Manning Sentenced to Thirty Five Years

[aileron]

There doesn't need to be.  A lot of crimes have only vague and low risk potential for causing harm, but they're nonetheless illegal.

Those crimes do not generally result in prison sentences greater than rape, murder etc.

What does that matter?  A sentence isn't determined in comparison to an aggregation of crimes that share one common attribute.  As Jack pointed out, there are crimes that carry even more serious punishments where there may have been no harm at all.

It is reasonable to demand proof when the consequences are putting a man in prison for 35 years. Reasonable punishment for unsubstantiated danger can only be so great before it becomes cruel and unusual.

First of all, the sentence does not put her in prison for 35 years.  She'll be eligible for parole in less than nine years, and she's not likely to serve 35 years.  Second, what you consider unsubstantiated danger is really your lack of understanding of the danger because you don't understand how the DoD operates.  You don't understand the seriousness of the disruptions of the DoD operations in response to the breach of massive amounts of classified information.  As a soldier, Manning herself showed that she now understands that danger and disruption because she apologized for her actions.  I take her at her word.

Manning sent files to wikileaks.

If you want to call 700,000 classified documents that she took an oath to protect according to laws and regulations "files" then ok, they were files.

Nobody has been reported as being endangered as a result of that.

Really?  Then why did Manning apologize for her actions?  "I am sorry that my actions hurt people. I am sorry that it hurt the United States."

Why did the US have to take field operatives collecting vital intelligence out of the field?

Not good enough for me. Get one of these people on TV and they can tell us all about how Manning's actions specifically put them in danger...

Hey, that's a wonderful idea.  Let's get some CIA field agents explaining on TV what they were collecting, what their cover was, and how it could have been compromised by Manning's breach.

[Shiranu]

Really? Then why did Manning apologize for her actions? "I am sorry that my actions hurt people. I am sorry that it hurt the United States."

I am going simply on memory, so take it as it will, be the prosecution refused to offer any evidence of how it actually hurt the security of the the troops. That is either because it didn't or they don't want to put that information out there, and I will give them a benefit of the doubt that it is maybe 55% chance it was because they didn't want the info out there. I could be dead wrong on that, but I am remembering seeing that several times. The most "damaging" leaks I have seen were the murder of multiple civilians, including the BBC journalist... and then several embarrassing messages referring to other countries.

As for apologizing, you have to remember she was detained and tortured for over a thousand days without trial... at half that point I probably would say what ever they wanted me to as well.

[aileron]

...the prosecution refused to offer any evidence of how it actually hurt the security of the the troops. That is either because it didn't or they don't want to...

Refused is a loaded word.  It would be far from surprising if the prosecution didn't offer such evidence.  The prosecution's job is to get a conviction, and they don't need to present such evidence to get a conviction.  All they need to show is an intentional breach.

When a U.S. service member takes an oath to protect classified materials, it puts the service member in what's known as a position of "special trust and confidence".  The DoD makes it clear to people in this position that the act of breaching that oath is enough for a conviction, no matter what the actual effect of the breach.  You don't even have to breach it intentionally to be convicted of a crime.  People have been sent to courts martial even just for handling it negligently.

The most "damaging" leaks I have seen were the murder of multiple civilians...

Would you consider yourself qualified to assess the level of exposure to secret CIA field operations based on not reading 0.01% of the 700,000 classified documents?  A lot of CIA collection activity is conducted under the cover of being State Department employees.

As for the killings being "murders" what evidence do you have to support your claim?  What the Army did in covering up the killings was wrong and most likely illegal, but to call them murders means that the helicopter crews who killed them did so in a premeditated and illegal way rather than by mistaken identity in a war zone.  It's an horrific fact of war that people get killed by mistaken identity.  The Army should not have covered it up, but it does not mean that the helicopter crews murdered them.  

As for apologizing, you have to remember she was detained and tortured for over a thousand days without trial...

How was she tortured?  Please be specific.

