Manning found guilty in 20 of 21 charges

Christ the Redeemer

[-0-] wrote: »

Think about it, he faces up to 136 years in jail for exposing war crimes. Those that sanctioned & perpetrated war crimes remain free. It's like bizzaro world.

Also, he did not violate the espionage act and a military judge is not competent to decide that. The espionage act falls outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It's a broken failed state.

Nodin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

But those countries, unlike America, would simply make the whistleblower disappear without all the fuss of a court case and media storm. Why the US didn't bother with an "accident" of some sort surprises me given how much they're willing to **** this guy over anyway.

Considering what probably awaits him, it might have been a mercy.

Zebra3

Sand wrote: »

That's certainly a view you can hold, and who knows - maybe you're right. But the courts of law (the same law you're citing...) disagree with you. And you're going to need a lot more than a 5 line statement of unproven, unsupported assertions to convince the courts otherwise.

You seem to think the courts in the US are somehow unbiased.

:rolleyes:

Jonny7

20Cent wrote: »

Don't see why his background or motivation is an issue at all. If someone gives you information its either true or its not, their motivation for doing so is immaterial. He highlighted that what was happening in Iraq is not what the US government were telling us this was a service to everyone interested in truth.

Snowdens personality and motivations have also become an issue instead of the information that he leaked. Seems to happen to all leakers.

The motivation will determine how they are treated and charged.

Peronally I feel that Manning's leak was more irresponsible, immature than Snowden's, and hence he will get harsher treatment (which he has so far received)

They didn't hit him with the "aiding the enemy charge" because that wasn't his motivation.

If they have access to information they believe is harming the US people (it's always the US isn't it), and if they genuinely feel it's their moral obligation from an objective standpoint to release this information - whether they are right or wrong to release such information - in the real world they will be judged on this motivation, they will also most likely have the book thrown at them (as would happen in any country) - these guys are probably paving the way for a more transparent future, and definitely causing countries either now or in the future to examine their own national security policies (which can only be a good thing)

Personally I feel that Manning's leak was more irresponsible, immature than Snowden's, and hence he will get harsher treatment (which he has so far received)

They didn't hit him with the "aiding the enemy charge" because that wasn't his motivation.

Nodin

Zebra3 wrote: »

You seem to think the courts in the US are somehow unbiased.

:rolleyes:

...plus this was a military court, so no jury, different rules etc.

Jonny7

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

You have no idea what you're talking about. And Double tapping is a policy, especially with the CIA drones.

And I am saying I have never seen any substantial evidence that it is policy. I've followed the Afghanistan war and the situation in Waziristan since it's inception, the reasons for the conflict and the way it was conducted I was firmly against.

20Cent

Jonny7 wrote: »

The motivation will determine how they are treated and charged.

Peronally I feel that Manning's leak was more irresponsible, immature than Snowden's, and hence he will get harsher treatment (which he has so far received)

They didn't hit him with the "aiding the enemy charge" because that wasn't his motivation.

If they have access to information they believe is harming the US people (it's always the US isn't it), and if they genuinely feel it's their moral obligation from an objective standpoint to release this information - whether they are right or wrong to release such information - in the real world they will be judged on this motivation, they will also most likely have the book thrown at them (as would happen in any country) - these guys are probably paving the way for a more transparent future, and definitely causing countries either now or in the future to examine their own national security policies (which can only be a good thing).

They didn't hit him with aiding the enemy because he didn't aid the enemy.

I was referring to the inference that he is somehow mentally ill to do what he did.

There have been leaks about dozens of countries on wikileaks its not "always" the US.

MonaPizza

Sand wrote: »

What about option C? Report the crime to another officer or reporting line? Armies (western ones at least) generally frown upon their own soldiers being raped or assaulted, let alone their soldiers murdering kids, raping women or torturing prisoners - they don't approve of it in the way you seem to be implying. If its reported they will investigate and convict if there is a crime.

Are you for real? Seriously? You witness your colleagues and commanding officer get drunk and torch some Iraqi peasant's house, trash his few acres, kill his few goats for fun and then move on to the next poor fcuk and destroy his livlihood and maybe kill him or send him to gitmo because he has a world war 2 rifle to protect his ten sheep and 4 chickens from foxes and wild dogs. And you just call him a raghead haji terrorist? Rape his daughter while you're at it and claim you don't understand the Arabic for "no, please no! God, please no".

