Gates: Posting classified war documents was morally wrong

[kpete]

Source: CNN

Gates: Posting classified war documents was morally wrong
Posted: August 1st, 2010 12:12 PM ET
Defense Secretary Gates, left, and Adm. Mullen, right, both spoke out Sunday about the recent disclosure of classified military documents by Wikileaks.


Washington (CNN) - It is up to the Justice Department to determine if there will be criminal charges in the release of classified military documents by WikiLeaks, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday the website is morally guilty for putting lives at risk.

On the ABC program "This Week," Gates declared himself "mortified" and "appalled" over the public dissemination of 76,000 documents that detailed military operations in Afghanistan.

"If I'm angry it is because I believe this information puts those in Afghanistan who have helped us at risk," Gates said, citing a Taliban statement that it would seek out informants and other collaborators exposed by the documents.

He said the issue involved two areas of culpability – legal and moral.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?fbid=hJgw8YnspV8


Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/01/gates-posting-classified-war-documents-was-morally-wrong/?fbid=hJgw8YnspV8

---

"If another country's leaders authorized torture and got away with it, our State Department would condemn them in its annual reports on nations' human rights records. And it would be entirely justified. The United Nations Convention Against Torture, a treaty that we played a central role in drafting, and that we ratified under President Ronald Reagan, prohibits torture and cruel treatment and compels criminal investigation of credible torture allegations. Torture is also a felony under U.S. law and a war crime under the Geneva Conventions."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8858790

[Duer 157099]

1. The minute any military person uses the word "moral" I tune them out

Such hypocrites.

[MH1]

7. you want to have no military at all?

since we are all immoral hypocrites by your definition?

[Duer 157099]

9. No; I just don't want them pulling out the "morality" card

As though everything they did was based on "morality."

[MH1]

10. in your world, who is allowed to pull out the morality card?

I have yet to meet anyone who does everything based on "morality." Do you?

[Duer 157099]

12. Nobody. It's bullshit. n/t

[MH1]

13. so you never call anything "immoral"?

You think no one should ever say that an act is "immoral"? Even the act of lying the country into war? I'm not allowed to call that "immoral"?

If so, there's an awful lot of folks around here violating your sensibilities. :)

[Duer 157099]

20. It's a matter of hypocrisy, imho

The next time I lie our country into a war, I'll refrain from ever calling anybody else who does that immoral.

My definition of hypocrisy is calling someone immoral for doing something that you yourself are also doing. Ergo, the military saying it's immoral to endanger people's lives during wartime is pure D hypocrisy.

[MH1]

23. so, to your original statement, any military person is hypocritical

for calling something immoral. Ergo, you think ALL military people are immoral themselves, else it would not be hypocritical for them to call something else immoral.

Therefore if you think we must have a military, then you want other people to take on the role of immorality (by joining the military) so that you can feel safe.

:puke:


All the Allied servicemembers during WWII were "immoral" and endangering lives also, eh? If a WWII soldier (or general) called out a radio personality as "immoral" for broadcasting military information that hindered THAT war effort, you still would have called them a hypocrite? What if said personality was reporting on Germans who were helping Jews to escape or hide? Wouldn't it be true that the radio asshat was endangering lives that the US military was NOT endangering, but actually trying to save??

That is a hypothetical but in the case of outing Afghan who have collaborated with the US, it is very much an apt comparison. Or do you actually think the Taliban is much kinder than the Nazis? (yes, allegedly "we" created the Taliban. It is also widely said that "we" (the Allies of WWI) created Hitler as well, or at least created the conditions that allowed him to come to power.)

Absolutes rarely work well.

[Duer 157099]

39. You need to understand the distinction between

a person being "immoral" and an act being immoral.

[MH1]

42. I do understand it. That is why despite Gates being an immoral person,

he can still be correct about the ACT being immoral.

Although I agree his credibility on that point is rather weak.

[Duer 157099]

48. I think you have a backwards understanding of what I've been trying to communicate

I am *not* calling Gates immoral! I am saying that it is hypocritical for him to label an act as "immoral" when he himself is doing the same thing (endangering Afghan and American lives).

[MH1]

50. if someone engages in repeated immoral acts, then they aren't immoral?

Hmmm. I guess you are right, I don't see that.