[Nonsensei]

I don't really much care about the legal aspect of the case. The law is set by those who abuse it, so arguing that Manning's sentence was legally appropriate is a non starter with me. I am talking about right and wrong, and peoples willingness to approve of his downfall because they feel he put people in danger by what he did. There isn't any evidence of that.

[Shiranu]

...but to call them murders means that the helicopter crews who killed them did so in a premeditated and illegal way rather than by mistaken identity in a war zone.

They began mowing them down without any evidence they were combatants, then shot civilians who showed up who tried to offer medical aide. That is murder.

[aileron]

...but to call them murders means that the helicopter crews who killed them did so in a premeditated and illegal way rather than by mistaken identity in a war zone.

They began mowing them down without any evidence they were combatants, then shot civilians who showed up who tried to offer medical aide. That is murder.

Basically you're accusing US Army officers and men of murder based on stupendously implausible misinformation.  Is it really your position that the aircrews radioed in a description of events as they perceived them and asked for permission to fire because they intended to murder the men on the ground?  It was mistaken identity.  It's horrific, but it happens.  

Two of the men they attacked were armed, one with an AK-47 and the other with a loaded rocket propelled grenade launcher.  I would hardly call that "without any evidence they were combatants."  From about 800 meters, the aircrews mistook the camera equipment of the Reuters news crew for weapons.  This is not the first time that's happened, either.  When in the stress of combat being shot at by people with RPG-7's, from a distance a big telephoto video lens will start looking a lot like an RPG launcher.

Also, still waiting to hear how Manning was tortured:

As for apologizing, you have to remember she was detained and tortured for over a thousand days without trial...

How was she tortured?  Please be specific.

[Shiranu]

How was she tortured? Please be specific.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/10 ... g-20110110

Nevertheless, Manning is in "maximum custody." Also, under a "Protection of Injury" order, he is confined to his cell for 23 hours a day, even though his lawyer says a psychologist has determined he isn't a threat to himself. His lawyer also says that Manning is denied sheets and is unable to exercise in his cell, and that he is not allowed to sleep between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m. If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he is made to sit up or stand by his guards.

Besides sheets he was also reportedly denied clothing and stripped search, while in 23 hours confinement (because its really easy to get stuff into a maximum security military prison...).

Two of the men they attacked were armed, one with an AK-47 and the other with a loaded rocket propelled grenade launcher. I would hardly call that "without any evidence they were combatants."

I just watched the video again; I see three, maybe four, men with possibly AK-47s and then the cameraman. I do not see the RPG.

Additionally they laugh, hoot and cheer themselves on as they shoot both the initial crowd and then the people who came to the bodies. I was mistaken in a previous thread; we are actually 4th generation military, starting with right after WW1 - all of WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm and the the youngest served in the current "War on Terror". Not even the youngest brags and boasts about having killed people, infact he is very... somber about it...and if anyone had been proud of themselves for killing people, I'm pretty sure my dad & his brother both (adopted into the family, they were the WW2-Korea-Vietnam vets) would have beat them then disowned them from the family.

I realize people deal with this stuff differently, okay... but that was not the way I was raised; it is a job and a duty, not some fun game where you get to pull the trigger and the other guy dies. And when you enjoy killing civilians, then yes I am calling you a murderer. If it was an accident, if they were a bit more respectful,and they said, "Shit... we fucked up."... okay, fine. But that's not what happened; they laughed and hooted and the military covered up their fuck-up.

As for the other main things he revealed....

1. The Reykjavik-13 cable: Us making asses of ourselves by joking about who really gives a shit about Iceland?

2. Iraq 400,000 SIGACTS - The logs of operations, which revealed at least 4,000 civilian deaths and believed at least 10,000 civilian deaths that happened in military activity. This and the Afghanistan I have some problem with, but at the same time it gave us a more accurate account on the numbers of civilians killed and that is sorta a big deal.

3. U.S. Complicity with Repressive Arab Regimes. That one should speak for itself as for why it should be in the public domain.

