Post of the thread right here. Cant believe that we sit here in 2019 and people STILL defend wikileaks and assange.
'I would rather starve to death.' Chelsea Manning ordered jailed after refusing to testify before a grand jury
- Thread starter Smokeymicpot
- Start date
- Status
Post of the thread right here. Cant believe that we sit here in 2019 and people STILL defend wikileaks and assange.
And I'll repeat that they are made up of citizens and they don't have the power to do more than hear testimony.
If we're going down this route, you can say that the collaborators were also complicit in the US war crimes by virtue of whatever information or assistance they gave. I wouldn't characterise them as that as there are a myriad of reasons for collaboration. Viewing from an empathetic perspective however, collaborators being revealed is 100% what their countrymen (y'know the people they're selling out to the literal evil empire raining death down on their women and children) would have wanted so I'm more inclined to lean in that direction.
Especially to someone who hangs around with racist alt right types
Actually, if it's about faith in the justice system, it's actually an amazing point.
The Diplomatic cables thrown onto the internet were a shotgun spray hitting things worldwide. They were in no way just Iraq-related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak
It's a risk you take when you collaborate, in my homeland they executed or imprisoned every single Japanese collaborator, what exempts the US from it? What's to say that the information a collaborator gave didn't lead to the deaths of innocent families?
Ad hominem logical fallacy
The point was devastating to those claiming faith in the American Justice system.
Just in case not clear (fuck the alt right)
If you ignore every damn bit of context. It's stupid and dehumanizing.
Actually. It's stupid and dehumanizing to use the justice system as a shield when it's clearly failing it's own citizens.
You're the one taking the authoritarian position. Not me.
No, she's only in prison as long as the Grand Jury is active. It won't be indefinite.
Of course.
No I am respecting Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner and too many others by not saying they are equal to antisemtic russian mouth piece headed by a suspected rapist. If black bodies and lives mean so little to you just say and we can move on
Wow. Yup, the collaborators and their innocent family - line em up!
Well, technically Assange and Co will die and there will be no ability to prosecute anyone, but in reality even if she refuses to testify the Grand Jury will eventually wrap up on its own. It may take a while- this is already the second incarnation of it, she got out of prison for a week because the first batch of jurors hit their time limit. But it's not going to go on forever because at a certain point they're just going to make do with what they have and issues indictments, because you can't just keep everything in a holding pattern wasting people's time for years upon years.
Gotcha, thanks.
She'll be fine then not testifying and waiting till it blows over.
How did you guys get that from my post? Do you comprehension problems? I'm saying it's a risk you take when you collaborate with a foreign power. These "gotcha" tactics you're trying to use aren't really working.
I can safely say that some collaborators with the US do deserve it, my grandparents told me vivid stories of their villages being ransacked due to US collaborators during the Vietnam war, it is why I can totally understand the valid pain of betrayal by your own countrymen.
User Banned (1 Month): Hostility and Misrepresenting Arguments Over a Series of Posts; Long and Persistent History of Similar Behavior
What????
Are you talking about Assange?? Where did I even bring him up?
Where did I say we should move on?
You're the one using their deaths as shields to deflect criticism of US war crimes. It doesn't even make sense. Their deaths and lack of justice exposes deep problems. For example, part of the reason US war crimes are allowed is white supremacy. Brown and black lives don't matter to the US government. Of domestically or abroad.
I want justice.
You're defending war crimes.
If it's the risk they accepted than can't the same thing be said for Manning?
Why can Assange laugh and say the victims deserve it, but collaborating with him and putting others in danger is a victimless crime and the victims "signed up for it"
I didn't get that from his post. Just that if people collaborate with the US, they are putting themselves and their families at risk. That's not a far fetched or unusual statement. One of the reasons reasons why people were saying the Muslim ban was bad was because we were going to leave Iraqis who helped the US military out to dry. And heirophant clearly said that no one innocent should be hurt or put into danger.
You seem uncomfortable with the implications. You are arguing it was acceptable to release meaningless files even if they lead to collaborators and their families being put in danger.
If you can accept being that kind of person, go for it.
I mean...
It's like saying someone's at fault for driving when a kid drops a rock on their car. Yes, they know the risks with driving, that doesn't mean that the kid isn't at fault for being one of those risks.
There was no reason to release those files. Assange said they deserved it. That was the justification for not removing names.
Mainly because the United States is quite literally the Evil Empire in this scenario.
Sorry for being so blunt about it but it isn't Chelsea Manning doing the war crimes here.
I'd imagine it was part of Manning's goals to perhaps make it so people would be discouraged in collaborating with the United States, that's the rationale here I am imagining at least.