Jonny7

20Cent wrote: »

There have been leaks about dozens of countries on wikileaks its not "always" the US.

The US has been the focus point of Manning, Snowden and Assange.

20Cent

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US has been the focus point of Manning, Snowden and Assange.

Manning and Snowden are American of course they would be leaking American data. The wikileaks site has leaks from almost every county.

MonaPizza

Sand wrote: »

Funny how he's sitting in a jail cell for the rest of his natural life when you're not. It might suit your political views to paint Manning as a martyr, a motivated, responsible individual with a political agenda and a total disregard for US laws but it certainly doesn't suit Manning's own interests.

As I've said before I think Manning was not at all mentally well when he did what he did, and he made a huge, personally destructive mistake. You can airbrush all that out because you don't have to deal with the consequences but Manning will. I do feel sorry for him - I believe his chances of a pardon would be greater if it was seen to be motivated by clemency for a mentally unwell individual. There is zero chance of it as a political move to annoy Republicans and middle America.

you'd betray your principles to save your own hide? Maybe I would too. But then I'm not as brave as manning and neither are you. I'd probably crack under their first threat of castrating my son or little brother and live with my gutlessness. You wouldn't even get that far.

nacho libre

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

It's a broken failed state.

I doubt sand and jonny7 agree with that.

Jonny7

20Cent wrote: »

The wikileaks site has leaks from almost every county.

When the site launched it was great, then a few years later, it was all about the US. Seemed to become much more of an Assange ego and personal crusade than anything else. Kissinger cables? jaysus

Gatling

Wonder if assange promised manning a few virgins for his crimes ohhhh yeah assange doesn't know the meaning of stop ,no , your hurting

MonaPizza

Sand wrote: »

Luckily we don't really have to argue about the law as it extends to Manning's actions. According to the news, a court case was recently held and it turns out that what Manning did was illegal and not protected as whistle-blowing.

Nice try.
You shout the law when facts are against you.
This sacrosanct "law" is all you have when morality trumps your stance. You painted yourself into a corner. Your mistake...and you don't have the moral fibre, strength of character or political courage to admit it. Bradley Manning stood alone and you don't hate him for some inane makey-up crap that he damaged the country, as if goldmann Sachs did nothing to wreck your future, you hate manning because, unlike you, he can't be bought. And that's the only reason you want him dead. He's brave and you aren't.

Sand

Looking over your last couple of posts....wow. Just wow.

MonaPizza wrote: »

Nice try.
You shout the law when facts are against you.
This sacrosanct "law" is all you have when morality trumps your stance. You painted yourself into a corner. Your mistake...and you don't have the moral fibre, strength of character or political courage to admit it. Bradley Manning stood alone and you don't hate him for some inane makey-up crap that he damaged the country, as if goldmann Sachs did nothing to wreck your future, you hate manning because, unlike you, he can't be bought. And that's the only reason you want him dead. He's brave and you aren't.

Out of curiosity, do you believe Manning was found innocent of all charges? Because I've checked the media and they're claiming he was found guilty and will be sentenced tomorrow. You're saying that's not true?

Oh, and I want him dead apparently? Me and Goldman Sachs, right?

Are you for real? Seriously? You witness your colleagues and commanding officer get drunk and torch some Iraqi peasant's house, trash his few acres, kill his few goats for fun and then move on to the next poor fcuk and destroy his livlihood and maybe kill him or send him to gitmo because he has a world war 2 rifle to protect his ten sheep and 4 chickens from foxes and wild dogs. And you just call him a raghead haji terrorist? Rape his daughter while you're at it and claim you don't understand the Arabic for "no, please no! God, please no".

Wasn't this the plot to Platoon?

you'd betray your principles to save your own hide? Maybe I would too. But then I'm not as brave as manning and neither are you. I'd probably crack under their first threat of castrating my son or little brother and live with my gutlessness. You wouldn't even get that far.

Right, so Manning didn't crack under their first threat to castrate his male family members? Because that's a thing they do...right?

Yeah, look, I think we're done here.