I would say that we are all immoral, actually.

[Duer 157099]

54. Ah! Finally we agree! Yes, we are ALL immoral!

Although we differ in the areas wherein we are immoral.

I don't criticize people who engage in my particular version of immorality; likewise, Gates ought not to throw stones from that glass house where he lives.

[Donnachaidh]

87. what is this - kindergarden reasoning?

What a childish conclusion -- and to use it for an argument? Gee, someone needs a diaper change. :eyes:

[superconnected]

92. +100

[fascisthunter]

109. no shit... incredible isn't it?

[ooglymoogly]

24. Bullshit...your "indignant" sophistry will not go unchallenged here. nt

[MH1]

26. Huh? the person I am in discussion with, is the one using absolutes

to tar everyone who serves or served in the military as "immoral".

Anyway, if Gates referred to a child rape as "immoral", would his lack of credibility make the act any less immoral?

(notice I am not challenging the claims of Gates' immorality. I just think it's unfair to tar the whole military and then expect to be protected by them. Silly me!)

[ooglymoogly]

43. The beauty and magnetism of this place, is that

when you post, you are in discussion with every eyeball that sees it and responds. It forces you to think.

[EFerrari]

21. Certainly Gates, who helped cover up Bush's torture program

should not.

[MH1]

25. but the poster said "ANY" military person

which could include me, as a veteran. I take exception to that. I do not believe that military personnel are inherently immoral just by being in the military. If so, we either should have no military, or EVERYONE should serve, to share the burden of corruption of our souls.

And the fact that Gates has no credibility to state it, does not make the act any less immoral.

[EFerrari]

27. Yes, the fact that Gates is a corrupt war criminal

does obviate anything that comes out of his mouth.

And, I have to disagree with you. The minute someone in uniform uses "morality" to justify military behavior, they've gone above their pay grade and into the arena of propaganda.

[MH1]

31. Well, I am not currently in uniform and will say that it was an immoral act.

At the very least, publishing without redacting names of collaborators.

I personally think it was immoral of Manning to do what he did. But that's not nearly as clear cut as the act of outing informers so that they will be killed and/or tortured.

[EFerrari]

36. You are sitll reacting to Pentagon propopaganda, in uniform or not.

This is their worst month in Afghanistan. Of course they want you to look over there. We're just too easy for these people to manipulate.

[MH1]

40. No, not really. I've been out for awhile.

I just happen to believe we need to succeed in Afghanistan, and that the leaked documents are very harmful to our success, but more importantly, the leaked documents name names that did not have to be named and those people will suffer because of it. That IS immoral in my opinion. As to the rest I will agree that it is arguable. I do think that Bradley Manning should be tried as a traitor, because that is what he signed up for when he chose to copy those documents and give them to Wikileaks. If he truly believes in the morality of his action then he will have no problem living with the consequences to himself. When he joined the military he took an oath. When he accepted a high security clearance he took an oath. He has violated those oaths. If he thinks it was worth it, fine for him.

[Duer 157099]

52. Succeed in Afghanistan? Can you even define what that means?

The rhetoric just flows without any actual meaning attached...

[Oregone]

58. Ask the military intelligence this poster suggests are incompetent

Then ask yourself what the chances are that incompetent intelligence can help achieve success at all

[MH1]

59. actually I can, but folks here won't like it

same thing as it meant in Bosnia. Strengthen the government until it can maintain order without us. Meanwhile influencing the government to take a shape that is an improvement over the Taliban. (do you even remember why there was such a muted resistance to the invasion of Afghanistan? Because the Taliban are AWFUL. Yeah it wasn't our business until they protected bin Laden but a whole lot of people were thankful for an excuse to take out that regime.)

It has also occurred to us that very few South Koreans see the US as "occupiers". Success in Afghanistan would probably mean achieving that kind of positive relationship with the majority of Afghans.

[Oregone]

60. "Strengthen the government until..."

Hm. Well...we will be there a loooong time yet. Between Karzai's corruption and the Hashish Army, it may take another few decades, hundreds of thousands more civilian deaths, trillions more money, and a whole lotta troops to see any real "progress" toward that goal.


