zomgwtf said:
Sure but this has nothing to do with what I originally stated. The military releases information/video files that they can GURANTEE won't negatively effect them by the enemy or by the coalition nations. As well when I watch the news and there are stories on the war in Afghanistan there's not really much portraying the military in good light... a lot of it is actually negative...
Haven't seen those come by though, at least not officially released by the military, at max things from war journalism.
I have seen several official USGOV releases of video that could hamper the mission but does further the political image of the seating administration.
The insurgents in Afghanistan. Hence it's a COIN operation.
I'm pretty sure they never formally declared war on them, and I'm sure that no international body like the UN would recognize such a 'declaration of war' to begin with.
...uh there is no war declared on a sovereign entity. It's a war INSIDE Afghanistan. Are you so dense as to think that COIN operations are not considered wars?
Yap, the point about war is that martial law is in effect. Different rules count, shooting is no longer murder et cetera.
The most important thing however is that you can say 'We're at war here!' as a justification for various things. The point is that when you attack soldiers, you attack people who are under authority of some sovereign nation and who are
ordered to attack you. This is why there are certain rules about taking prisoners of war, these people never
chose to attack you from their own ideology. Their own political beliefs are irrelevant as a soldier, they are ordered to attack and have to do so or else face discipline from their own commanders.
In the case of terrorists / insurgents, they aren't ordered at all, they are volunteers, not payed soldiers. They fight you for ideological reasons, and they are free to leave at any time. They also don't answer to one supreme commander in chief, surely there is some form of hierarchy and co-operation, but in the end the buck stops at no point, they are relatively isolated cells.
What you're formally dealing with is criminals here, not soldiers, they
choose to attack you, they cannot say once you hold them at gunpoint and they pose no thread 'We were just following orders from our commander, it's not our decision' which soldiers can, and this is why you can't just shoot soldiers that are harmless and prisoners of war are not kept for justice or punishment but for security reasons. They are basically people living in a country which has a government, and they do not abide by the legal codes that government has established and enforces. This is very different from war and martial law. And this is why
technically you can't just shoot them without a trial unless they resist arrest.
This distinction is quite important in international law.
Well first of all this really has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I never once said that there's something at stake for the American population in this war.
You said
This is a war we are atlking about and a lot is at stake.
For whom is a lot at stake then if not the American population?
You know that internationally if you attack a country preventively without a direct risk for your own nation, this is internationally considered a war crime. This is of course different from pre-emptively.
Second of all it has to do with what negative results could come towards the military from
a)the enemy gaining information they are not supposed to have
For who's stake is the military fighting if not the American people?
b)from the public opinion in its own nation since they don't get the full story sitting at home watching the media and reading wikileaks.
Journalism never tells the whole story, that's why there's counter journalism and pluriformity of newspapers to keep a check.
The right side newspapers will tell the right side, the left side will tell the left side. Wikileaks is obviously biased to the left, as any journalistic entity is to one or the other.