20Cent

Innocent of aiding the enemy but guilty of espionage.
The charges never claimed he helped or worked for a foreign power.
So he's been persecuted for revealing truth to the American public.
The truth and the American public seem to be the enemy.

20Cent

Sentencing tomorrow, if they have any sense of justice considering time spent in solitary should be released immediately.

MonaPizza

Jonny7 wrote: »

Who?

It was info passed from detainee's to the press.

Jonny,
US soldier, Joseph Darby exposed the Abu Ghraib torture episodes. Can you explain why you said a detainee informed the press about it? Can you provide any information regarding your claim?

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

Jonny,
US soldier, Joseph Darby exposed the Abu Ghraib torture episodes. Can you explain why you said a detainee informed the press about it? Can you provide any information regarding your claim?

Detainees were interviewed by press in 2003

Darby was a whistle-blower who went to the US military with the photographs in early 2004. The military subsequently started an investigation and reported the abuse to the media, soldiers were suspended and charged.

It got world-wide attention with the CBS story a few months later.

MonaPizza

Jonny7 wrote: »

Detainees were interviewed by press in 2003

Darby was a whistle-blower who went to the US military with the photographs in early 2004. The military subsequently started an investigation and reported the abuse to the media, soldiers were suspended and charged.

It got world-wide attention with the CBS story a few months later.

So you're saying that prisoners exposed torture at Abu ghraib and not the guy who leaked the photographs thereof. Do you have any content of those 2003 interviews with prisoners?

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Glenn Greenwald claims..

It's not US policy to use drones to kill rescuers and children. The militants that are being targeted by the US and Pakistan army/air-force are killing thousands of Pakistan men, women and children - many times the number of those killed by drones - this is often over-looked by those only critical of the drone strikes.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21070/predator-drone-double-taps-highlight-possible-war-crimes-by-obama

These "double-tap" attacks end up hitting "first responders" to the rubble and ashes that are left over after the initial strike, and Begley's tweets reveal that the U.S. has been intentionally targeting funerals and civilian rescuers.


While these tactics, when discussed at all (Obama's drone program is shrouded in an intense level of secrecy), are justified under the rubric of "national security," even the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have classified "double-taps" as staples of terrorists, not the repertoire of supposed constitutional republics.

So while the "double-tap" method may please the likes of Hamas and the abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph, these attacks, even by the most broad definitions of international law, are blatant war crimes.

According to UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Christof Heyns, "secondary strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime." Clive Stafford-Smith, the lawyer who heads the Anglo-US legal charity Reprieve, believes that such strikes “are like attacking the Red Cross on the battlefield. It’s not legitimate to attack anyone who is not a combatant.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/drone-double-tap-first-responders-2012-9

The report concludes that double taps by U.S. drones raises "crucial moral and legal concerns. Not only does the practice put into question the extent to which secondary strikes comply with international humanitarian law’s basic rules ... but it also potentially violates specific legal protections for medical and humanitarian personnel, and for the wounded. As international law experts have noted, intentional strikes on first responders may constitute war crimes."

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07/imperial-terrorism-and-the-us-drone-double-tap-policy/

The “double tap” strategy has been a perennial favorite among terrorists. Attacking emergency workers is one of the quickest, most effective ways to demoralize one’s opponent. Terrorists and guerrilla fighters have ben using the tactic for years—from the Vietcong, who regularly targeted unarmed Medevac helicopters, to the Boston bombers, who set off a second bomb just especially for first responders.

But the U.S., and most of the civilized world, have vehemently condemned this terrorist tactic. According to the military doctrine of medical neutrality (which is protected in the Geneva Conventions), first responders are neutral and cannot be treated as combatants. Targeting them is considered a war crime. A recently proposed piece of legislation on medical neutrality, if it is enacted, would make the U.S. an international watch dog on violations of medical neutrality.

The bill has received wide bipartisan support in Congress.
But if the report on drone strikes is to be believed, the U.S. has been violating medical neutrality with its “double tap” policy. We have become terrorists in our war on terror. In fact we are not just utilizing terrorist tactics, we are institutionalizing them.


