It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Manning isn’t telling any story, he is accused of leaking Department of State and DOD documents and material.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
I guess my point is, we know we have war criminals here, but how legitimate are the stories from manning?
They are factual in that the US government never said they are fake or forged. The documents, particularly the “cablegate” related ones, are mostly opinions, analyses and insights by US diplomatic personnel regarding the countries, and respective leaders, where they were working.
How " factual " were the cables on wikileaks? I've read some of them when they first came out, but how legit are they?
I don’t think him being in confinement proves Manning is “telling the truth,” because, like I said, Manning isn’t really ‘telling’ anything.
Yes, keeping him in confinement would suggest he is telling the truth, but could it be that he was a " patsy " , as to re-direct the peoples views of the situation?
It will never happen while Presidents, like Obama, outright refuse to even consider investigations into possible crimes of previous administrations.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
hopefully some day the war criminals in our country will come to see their demise....and painfully so.
Reminds me of someone:
But he knew, from the very get go, that he was never going to do any such thing. Typical politician.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You mean Americans don't all love their president elected by the bestest constitution i the world to protect freedom and apple pie??
Coem to think of it....who WAS the last president who had no significant bunch of people think he was a psycopath, immoral, warmonger, corrupt or whatever????!!
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by GoldenFleece
Isn't it funny, how collateral damage, is always perceived as " accidental " or as military personnel claim, " casualties"?
Quote from : Wikipedia : Falsified Evidence
Falsified evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is information that has been created or obtained illegally, to sway the verdict in a court case.
Also, misleading by suppressing evidence can be used to sway a verdict; however, in some cases, suppressed evidence is excluded because it was found hidden or locked away in areas the accused could not be proven to know.
In Britain, falsifying evidence to convict the guilty is known as 'Noble Cause Corruption'.
Some evidence is forged because the person doing the forensic work finds it easier to fabricate evidence than to perform the actual work involved.
The planting of a gun at a crime scene would be used by the police to justify shooting the victim in self-defense, and avoid possible prosecution for manslaughter.
The fact that the police/prosecution, (one of the parties with a vested interest in a trial), effectively controls the supply of most or all of the evidence, is a fundamental problem of the adversarial trial system.
However, the accused might have falsified some evidence, especially if not arrested immediately, or by having other access to a crime scene and related areas.
Falsified evidence could be created by either the police/prosecution or the defendant(s), or by someone sympathetic to their cause.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
You're absolutely right of course, but spend just a few minutes watching the video I posted above, "U.S. Troops Discuss Drop Weapons", THEN tell me how many will ever be court-martialed or dishonorably discharged for falsifying evidence.
This is just a matter-of-fact way of life in Iraq and Afghanistan.