"It has also occurred to us that very few South Koreans see the US as "occupiers". Success in Afghanistan would probably mean achieving that kind of positive relationship with the majority of Afghans."

So we have to split the country in two and hold onto control of one side indefinitely across a DMZ?

[ooglymoogly]

64. oops wrong place

[Odin2005]

80. So the people in SK would be better off living under Crazy Kim?

Because that's how I interpreted this statement as.

"So we have to split the country in two and hold onto control of one side indefinitely across a DMZ?"

In case you haven't noticed, South Korea is now a developed country that has thrown off it's earlier US-backed dictatorship, comparing it to Afghanistan is stupid.

[Oregone]

89. "comparing it to Afghanistan is stupid"

No shit. And I never made the original comparison

[ooglymoogly]

66. Success in Afgahnistan, is like expecting to find a pot of gold under your bed

or expecting to win the lottery.

It is not going to happen.

But in fact, it is we who are putting a pot of gold under the beds of every warlord in the country and presenting them with infinite winning lottery tickets and in doing so making many more warlords dangerously powerful, while doing nothing for the population; Yet that all is chump change the fatcat warlords of our own "benevolent" country.

Though many empires have tried, and gone bankrupt, or near, in the process, none have succeeded. After 10 years we are only now beginning to understand the religions and their nuances and tribal influences and structures, how they operate and how we might influence them.

And that "trick" should have been well understood before the first bomb struck Afghanistan.

That trick is the extortion racket, in this case, baksheesh on steroids; Something our string pullers, should have understood from the getgo, for it is not a far stretch from what exist in this country today. Bribery, payoffs for protection and all and sundry, to the warlords who actually control Afghanistan and who will be in control after we leave.

The culture of Afghanistan considers war a profession and also considers the US warring on them akin to winning the lottery, where billions are flowing into the pockets of these warlords and into the fog of war; Who will keep us there as long as they can, changing their culture as little as possible in the process.

The Taliban will come and go and be as powerful as the warlords let them be.

As the Taliban have a knack and a history of running governments they will be allowed, no matter how brutal, to keep the population subdued and in line as long as they do not interfere with the warlords and their machinations and that they fear them; As, thanks to our largess now have vast treasuries to pay and expand their individual armies.

At this stage Al Qaeda is little more than a smokescreen to keep this country in fear and ready to war at moments propaganda.

When we finally declare victory and leave, moving on to new fronts, the Afghani's will be just as poor, or poorer, as when we came and the warlords will be far,far richer and by a factor of many; And will have far greater power, to plan more mischief that may cause us damage; But as has been proven in the past 10 years, will once again make them even richer, in a continuing cycle of violence.

Like all religions, theirs is just another smokescreen for power and corruption that has always been; More primitive and more intense than anything here except perhaps for the evangelicals, but with the, perceived, added bonus of making slaves of half their population by brutally subjugating their women.

And that is a gutwrenching picture of Afghanistan, for which our children are dying for and will be paying for long into the future.

We have made it no more than a cauldron where the fog of war is created, that ruthless fat cats can exploit with no care of blood spilt or the cannon fodder that is our young;

Unnoticed behind the propagandist smokescreen that a complicit "MSM" provides.

Furthermore comparing South Korea to this debacle is apples and donkeys. The people in SK are not unrealistic slaves to a religion as in Afghanistan and in fact a certain symbiosis exists between us and the SK.

Israel v Arab; Where two fervent religions are at each others throat;
an avowed enemy, we flagrantly support without question or limit and no matter what; For all these reasons, we will never "win" barring blasting the country off the map;

And our folks fighting in the "conflict", the Korean war, were led by far more honorable and respectable principals, still operating under the checks and balances of democracy and were a beacon to the world, coupled with a sizable and formidable contingent of the SK population solidly behind us;

Not so in Afghanistan(except in delusion).

Where we stood behind our promises to help SK build their state instead of loading truckloads of our treasury and that countries resources into the fog of war.

The realities that were then, no longer exist.

And, though some will always disagree, we had a respectable reason to go there and help out our friends who remain our friends to this day because that is one of the best decisions ever made by this country.....Just look to the north.

None of that is even remotely what we are doing in Afghanistan.