Here is the link to the twitter feed of Josh Begley who reports every drone strike, Note that in a lot of the reports they use the words alleged al-Qaida militants /suspected al Qaeda militants/suspected militants

https://twitter.com/dronestream

Jonny7

There is no real substantial evidence here. Heavily editorialised blogs and rhetoric on the matter, yes - typically from those fiercely opposed to drones strikes

I am against drone strikes, but I am also against the bull**** surrounding it.

Amirani

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's not US policy to use drones to kill rescuers and children.

I'd say that makes the parents of the dead kids feel a whole lot better.

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

So you're saying that prisoners exposed torture at Abu ghraib and not the guy who leaked the photographs thereof. Do you have any content of those 2003 interviews with prisoners?

AP 2003
http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20031101-0936-iraq-thecamps.html

bumper234

So you claim this

It's not US policy to use drones to kill rescuers and children. The militants that are being targeted by the US and Pakistan army/air-force are killing thousands of Pakistan men, women and children - many times the number of those killed by drones - this is often over-looked by those only critical of the drone strikes.

And when you are shown evidence that it does in fact happen your response is pffffff i don't like your sources so it must be lies?

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is no real substantial evidence here. Heavily editorialised blogs and rhetoric on the matter, yes - typically from those fiercely opposed to drones strikes

I am against drone strikes, but I am also against the bull**** surrounding it.

Face the facts Jonny....your government are the biggest terrorists on this planet.

MonaPizza

Jonny7 wrote: »

AP 2003
http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20031101-0936-iraq-thecamps.html

Anyone with a clue would have known what the Americans were doing to Iraqis long before the Abu Ghraib photos came out. Just seeing what they were doing in Afghanistan 2 years prior would show that. If they were torturing and killing innocent Afghans it's not a stretch to guess they'd do the same to Iraqis. The interview with these prisoners just confirms it. But these prisoners didn't expose torture to the world? Where was the mention of these interviews on the news? Who read that article?

The photos from Abu Ghraib were the real expose. They laid bare the depravity and sadism of the US forces tasked with guarding prisoners. To say that a prisoner spoke to the press about his ordeal is hardly exposing torture if nobody listens to him or reads what he has to say.

I'm not denying that these interviews occurred. You can bet your bottom dollar that war crimes were being committed 30 seconds into the invasion and there are those in Iraq who will speak of it. But that's hardly an expose. When it's plastered all over the news and all over the world then that's when it is truly unearthed. Anyway that's irrelevant.
That people knew of these horrors long before the pictures were published doesn't make Darby NOT the responsible whistleblower.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

And when you are shown evidence that it does in fact happen your response is pffffff i don't like your sources so it must be lies?

Emotional rhetoric and second-guessing is not evidence. Neither are dodgy websites and dubious fact-finding missions.

I am interested in the actual truth about the situation. As of yet there is no solid proof it's actual US policy to use their very expensive missiles to specifically target Pakistani children and local rescue workers.

Face the facts Jonny....your government are the biggest terrorists on this planet.

Emotive response, certainly isn't my government.

For the life of me I'll never know the obsession the Irish have with American politics ?

If only we were half as interested in our own !!!

I can guarantee most Americans couldn't give a crap about Irish politics and Ireland certainly wouldn't be in the U.S news quarter as much as U.S news is in our news !

melekalikimaka

he took a risk and now has to do the time. he broke the law, just becuase he uncovered and exposed other law breaking doesnt excuse him. he needs to be made an example of.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Emotional rhetoric and second-guessing is not evidence. Neither are dodgy websites and dubious fact-finding missions.

I am interested in the actual truth about the situation. As of yet there is no solid proof it's actual US policy to use their very expensive missiles to specifically target Pakistani children and local rescue workers.

So what is reliable sources for you?

The independent?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

The Datta Khel assault was just one of the more than 345 strikes that have hit Pakistan's tribal areas in the past eight years but it reveals an increasingly common tactic now being used in America's covert drone wars – the "double-tap" strike.



The Guardian?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/24/un-examine-uk-afghanistan-drone-strikes

The inquiry will report to the UN general assembly in New York this autumn. Depending on its findings, it may recommend further action. Emmerson has previously suggested some drone attacks – particularly those known as "double tap" strikes where rescuers going to the aid of a first blast have become victims of a follow-up strike – could possibly constitute a "war crime".

