects. First that anyone would do this. And just as bad or worse, no one apparently gave a shit as the entire matter was apparently widely suspected and no one took any steps to investigate.
http://www.rollingstone.com/kill-team Originally Posted by TexTushHog

See my posts a #4 and #10 in regards to this incident.

You're referring to the video of the helicopter kill. I thought you were referring to the State Department memos. In either case, Assange simply exposed that occurred or was written. If the videotape was altered as you say -- and I have no idea one way or the other, as I didn't really follow the story -- the remedy is for the U.S. to release the more accurate version of the tape and set the record straight. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Assange admitted that the tape had been altered and he admits trying to manipulate the facts for political effect. See @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell
The U.S. government has always maintained that it was an accident of war, but by your own admission, you, until this moment, were still willing to accept Assange’s version of events. See how well the truth works against a mind set to accept lies.

It is deflecting in that nothing you're posting excuses the grossly criminal conduct of these soldiers. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Again, see my posts a #4 and #10 in regards to that incident.

@ Charles

Many mornings I wake up with the refrains of some song going through my mind. More often than not, it’s just some popular pop-song that’s been co-opted for use in a TV commercial, like Toyota’s(?) present use of Simon and Garfunkel’s “The Only Living Boy In New York.” However, this morning, the song going through my mind was the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” written by Julia Ward Howe in 1861. No doubt my selection of bedtime reading, a Smithsonian article on Fort Sumter (the Civil War’s sesquicentennial will be here in a couple of weeks), was the source of inspiration for that tune. Yet, as the lyrics flowed through my mind, I became aware of how counterpoised this song was to the “War Prayer” by Mark Twain that you recommended a couple of days ago. I think it a fascinating American dichotomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bat...f_the_Republic