[Solitary]

I agree! It was being disloyal to the uniform and his fellow soldiers releasing hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic documents that could give enemies of the United States advantages. I think his punishment is a little extreme though. But who knows, it could result in deaths because he did. Our Embassies have been getting hammered lately. Of course that is Obama's fault.  :roll:  Solitary

Other than to the egos of those in power, it's unlikely that Manning caused any damage.  It would be very hard to attribute one American death to anything Manning did, while both Obama and Bush (mostly Bush) are directly responsible for many American deaths.

At best, there is but an outside chance that Manning may have fired up some terrorist and increased bin Laden's influence, but it's probably unlikely.  Terrorists don't need Manning's leaks to dislike the West.  Any influence he has over them is practically nil.  Manning pissed off Americans and practically no one outside of America.

He broke the law, and for that he should be punished, but his ethical dalliance is more like shoplifting than murder.

I did say I thought it was extreme. And why aren't Commanders and Chiefs of the military prosecuted as war criminals when they invade other countries and kill civilians?   Solitary

[aileron]

Besides sheets he was also reportedly denied clothing and stripped search, while in 23 hours confinement (because its really easy to get stuff into a maximum security military prison...).

Uh, huh... Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the guards and commander lacked proper justification, at worst they were abusing their power to put him under suicide / protective watch with the real intent to inconvenience, annoy, harass, and humiliate.

It's not torture.  It's not even in the neighborhood or next town over.

Two of the men they attacked were armed, one with an AK-47 and the other with a loaded rocket propelled grenade launcher. I would hardly call that "without any evidence they were combatants."

I just watched the video again; I see three, maybe four, men with possibly AK-47s and then the cameraman. I do not see the RPG.

The RPG launcher is plain as day in the video.  On the video it's clearly audible they're instructing ground troop to take photos.  The official report includes photographs taken by the ground troops showing the RPG launcher and round alongside some of the dead bodies.

Additionally they laugh, hoot and cheer themselves on as they shoot both the initial crowd and then the people who came to the bodies.

Bullshit.  Just like Manning being "tortured" you wildly exaggerate and distort facts to fit your desired narrative.

[Shiranu]

Uh, huh... At worst they are abusing their power to put him under suicide / protective watch with the real intent to inconvenience, annoy, harass, and humiliate.

It's not torture, not even close.

So sleep deprivation, which is considered a torture technique, is no longer a torture technique. Nor is extreme solitary confinement for a prolonged period of time, which is considered a form of torture, a torture technique. All while being held for over 1000 days without being formally charged and tried.

And if its not torture, then I want you to get sit in solitary confinement for even a month, without ever being legally charged, while you are denied sleep, forced to stand, denied cover, denied clothing, cavity searched for no reason, and tell me it is just so fucking peachy, that you don't get what the big deal is. Lets take all the physical things aside; if you have studied the effect of solitary confinement on the mind, then you know for even a month it is torture... now make that 3 years. Don't give me this bullshit that he didn't have it bad.

Bullshit. Just like Manning being "tortured" you distort the facts to fit your desired narrative.

6:29: Look at those dead bastards. Nice!

When the van shows up: Let us shoot! Even though they have done nothing wrong... we gotta shoot MORE people!

During the van: The children are OBVIOUS... BUT LETS SHOOT THEM ANYWAYS!

12:50: That guy just drove over a body? Really!? Haha, yeah!

15:29: We just possibly killed children? Well, its their fault! We didn't do anything wrong, we just shot children because they were surrounded by unarmed, non-threatening targets!

I just skimmed through it, I am not particularly interested in watching people get murdered, but I still did not see the RPG. Since I pointed out the cases of bragging I saw, which wasn't even from watching the full video, will you point out where you can clearly see the weapons? Because at the time of firing, the only clear "weapon" is Namir's Camera... which, to be fair, is one of the most powerful tools against warmongers and murderers.