CNN?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

But it concludes that drone strikes, which are conducted by the CIA in a country not at war with the United States, are too harmful to civilians, too sloppy, legally questionable and do more harm to U.S. interests than good.
Emotive response, certainly isn't my government.[/QUOTE]

Huffington Post?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/drone-war-obama_n_2454901.html

On the morning of March 17, 2011, more than three dozen village elders and local government leaders gathered in an open-air bus depot in the town of Datta Khel, in North Waziristan, Pakistan. Under discussion: how to avoid being drawn into the insurgency raging there and across the border in Afghanistan. At about 10:45 a.m., a drone hovering overhead fired a supersonic missile into the gathering. One man remembers hearing a slight hissing noise before the blast threw him, unconscious, several yards away. An immediate second strike killed many of the wounded.

U.S. officials insisted that all those killed were insurgents. But interviews with survivors and families of the dead, along with other eyewitnesses and medical authorities indicated that most if not all of the roughly 40 people killed were civilians. The Associated Press investigation concluded that four of the dead may have been affiliated with the Taliban.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Emotive response, certainly isn't my government.

Yet you try to justify the murder and war crimes commited by them:rolleyes:

Amirani

Deleted User wrote: »

For the life of me I'll never know the obsession the Irish have with American politics ?

If only we were half as interested in our own !!!

I can guarantee most Americans couldn't give a crap about Irish politics and Ireland certainly wouldn't be in the U.S news quarter as much as U.S news is in our news !

This isn't a discussion about US politics.

bumper234

melekalikimaka wrote: »

he took a risk and now has to do the time. he broke the law, just becuase he uncovered and exposed other law breaking doesnt excuse him. he needs to be made an example of.

So do you think who ever broke the story of the Anglo tapes should be arrested and jailed?

bumper234

bumper234 wrote: »

So do you think who ever broke the story of the Anglo tapes should be arrested and jailed?

Yes if it's against the law.

Two wrongs don't create a right !

Journalism isn't an excuse or a justification for breaking the law.

bumper234

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes if it's against the law.

Two wrongs don't create a right !

Journalism isn't an excuse or a justification for breaking the law.

But Manning and Snowdon exposed law breaking. Do you see the paradox now? Do you not think that it was right for them to break minor laws to expose major crimes?

melekalikimaka

bumper234 wrote: »

So do you think who ever broke the story of the Anglo tapes should be arrested and jailed?

do you think the end justifies the means when it comes to breaking laws?

Amirani

melekalikimaka wrote: »

do you think the end justifies the means when it comes to breaking laws?

It depends on the situation. Generally though if it's done with good intentions, then yes.

bumper234

melekalikimaka wrote: »

do you think the end justifies the means when it comes to breaking laws?

Yes.

I work for a department of the government, I signed a non disclosure agreement. If i saw the law was being broken (never mind innocent people being murdered) i would break the law and report what i knew. Are you saying you would just keep your head down and say nothing?

bumper234

bumper234 wrote: »

But Manning and Snowdon exposed law breaking. Do you see the paradox now? Do you not think that it was right for them to break minor laws to expose major crimes?

I was responding in relation to the Anglo tapes.

No I don't think it was right for them to break minor laws despite the outcome.

It's up to the justice department to recognise the "greater moral good" and pardon them. Or what ever department.

Where would it end ?

Before you know it people would be breaking even greater laws and maybe even killing for the "greater good".

bumper234

Deleted User wrote: »

I was responding in relation to the Anglo tapes.

No I don't think it was right for them to break minor laws despite the outcome.

It's up to the justice department to recognise the "greater moral good" and pardon them. Or what ever department.

Where would it end ?

Before you know it people would be breaking even greater laws and maybe even killing for the "greater good".

So you have watched the movie on you tube called collateral murder that shows the blatant murder of 2 journalists? You have seen how they the murdered people who tried to help the injured and dying? You have seen the war crimes committed in that movie but you think they should not have been reported and leaked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Links234

I'm actually appalled that anyone is trotting out the whole "He broke the law" rubbish.

Manning, and Snowden for that matter, they're heroes.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

So what is reliable sources for you?