What are you trying to analogise here? I do not understand what this tortured sentence has to do with Manning's situation or the situation of US collaborators.
The more I think about this sentence the more I'm perplexed. Having a rock dropped on your car would be pretty low on the list of stuff that could most likely affect you when you're driving a car while getting discovered for collaboration is a very real risk and more and more likely in the modern age.
I feel a more apt description would be someone running a red light in the rain and crashing into you.
I don't think anyone here is defending Assange, just Manning.
Yeah, by getting them and their families killed.
Assange is a piece of shit by even the most lenient standards. Attempting to justify his motivations makes you questionable.
They are accepting and using the same argument he is.
I'm pretty sure Manning already had what she wanted to expose when she contacted wikileaks, it was Assange that pushed her from being a whistleblower to fetch him information she would have otherwise had no access to
Where did I mention Julian Assange at all?
Look back through every single post I've made in this thread and I do not mention Julian Assange even once, I don't even like him. He's most likely a rapist.
I didn't know you can just straight up make up shit to try and argue about on this forum but there you go.
Manning was Assange's agent/source/recruited asset/etc. Assange and co recruited and cultivated her as an asset in order to obtain information. Manning cooperating with him in this makes her bear responsibility for what was done with the information.
If this had been treated like the Snowden leaks, this would be a very, very different conversation. But it wasn't, and that context is critical. I think Snowden's a gigantic douche, but they also should have come to some form of a slap on the wrist plea/sentence deal given the circumstances.
When you talk about her goals, she wanted expose a warcrime, assange pushed her to get names of US informants she had no access to
You are using his argument. You both justify the release of these files and the needless danger they put people in because you think they deserve it. You're both making morally reprehensible arguments.
How is it morally reprehensible to not want people to collaborate with the evil empire that is the United States (which I've noticed none of you are disputing)?
Maybe my world view is coloured from the perspective of someone who's country was occupied by the US and US collaborators who sold out their own countrymen were seen as less than scum, growing up I was told these stories so it kinda makes it so I can't be super unbiased in this scenario but actions do have consequences. The information and assistance a collaborator gives can and probably has led to the deaths of many innocents. My family knows that all too well and they made sure to pass it on to me too.
You're being disingenuous.
You want people and their families to be hurt so others are dissuaded. You keep dancing around because you might actually feel some shame over such a terrible way of looking at this.
I mean from your arguments I can 100% affirm you don't give a single shit about any of the innocents killed by the US. I do.
Did you not see what I said? The information and assistance given by collaborators can and has led to the deaths of countless innocents. You're outright dismissing my personal experience in this matter, I'm alot more sympathetic to the side that's being oppressed while you're siding with the oppressor. Do you think collaborators with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan should have gotten off scott free? Suffering no repurcussions or penalties for their aiding and abetting to crimes against humanity?
No it's about the fact that people have forgotten what the Movement for Black Lives revealed to so many: that the justice system is unbelievably unfair, unjust, and corrupt.
Why should we trust the legal system that routinely incarcerates black and brown people? Why are we stanning for a government that incarcerates the most people across the world *in total*? Why should we trust what we are told by a government that is literally built on slavery and genocide and has fucking fascists like Trump and the Republicans as those in power? Why should any lliberal or progressive believe in all these actors and systems when we *know* what the history and the situation of the US?
Meanwhile, not a single individual has faced *any* consequences from Mannin'gs revelation that the US military murdered Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists. Yet people in here want to punish her and think that she deserves even more torture than she's already received under the boot of Obama (who luckily also ended up pardoning her).
You want collaborators and their families hurt or killed. Live with that.
Which is why I applauded her dedication to civil disobedience. But she's got to do her time, that's the entire point of the action. She got what she was asking for, and I hope it works out well for her
Okay if that's the way you interpret it then sure I guess I don't think I can change your mind on how collaboration with the US is a bad thing and should be discouraged, noting that the US kills alot lot more innocent families lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak_(Africa)
Clearly the people involved with getting this information to US diplomats and/or intelligence agencies are complete monsters.
How am I standing for the government by saying people stop making lazy comparisons? Insteaad of standing on black lives and bodies make your point without using a vartiation "the new black"
She's not on trial for revealing war crimes.
In fact she's not on trial at all.
She's already served her time for that and now just has to testify to a grand jury about wikileaks.
What's better than a few families killed? More families killed!
What a moral example you set for us all.
We need to "discourage" this kind of thing you know!
It's really cool to see you calling a transwoman who has been tortured for exposing war crimes for "moronic soldier". What a disgusting statement.
"She got what she asked for" is some victim-blaming shit right there.
Brings new focus on their political kin mewling about how identity politics is cancer and class differences are the real stumbling block to M4A
- Status