[LostinVA]

72. Yeah, that worked so well for the Soviets

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

77. "Muted resistance" to our initial attacks on Afghanistan had nothing to do with the Taliban,

which most Americans had never yet heard of. It had to do with Bushco convincing America that bombing Afghanistan was somehowin retaliation for 911 and ok bc Bin Laden had lived in Afghanistan while planning 911.

[saigon68]

95. The poster has no clue what that means

[ooglymoogly]

33. You know exactly what the poster meant.

As gates was the example, that was the posters meaning. It might have been more clear to the picky, looking for argument, if the poster had said Gates et al., Or gates and his ilk. After all, what rank and file soldier would have a clue of its meaning or make such a hypocritical statement to the press or even have the platform to do so, except someone in the circle of Gates and his ilk in the possition to make those kinds of decisions? No one here is impugning the rank and file military and thank you for your service as part of that.

[MH1]

37. No, I didn't.

See poster below. I don't know the personalities and beliefs of everyone who posts here, I can only take their words as written. I have run across many here who literally believe that everyone who ever joins the military is immoral. Poster below seems to be an example.

[LostinVA]

73. Yes, you did n/t

And, you have not run into "many" such people. They don't exist.

[LostinVA]

71. ANY person representation the US Military needs to STFU about "morality"

Torture photos are also "classified." That's all we need to know.

And, don't even try your little game with painting anyone disagreeing with you as "anti military." My family have been proudly serving this country in uniform for a long time.

[bitchkitty]

96. He never called you immoral.

Stop trying to take over the thread. It's not about you.

[izquierdista]

32. People who kill when ordered to do so

have no "morality".

That's even stronger than "people who make excuses for pedophilia have no morality".

[MH1]

34. so you want the US to have no military?

[izquierdista]

57. I can dream, can't I?

[superconnected]

90. Oh gawd, someone who supports murder no matter what if it's our troops doing it. Got it.

[sendero]

107. Like war..

... there is no blanket right or wrong. Sometimes war is justified. Afghanistan and Iraq are examples where it is not.

Sometimes leaks are justified. The GOOD they do OUTWEIGHS the BAD. This is just such a case. The military isn't worried about morality. They are worried about people knowing the truth, since lies are their main stock in trade.

[sasquuatch55]

17. For real!

nt

[24601]

41. Secretary Gates isn't military. He and the President are the

civilian leadership over the military - so by your own standard, you can tune him back in.

[Duer 157099]

56. I suppose I should have gone with the bulkier yet more clear

"any time any person who is involved in decision-making for the military..."

But I thought the intent was clear. Clearly not.

[24601]

61. Secretary Gates is implementing President Obama's decisions so

if you are saying vote him out, maybe DU isn't the right place for you.

[Duer 157099]

62. ...

:scared:

[No Elephants]

81. If you're saying President Obama is incapable of changing course, maybe DU isn't

the right place for you.


Do you always sling bs like that?

[No Elephants]

79. It was very clear. Some people like to show off what they imagine to be

their debating skills.

[Scruffy1]

85. War is always death on a large scale

I have never bought the phony distinction between civilians and soldiers. they are all people and they all suffer. But then I am an infantry type and we saw the shit up close not from 30,000 feet or from an aircraft carrier with beds and hot meals.

[Warpy]

2. Secretary, the war of occupation is morally wrong

and is sowing the seeds of the next war. Wars always do.

What those documents did was show you and your colleagues up as a bunch of easily duped fools.

We can't afford your brand of stupidity, Secretary, and it's time to take your shiny little toy of a war away from you.

It's time to declare victory and get out.

[Bluesbreaker]

3. Obama and Gates are the morally reprobates.

The moral bankruptcy of this administration was revealed by Wikileaks. What's morally wrong is hiding the problems with this war from the American people. Civilian deaths, deceitful allies, a corrupt government we're propping up, etc. are all being swept under the carpet and kept hidden from us. Remember, it's all being done in our name and with our money.

[UpInArms]

4. that immoral sack of shit needs to rot in hell and stfu

and not necessarily in that order.

[rateyes]

86. i'd settle for that order.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Killing civilians is a war crime!

Bob?

[democrat2thecore]

35. psst.......(and morally wrong Mr, Gates)....-nt

[Stuart G]

49. Yes, killing tends to be morally wrong, killing innocents is wrong too..

[24601]

55. Go back to law school and study. Intentionally killing most

non-combatants is a war crime whether the non-combatants are civilian or military.

