SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
RT Times reports that Alexanderplatz square in Berlin has become the stage for a provocative art piece which celebrates whistleblowers and encourages ordinary citizens to speak out. "They have lost their freedom for the truth, so they remind us how important it is to know the truth,” says sculptor Davide Dormino. The life-sized statues of the three whistleblowers stand upon three chairs, as if speaking in an impromptu public meeting. Next to them is a fourth, empty chair. "The fourth chair is open to anyone here in Berlin who wants to get up and say anything they want," says the artist. Dormino, who came up with the idea together with the US journalist Charles Glass, specifically chose a classical bronze statue for his depiction – and not an installation or abstract piece – since statues are usually made of establishment figures. According to Domino while men who order others to their deaths get immortalized, those who resist are often forgotten, so “the statue pays homage to three who said no to war, to the lies that lead to war and to the intrusion into private life that helps to perpetuate war.” Activists and members of Germany’s Green party unveiled the life-size bronze statues on May Day.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday May 04 2015, @04:47PM
Exposing war crimes is not treason. Full stop. The people *committing* those actions are the ones guilty of treason.
Yeah, he passed along a number of other documents as well. Documents he hadn't examined yet. But hell, you only get one shot at that, and the stuff he had looked at contained a lot of evidence of a lot of criminal activity; seems quite reasonable to just dump all of it and sort it out later. NOT doing so would have been traitorous and irresponsible.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @06:01PM
Funny thing about those "war crimes". All those people in the world who claim to have found "war crimes" point unanimously to the reporter and his cameraman being killed, along with a unit of insurgents.
Let me explain something. When the US took "embedded journalists" into action, those journalists were out there - legitimate targets for any who would take aim at them. They were part of a United States military unit, subject to the UCMJ, and the articles of war.
Now, that Reuters reporter was in the same situation. He was EMBEDDED with an insurgent unit. He was part of the unit. He was privy to that unit's operations, he filmed it, he reported on it. He was PART OF a military unit.
As such, he was a legitimate target.
Watch the video again. I've watched it several times. The unit under observation was carrying weapons, in an area from which a US ground unit had taken fire, only minutes before.
YOU KNOW that the camera is just a camera - but only because you've been told so, before watching the video.
The helicopter crew had no reason whatsoever to believe that there was a camera with the unit. They saw something that resembled a rocket launcher being pointed in the direction of troops on the ground. They fired.
No crime here.
If you have no understanding of warfare, you only look a fool when you presume to comment on it.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:02PM
"Unit"? What "unit"? You must have watched a different video than I did. The one I watched had them firing on a van where they had no idea who was in the van, what it was doing, or why. Turned out to be kids on their way to school.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:21PM
If that be true, then you only watched a portion of the video, beginning near it's conclusion. That van pulled up AFTER the reporter's death, AFTER all the insurgents had been killed. The two men in the van were attempting to rescue one or more of the insurgents. You've got part of it right - the guys in the helicopter really didn't know who was in the van. Along with the two adults who exited the van, there were two children. The two adults may or may not have been members of the militia - they may well have been innocent passerby who were simply trying to help some wounded men. If so - then they were mistaken for insurgents, attempting to rescue their fellows.
If you are being honest, if you only saw the van being shot up, then I would suggest that you view the entire video.
A tragedy unfolds, but it is not a war crime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 [youtube.com] At first glance, at least, this seems to be the entire video. Please note that multiple persons are indeed carrying rifles. Saed is obviously carrying SOMETHING - the Apache crew assumes it to be a rocket launcher, or an RPG. They are mistaken - but being mistaken is not a crime, not even a war crime.
It is pretty much a certainty that these people are the same people who had fired on US troops only minutes before the video starts. Remember, Saed and his partner are EMBEDDED WITHIN AN INSURGENT UNIT.
Now that you have that much information, go ahead and watch that video.
Tragic? Yes. Crime? Nope.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday May 04 2015, @07:51PM
So...what, because there were once enemies on that ground, anybody who later steps there is automatically fair game too?
The fact that they may have tried to help some of the injured "insurgents" makes it worse, not better. That's like bombing a freakin' ambulance.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 04 2015, @08:12PM
Well, you seem to be harboring a lot of hatred for the troops. Fact is, it was a hot combat zone, with people firing from that position. Our troops were taking fire from the people in the video. That is so near a certainty, I'll bank on it. There is little opportunity, negligible chances that some OTHER armed unit fired from those positions, only to fade away, and be replaced by THIS armed unit, in the few minutes that elapsed.
And, you're neglecting to address the fact that Reuters intentionally EMBEDDED this reporter and his cameraman with an insurgent unit. Before this incident, he released some coverage within the unit. He knew the risks, and he took them.
Now, stop sniveling. Bad things happen in war. If you have problems with what you've seen in this video, you should address Herr Bush, who lobbied long and hard for the invasion of Iraq. Given that the troops are there, and dealing with wartime conditions - the troops are not to blame.
The children? Were YOU able to tell that there were children in that van? Watch the video again. Hell no, you can't tell that there are children in there.
And, no, it's not like bombing an ambulance. An ambulance is clearly marked, often times with uniformed attendants. These are random people, dressed in mufti, in an unmarked vehicle - and they look just like any other potential insurgents.
Got a beef about shooting non-uniformed personnel? Take that up with the insurgents, who can't be bothered with uniforms.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:38PM
I'm not neglecting to address anything. That's a separate incident from what I'm discussing. I haven't said a single word about the Reuters employees.
Oh absolutely; Bush ought to be rotting the Hague already. But the fact that he gave the orders doesn't excuse those who obeyed them. That's what we call "The Nurnberg Defense" -- after America's refusal to accept it when prosecuting Nazi troops. So let's be consistent. If it wasn't a valid excuse for their soldiers, it's no excuse for ours either. The guys who carried out the orders are just as guilty as those who gave those orders.
That's exactly my point. They shouldn't be firing on random civilians. That's a war crime.
That's because we went to war not with an army but with the goddamn citizens. Never should have happened.