If you are going to be a contrarian, at least don't be so fucking obvious about it. These people are fucking proud of themselves for shooting these people, shoot unarmed civilians and children and then blame it on the victims, and fucking boast about desecrating dead bodies. And the military then covered that shit up and didn't allow Reuter's to see the video to confirm that they actually did murder the journalists... and I am going to assume the people shot were never actually "confirmed" terrorists, just like the other thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people we have murdered because, "They might possibly, maybe, sorta be a potential, maybe future, threat.".

I had actually forgotten about both the children and body desecration; you are going to have to forgive me, but watching people get murdered isn't exactly my thing. The fact that you are defending these fucks just because you feel some need to argue against evidence and reality is quite pathetic.

If it was Afghanistan desecrating bodies and boasting about it? Well, looks like we need to bomb half of Kabul. American troops do it? Bullshit, you are just making stuff up to fit your narrative!

These guys are a bunch of disgraceful, cowardly pieces of shit and don't deserve to represent America but instead a cell for war crimes. The fact that you call pointing out their war crime, "Bullshit to fit a narrative" is about as disgusting as you can get. Congratulations.

[aileron]

So sleep deprivation, which is considered a torture technique, is no longer a torture technique.

Sleep deprivation is torture when applied for days on end.  Being made to stay awake from 5am to 8pm and allowed to sleep at night isn't sleep deprivation torture.  If it were then we're torturing vast swaths of our armed forces with sleep deprivation.  

Nor is extreme solitary confinement for a prolonged period of time, which is considered a form of torture, a torture technique.

Suicide watch or injury protection rooms aren't "extreme solitary confinement."  Her keepers may have abused their power to put her on suicide watch / self-injury protection, but she was never in "extreme solitary confinement."  She was in a room where she could speak with though not see other prisoners.  She also had supervised visits and daily exercise outside the room.  

All while being held for over 1000 days without being formally charged and tried.

She was arrested on May 27, 2010 and formally charged a month later.  She pleaded guilty to of half of the charges, and she's receiving credit for time served.

6:29: Look at those dead bastards. Nice!

Yes, but they were not "hooting and cheering themselves on" while doing the shooting, which is what you claimed.  This came long after.  They were rather dispassionate and concentrating on a job they appear to have believed was engaging an enemy.  

If you are going to be a contrarian, at least don't be so fucking obvious about it.

I suppose pointing out objective facts about a topic with someone who cannot be or does not want to be objective about it could come across that way.  Both left wingers and right wingers consider objective reality a contrarian position.

[Shiranu]

She was arrested on May 27, 2010 and formally charged a month later. She pleaded guilty to of half of the charges, and she's receiving credit for time served.

That's why the trial just happened...

Yes, but they were not "hooting and cheering themselves on" while doing the shooting, which is what you claimed. This came long after. They were rather dispassionate and concentrating on a job they appear to have believed was engaging an enemy.

They laughed and hooted and the military covered up their fuck-up.

Nope, missing where that says, "As they were shooting.

But, 6:29 was during the shooting, not afterwards. Afterwards they just laughed at desecrating bodies and made excuses for shooting unarmed men and children. And were chomping at the bits to fire on a van with children in it.

I suppose pointing out objective facts about a topic with someone who cannot be or does not want to be objective about it could come across that way. Both left wingers and right wingers consider objective reality a contrarian position.

Say's the guy who has yet to point out the "RPG" (the only *obvious* one being the camera; I also didn't see the AKs at the timing of shooting, but to be fair I do believe I saw them earlier in the video so I am mostly confident there were small arms involved) and defends soldiers who cheer themselves for killing unconfirmed combatants, celebrate desecrating bodies and blame the civilian victims (including children) for "getting into a battlefield" (even though all they saw were several guys bleeding out with no sort of combatants anywhere to be seen; they were too busy hiding in their helicopter while shooting civilians, I suppose).

For some reason, I find such a person trying to say he is just telling the "objective truth" to be a bit... lacking in interestingness. War criminals give honest soldiers a bad name, which I admit I have a bit of a bias against happening, so forgive me for finding people who intentionally fire on unarmed civilians and children (as happened when the van pulled up) and find desecration of bodies hilarious to be disgusting people. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not even hold their cheering their actions on against them, as disgusting as it is.