Killing a civilian, take Hitler for example, wouldn't have been a war crime.

The incidental killing of civilians while going after legitimate targets is tragic, but not a war crime.

Otherwise, you're saying Bill Clinton is a war criminal since civilians died during the Belgrade bombings?

[IndianaGreen]

65. The targeting of the Belgrade power station in the middle of winter was a war crime

add to that Plan Colombia, and yes, Bill Clinton also gets a seat at The Hague.

[LostinVA]

74. Hitler wasn't a civilian

[24601]

97. Then which branch of the German military was he in? And why

was there no insignia of rank on his "uniform" in a culture absolutely nuts over fancy uniforms? (And a uniform does not a military person make - check out pictures of Churchill or the British Queen, technically the CinC, but not in their military.) Hitler was a civilian in the same sense our president is a civilian and one of the NAZI objectives was to get their career military under control - not to join it. To put it in perspective - the German Army was military while the para-military SS was not - although Waffen SS units fought in regular battles.

[pauldp]

6. Iran Contra was morally wrong Robert.

:eyes:

[Iggo]

8. Blowing up innocents on a daily basis is morally wrong.

[Metta]

11. Killing, destroying, raping, torturing, plundering ..., not so much, eh?

Happy karma.

[upi402]

14. It is 'imoral' for Gates not to be screaming for the Plame case to be resolved.

Justice delayed is justice denied. And I'd add Sibel Edmonds to the denied justice list. Gates protecting one class of people and not others is not moral, if we believe all men to have been created equal.

[InkAddict]

83. But, but, but Plame and Siebel are women....

:sarcasm:

[AzDar]

15. And Gates knows morally wrong...

Don'tcha Sec. Gates?

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

16. When I need ethics lessons from hired mass murderers I will let them know

Until then....

[EFerrari]

22. FTW.

[Fearless]

18. Engaging in a classified war is what is morally wrong here.

[CBGLuthier]

19. Strange Fucking Concept of Morality

[MH1]

28. Now, THIS is immoral

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4487867


although the responder above claims that as a military person I have no right to use that word. ;)

[Oregone]

29. Killing civilians: priceless

[MH1]

30. Yep, as the Taliban will be doing to the outed informants.

[Oregone]

38. Ya really think intelligence was dumb enough to put their real names in there?

And if you answer yes....

Two more questions:

1) is this dumb of an intelligence agency sure these were real informants, and not Taliban or other warlords using US muscle to strengthen their political position?

(Sure would explain the bombing of weddings, eh?)


2) is this dumb of an intelligence agency capable of even winning this war?

(and if not, seems like the best thing to do is leave now--which hopefully this leak helps us do)

[MH1]

46. Per posts elsewhere, these were field reports,

and they did have the real names in there and some Afghans have already been targeted by the Taliban.

And yes, I think an "intelligence" agency that allowed a 22-year old asshat PFC like Manning to walk out the door with 90,000 documents he wasn't supposed to have, is evidently capable of that level of incompetence.

[Oregone]

51. So thats a "yes"....they are incompetent and dumb...so.....

1) Are you sure these are even bona fide informants? (10 years of their intelligence has resulted in an escalated clusterfuck)

2) What value is there in continuing this conflict, when the troops lives and success depends on dumb and incompetent intelligence services?

[24601]

63. I believe we aren't talking about 90,000 paper documents, but

transferring them to CDs - relatively easy to take out of a secure area.

What's lacking was a mechanism to track him accessing a bunch of reports for which he had no need to know. And that's why IT systems need to be able to tell who is accessing what data.

[whoknu]

44. Murdering civilians is morally wrong

Very morally wrong.

[northernlights]

45. whereas our escalating, unending war on Afghanistan

puts nobody at risk. :eyes:

"I believe this information puts those in Afghanistan who have helped us at risk," Gates said..."

Our bombs and drones, on the other hand...

:sarcasm:

[MH1]

47. and our leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban would put no one at risk.