The independent?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

The Datta Khel assault was just one of the more than 345 strikes that have hit Pakistan's tribal areas in the past eight years but it reveals an increasingly common tactic now being used in America's covert drone wars – the "double-tap" strike.

A real newspaper. It's not a very damning article on the subject, just presents one side - neglects studies and reports that show casualty figures and numbers to the contrary. Nor the extreme difficulty of extracting genuine testimony from villagers and locals who believe the US are on a crusade to kill Muslims in the region.

I also think multiple strikes are being misinterpreted as strikes designed to target rescuers and childre

The Guardian?

Yup I'm waiting for this report. We'll see how it pans out.

Yet you try to justify the murder and war crimes commited by them:rolleyes:

Right, where have I done that?

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

A real newspaper. It's not a very damning article on the subject, just presents one side - neglects studies and reports that show casualty figures and numbers to the contrary. Nor the extreme difficulty of extracting genuine testimony from villagers and locals who believe the US are on a crusade to kill Muslims in the region.

Yeah what do all those injured witnesses know right?:rolleyes:

karma_

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes if it's against the law.

Two wrongs don't create a right !

Journalism isn't an excuse or a justification for breaking the law.

Every day, examples like this just chip away at my faith in humanity.

Perhaps you should change your name to 'Mad_Lad_Law_Abider'

karma_

melekalikimaka wrote: »

do you think the end justifies the means when it comes to breaking laws?

Naturally, that stands to reason.

bumper234

bumper234 wrote: »

So you have watched the movie on you tube called collateral murder that shows the blatant murder of 2 journalists? You have seen how they the murdered people who tried to help the injured and dying? You have seen the war crimes committed in that movie but you think they should not have been reported and leaked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

We all know what the U.S military is and that they think they can do what they like and in most ways they can because no country or Government in the world is going to hold them accountable for the atrocities they have committed.

My point being smowden
knew what he got into.

bumper234

Deleted User wrote: »

We all know what the U.S military is and that they think they can do what they like and in most ways they can because no country or Government in the world is going to hold them accountable for the atrocities they have committed.

My point being smowden
knew what he got into.

The fact we are talking about Manning seems to have slipped your mind. Snowden is still free from the terrorists;)

bumper234

bumper234 wrote: »

The fact we are talking about Manning seems to have slipped your mind. Snowden is still free from the terrorists;)

Id did slip my mind,

KyussBishop

Jonny7 wrote: »

Glenn Greenwald claims..

There's no corroborated evidence of this policy. In fact, any missions to determine the true numbers of victims from drone attacks generally come up with wildly differing figures because of many factors. For instance, few villagers or locals will admit their sons or husbands are militants - it's difficult to get an accurate picture.

Drones are one of the more precise weapons available, generally far more accurate and less lethal to civilians than conventional missiles, shells, or laser guided bombs.

It's not US policy to use drones to kill rescuers and children. The militants that are being targeted by the US and Pakistan army/air-force are killing thousands of Pakistan men, women and children - many times the number of those killed by drones - this is often over-looked by those only critical of the drone strikes.

Eh, this is shown right in the Collateral Murder video, the helicopter firing on the van coming to help the wounded. I suppose you are still 'unconvinced' though, and would like a more credible source? (how can we trust the helicopter that fired on them after all; sure it could be anyone - the pilot's probably just a heavily opinionated blogger)

The US is also not averse to bombing funerals:

Up to 5,000 people attended Khwaz Wali Mehsud’s funeral that afternoon, including not only Taliban fighters but many civilians. US drones struck again, killing up to 83 people. As many as 45 were civilians, among them reportedly ten children and four tribal leaders. Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud escaped unharmed, dying six weeks later along with his wife in a fresh CIA attack.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

karma_

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eh, this is shown right in the Collateral Murder video, the helicopter firing on the van coming to help the wounded. I suppose you are still 'unconvinced' though, and would like a more credible source? (how can we trust the helicopter that fired on them after all; sure it could be anyone - the pilot's probably just a heavily opinionated blogger)

The US is also not averse to bombing funerals:

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

Let's not forget that Obama himself redefined the term 'militant' in order to make civilian deaths more palatable.

To be classified a militant now all you have to do is be of military age. That's right, if you are a male over 16 anywhere in the world, you are a militant.