[aileron]

She was arrested on May 27, 2010 and formally charged a month later. She pleaded guilty to of half of the charges, and she's receiving credit for time served.

That's why the trial just happened...

Why the trial happened so long after the arrest was only part of your claim.  In any case, part of the reason for the delay is that the government dragged its heels, and part of it also was the extensive number of discovery requests for classified information from Manning's council.  They judge ruled that the defense was entitled to most of that information, but also that the government was justified in the time it took to understand the reasons for classification and ensure the security of the information.  

But, 6:29 was during the shooting, not afterwards.

No, they were focused on the mission while firing. Go watch the unedited version.  

Afterwards they just laughed at desecrating bodies and made excuses for shooting unarmed men and children.

All of which can be disconcerting but none of which is murder.

And were chomping at the bits to fire on a van with children in it.

How were they supposed to know there were children in the van?  For all they knew it could have been packed with explosives, weapons, or combatants.  

You in the safety and comfort of your home, with the benefit of time and the hindsight of news reports to evaluate the situation - and with no consequences for being wrong - came to the conclusion that the van was not a threat.  

The aircrew did not have your advantages when faced with the situation.  They were there to protect ground troops in combat.  When faced with an uncertain situation they mistakenly evaluated an innocuous situation as a threat, but only in the context of responding to an actual threat just a few minutes earlier.  That's a common mistake to make during an insurgency combat situation, and often when people make the mistake in the other direction they get killed or have others they're supposed to be protecting get killed.  

It's why depending on the situation I place most if not all the blame for civilian casualties not on the troops who mistake a situation, but on the chicken-hawk politicians who put them into a no win situation in the first place.  It's the chicken-hawk politicians who are the first to agree with the "murder" accusation too.  It's all neat and tidy for the chicken-hawks.  They can be self-satisfied that they are pure as the driven snow and chalk up the inescapable horror of civilian casualties to those murderous soldiers.

[Shiranu]

I just watched the unedited version. The "RPG", if you are referring to the man who was peering around the corner towards the helicopter, was Namir Noor-Eldeen, the cameraman.

They also claim that there were 5-6 with AK's and RPGS: In the video you see one man with an AK and one man with an "RPG" (the camera). When the ground squad arrived, they found an AK-47. The helicopter crew outright lied about the number of guns (initially I thought I saw two AK's as well, but once the camera moved it was that moped or whatever barely sticking around the wall). Later the military did say there was an RPG at the scene... after having covered up the case for several years. For some reason there is something about the people who covered up a crime declaring themselves innocent of any crime... I don't know, morbidly comical.

Funny, you tell me to watch the unedited version... and yet, it is even more incriminating. That seemed a bit counter-productive, but if your game has been all along to trick me into thinking it wasn't as bad as it actually was... to make me realize it was actually even worse... then you will be hands down the most impressive poster I have ever seen on this forum.

No, they were focused on the mission while firing. Go watch the unedited version.

3:55 or so: "Sorry guys, what's going on?" - "God damn it Kyle, hahahaha... i hit em'." Yeah, sure takin' it seriously...

You're right though; they bragged about murdering the first group after the shooting. Though I will reiterate;

...forgive me for finding people who intentionally fire on unarmed civilians and children (as happened when the van pulled up) and find desecration of bodies hilarious to be disgusting people. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not even hold their cheering their actions on against them, as disgusting as it is.

And as the jorunalist tries to crawl away, they are urging him to do anything suspicious so that they have an excuse to shoot him again. I will say it again; I was not raised to believe in killing people because you want to, I was not raised to believe in taking joy in it... and these guy's did both. Which leads me to the next part...

How were they supposed to know there were children in the van? For all they knew it could have been packed with explosives, weapons, or combatants.

Maybe if they weren't chomping at the bits to shoot the journalist, they could have seen, at 6:25:54-area (their time is blurry, but that is what it looks like on their camera) at least one child in the front seat.