:eyes:

[Oregone]

53. So its better we kill them before the Taliban can?

Hell, it puts no one at risk who wasn't already. But being there has seemed to only lead to more destruction, as well as destabilization in neighboring Pakistan

[Hardrada]

67. I don't see how they are supposedly our enemies in the first place.

I thought it was Al Quaeda. I never bought that idea.

[LostinVA]

75. Exactly -- the waters were muddied immediately about this

And, on purpose, I think.

The Taliban were our good buddies, even when they were blowing up ancient Buddha statutes, being the world's biggest junk pushers, and destroying their girls and women. Our government welcomed them with open arms. LURVED them.

[No Elephants]

82. Ludicrous standard.

[Alamuti Lotus]

68. The CONTENT of forementioned documents is morally wrong-er.

Eat shit, killer.

[Vinca]

69. Dead men, women and children who are doing nothing more

that living out the lives they've been dealt are morally wrong. I can't imagine living in fear of unseen drones wiping out my family.

[saigon68]

70. Looks like the DLC trolls are active on this thread

A bunch of shouting from the "Peanut Gallery"

[Scruffy1]

84. Yep, it sounds like they got their balls in an uproar

If they had any. Fuck these wars and all the military claptrap. Obama fell into the trap laid out by the generals trying to rewrite history.

[saigon68]

101. Yes they are coming out of the woodwork

Trying to put a spin on the present occupant's unrivaled killing spree

[No Elephants]

76. Lots of things are morally wrong, you Republican warmongering turd.

[Odin2005]

78. The hypocrisy of this statment is astounding.

Mr. Gates, your job is all about killing people in the name of Empire. Is that not IMMORAL?

[rateyes]

88. Go fuck yourself, Gates.

And, the horse you rode in on.

[superconnected]

91. Gates should know all about moral wrongness - however, I think he's morally wrong to be opposed to

a transparent government. Nothing else will make them honest. And it only costs LIVES when they are dishonest.

[saigon68]

93. Gates is a War Criminal

And the present occupant is a fool for keeping him around

[superconnected]

94. +1000

[24601]

98. Because he follows Obama's orders? Perhaps you can cite which

credible court has convicted him of war crimes?

[saigon68]

100. The DLC line I see

Well they will all be out soon enough. The base is going to sit this one out unless a Eugene McCarthy comes along.


The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.



The song was considered symbolic of the Vietnam War and President Lyndon Johnson's policy of escalation, then widely seen as pushing the United States deeper into the increasingly unpopular war.

[Hardrada]

103. These supposedly clever DLC types have not learned from history

and will hopefully go a harder way into oblivion than the original "Best and Brightest" who all got nice jobs after their war plans didn't exactly work out for them.

[saigon68]

106. Rahm and his little pack of Bush Bots can "pack it in".

[24601]

104. Sitting it out is your choice - let me know how repug majorities

work out for you. I'll bet they jump right on President Obama's big agenda items.

I'm sure Imhofe misses running the environment - enable him if you want but don't just don't whine after the election - stand up embrace the new congressional leadership.

[saigon68]

105. Not a chance bro

The pukes will make it a lot worse a lot faster

I'm from a blue state -- save your rap for those from Tenn, Ark, GA etc.

[24601]

112. Don't blame me - I'm gonna vote. I believe JFK said that politics

often was about making the 2nd best choice. 'Course he also is ne of those most cited about tax cuts - and he never did anything much about health care and he let his brother bug MLK & keep him on his commie sympathizer list. So what did he know anyway?

[Hardrada]

114. Sometimes you have to supporth the National Socialists

until the real socialists can take power. Hey, worked out in Germany, didn't it?

[indepat]

99. I just hope the US armed forces have done nothing legally or morally wrong on the fine Secretary's

watch, either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere in the world these military forces may be deployed. :P

[saigon68]

111. Ask Lynndie

[Ignis]

102. But bombing Afghani weddings is just peachy!

:puke:

[fascisthunter]

108. "moral".... does he even remember what that word means anymore?

[mbperrin]

110. But torture and murder of children - AOK.

Now take Mr. Gates,...........PLEASE!

[Borderlineanarchist]

113. Wonder how many of my fellow DU'ers...

-- are of the belief that treason against one's country in 2010 isn't such a terrible thing to be accused of, especially where the Unites States is concerned. My guess is, most of them.

Hope I'm wrong...