As for the men around them; none of them are armed, their only crime was seeing a wounded man in the street and trying to get him help. The van looked empty as far as you can see... which I will grant you is much easier thanks to the fact I am not watching it in the middle of a war zone. Nevertheless, the mere act of helping an injured combatant is not justification to engage.

Group 1: I will be... lenient... and say they had minor reason to engage, though they directly lied to their CO (I don't know the proper term for who gives them the command to open fire, so if it is someone else I am actually interested to know who) I can admit that the camera did look as if it could be a projectile. And if that was that... you know what, I wouldn't even argue against you... shit happens on the battlefield. It was their behavour afterwards, their bragging, their boasting about desecration of bodies (the desecration being a violation of the Geneva Convention, which makes it a bit higher than "disconcerting" for them to be cheering it on) and their making excuses for "killing" then unarmed men and children (which we conveniently call "collateral damage" in all cases, collateral or not, to escape having to try people for murder) and the fact that the military covered it up and refused to acknowledge they killed two Reuters (I believe I said BBC earlier, sorry about that) reporters... just like every other civilian they kill... "Was it us... well gee, we don't know... the bullet in his head said "Made in America" or we are the only one's flying drones over the area... but I mean, we cant say it was us, it was probably...uh...".

If this was a rare occurrence, maybe... but the thing is there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of civilians who were killed because they were "maybe, possibly, sorta a terrorist, or at least affiliated with or could possibly one day grow up to be a terrorist"... and it is bringing our reputation as a nation down the shitter, and instead of own up to it, fix the problem or at least try... we just sweep it under the rug like we did with this, refuse to acknowledge it, or demand concrete proof that the civilians weren't actually terrorists... even though we killed them with zero evidence they were.

As for the end engagement, I can't say much on that; I saw one collateral death and didn't see everyone who entered the building. The collateral was fair enough... guy wasn't on camera when they launched the missile at at least several REAL threats, so that was just some piss poor luck.

All of which can be disconcerting but none of which is murder.

The first one isn't murder, I will agree; it is just cheering the driver on as he violated the Geneva Convention. I realize we never signed onto everything in the Convention, and maybe that was a bit we are exempt from, but the fact of the matter is that the GC is considered the cornerstone of modern ethics in time of war and in breaking them, even if we don't subscribe to them, we don't really help our image of being a bunch of barbaric warmongers... aside of course the obvious moral issues one should have with it. It would be like saying, "Well... Sudan doesn't subscribe to the Geneva Convention, so I guess its okay when they murder people!"... just doesn't work that way.

As for the second, there are laws against engaging non-combatants. They provided no evidence the people in the van were combatants (since they had none), the men were unarmed and they committed no crime. Murder of civilians is both of violation of the Geneva AND American law, unless that is something that has been changed. If this is legal than drone signature strikes are legal as well which the majority of legal scholars I have seen, as well as the majority of people who have a functioning brain, seem to agree is perhaps quasi-legal AT BEST and an outright violation of human rights and a war-crime at worse.

As I said above... group 1 they had probable cause, the cameraman really fucked up when he pointed the camera at the helicopter, though combat was engaged on a lie (that there were several AKs and RPGS). The father of the two children in the van committed no crime. Nor did the children. They were not collecting weapons, they went straight for the guy and picked him up... but the helicopter crew moaned and begged, "Let us shoot him! Let us shoot him!" (after begging the journalist to do something to justify shooting him, which he didn't because, you know... he was a civilian) and they were given the go... again, shots were fired on a lie (they are collecting weapons, we are begging you to let us shoot him because you cant actually see what he is doing and don't know he has done nothing wrong).

The helicopter crew was gun-ho to get to shoot some people, and several civilians died because of it, including two Reuters journalists. Try telling the children who took bullet/shrapnel wounds and watched their father get gunned down in the street for trying to help an injured civilian, "Oh, but they HAD to shoot him!".

They were there to protect ground troops in combat. When faced with an uncertain situation they mistakenly evaluated an innocuous situation as a threat. That's a common mistake to make during an insurgency combat situation, and often when people make the mistake in the other direction they get killed or have others they're supposed to be protecting get killed.

That's the nice thing about the law; it doesn't matter why you broke it, you are expected to follow it. And they broke several Human Rights laws and, again unless they changed it, military law by firing on unarmed civilians who had done nothing to provoke or cause the crew to believe they were a threat... all while cheering on GC violations, patting themselves on the back and begging, begging oh so pretty please to get to fire upon Chmagh.

We had a Green Beret in the family who killed himself several years after Vietnam because of some of the shit he had to do there, including killing civilians. They had bombs strapped to them and were told to walk towards the American troops... these were little kids, not even early teens. That was apparently not even the worst thing he had to do to civilians either. I understand shooting civilians in that case, no matter how much it destroys your conscious.

And there is the difference; these civilians didn't have bombs strapped to their chest, they didn't have any sort of firearms, they didn't even do anything threatening or illegal. And these ass fucks weren't even remotely remorseful about it... they simply say, "Well, shouldn't have entered a battlefield! Haha yup!"... even though the battle had been over for awhile and all the guy saw was, "Oh, there is a man bleeding out there on the street... we need to get him help!".

It's why depending on the situation I place most if not all the blame for civilian casualties not on the troops who mistake a situation, but on the chicken-hawk politicians who put them into a no win situation in the first place.

Not a gram of argument against that one from me.

It's the chicken-hawk politicians who are the first to agree with the "murder" accusation from people like you too. It's all neat and tidy for the chicken-hawks. They can be self-satisfied that they are pure as the driven snow and chalk up the inescapable horror of civilian casualties to those murderous soldiers.

If a murderer kills a man for his wallet because the economy has collapsed, we don't say, "Well, it's the politicians fault he is poor so let's exempt the law for him!". That is what you are asking; that despite the fact they broke several human rights acts and possibly military law (though the military found the military innocent after covering up the incident for several years, who woulda thunk that?), they should be exempt.

No, that's not how it works. If it's an accident, I completely agree it is all on the politicians. When you beg and plea to open fire on unarmed civilians, cheer GC violations and pat yourself on the back for it you don't get to play that shit.

[aileron]

I just watched the unedited version. The "RPG", if you are referring to the man who was peering around the corner towards the helicopter, was Namir Noor-Eldeen, the cameraman.

No.  It's when they were walking in the road.  What camera is only a tube and held by a trigger grip in the middle??  

When the ground squad arrived, they found an AK-47.

They also found and photographed the RPG launcher and round.  Even Assange admitted that there was "probably" RPG an launcher in the video.  "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything."

The helicopter crew outright lied about the number of guns...

How accurate do you expect them to be from 800 meters in the heat of combat?  

Maybe if they weren't chomping at the bits to shoot the journalist, they could have seen, at 6:25:54-area (their time is blurry, but that is what it looks like on their camera) at least one child in the front seat.

Once again, from the safety and comfort of a home or office, with the fullness of time and ability to play and replay a recording - and without the slightest consequence for evaluating the situation incorrectly - you think that maybe it would have been possible to see a child through the window.

As for the men around them; none of them are armed, their only crime was seeing a wounded man in the street and trying to get him help. The van looked empty as far as you can see... which I will grant you is much easier thanks to the fact I am not watching it in the middle of a war zone.

That's the understatement of the century.  When you conducted your threat level assessment of the van, did you, like the aircrew, receive communication from the ground troops informing you that  a vehicle matching that description had been dropping off and picking up armed combatants all morning?  Was it the same one?  The point is you have time to consider it and they did not.  The consequences for being wrong were potentially too high and they had to face the consequences of being wrong while you do not.

As for the supposed desecration of the bodies, there are other possibilities other than deliberate desecration.  Have you ever been inside an APV?  What was your assessment of the visibility?  These things are designed not to have bullets enter and rattle around.