A system of revenge

[Skybird]

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html


PFC Manning is currently being held in maximum custody. Since arriving at the Quantico Confinement Facility in July of 2010, he has been held under Prevention of Injury (POI) watch.

His cell is approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length (= 1.80x3x60m).
(...)
PFC Manning is held in his cell for approximately 23 hours a day.

The guards are required to check on PFC Manning every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see PFC Manning clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure he is okay.


A prison should not be a luxury hotel, but this is not only hilarious, but is a way of mistreating somebody by a form of torture that tries to evade being labelled as torture.

You could as well put him into a coffin-sized box and put him on a drip to feed him, and lay a pipe for breathing air. Isn't it enough that he can breath, lives, and can move his fingers?

[August]

He should have thought of that before he betrayed his country.

[the_tyrant]

I suppose its progress?
back in the cold war didn't people who leak information to the KGB get executed?

[Skybird]

Thats says nothing, August. With that statement you can excuse abandoning any legal standards or basic principles of justice in Western traditions' understanding completely. You can even excuse electroshocks or stage-tribunals like the Volksgerichtshof with that.

Formally he has not been found guilty of any crime, his guilt has not been proven at court, or am I wrong? That means he must be assumed innocent, for the time being - a vital principle of all Wetsern legal systems that is. In dubio pro reo. The guilt must be proven, not the innocence. ;)

And even if he is found guilty of a crime, this does not justify the legal system striking back at him by the means of psychic or physical torture. At least as long as the claims of America for what principles it stands still have any meaning.

Justice and law enforcement - are something totally different than revenge. Cruelty by the authorities - must and shall have zero space in any legal system worth that name.

[Tribesman]

He should have thought of that before he betrayed his country.

It could be said that he was serving his country, after all some of the cables just illustrate how much the politicians and military are betraying their country on a regular basis.

[Skybird]

I suppose its progress?
back in the cold war didn't people who leak information to the KGB get executed?
I would prefer death to a life-long imprisonment under circumstances like these.

[danlisa]

He should have thought of that before he betrayed his country.

Really, and I suppose loyalty to ones country is more important than exposing high level corruption, lies to the general populous and the general arrogance/ignorance of the US political system.

If you want to bury your head and pretend none of this happens, carry on. PFC Manning should be applauded for his stance and the 'Land of the Free' should practice what they seem intent on preaching.

Unfortunately, the US is allowed (in no small part by it's population) to say one thing and do another.

*Slow clap* @ the United States of America, land of justice and home of the free.

[DarkFish]

It could be said that he was serving his country, after all some of the cables just illustrate how much the politicians and military are betraying their country on a regular basis.That's a very good point you make. He didn't betray his country, he betrayed his government (and that's a good thing if you ask me).

Unlike in the case of Assange (who as a (foreign!) citizen not working for any government is IMO not obliged to not publish any information), I'm not entirely against prosecution though as he did steal information while serving in the military. In my book that would qualify as espionage, no matter how much I agree with him releasing everything.

But deliberately mistreating him does seem to be quite a bit over the top.

[DarkFish]

Really, and I suppose loyalty to ones country is more important than exposing high level corruption, lies to the general populous and the general arrogance/ignorance of the US political system.

If you want to bury your head and pretend none of this happens, carry on. PFC Manning should be applauded for his stance and the 'Land of the Free' should practice what they seem intent on preaching.

Unfortunately, the US is allowed (in no small part by it's population) to say one thing and do another.

*Slow clap* @ the United States of America, land of justice and home of the free.Aye. Pretty much all discussion coming from the Americans here is how Manning should be punished for what he's done. Not about what the government did and how the government should be punished.

Danlisa is right here, you do seem like ostriches following the flock of the Master Ostrich, all burying your heads deep in the sand.

[Blood_splat]

I'm an American and I'm glad it happened. Too many Americans have blind love for our government and military. If you can't spend it, screw it, or eat it, most Americans don't want to be bothered. We fight bleed and die for our countries super rich and vote against our own interests.

[August]

Danlisa is right here, you do seem like ostriches following the flock of the Master Ostrich, all burying your heads deep in the sand.


Gee thank you for that unsolicited opinion. :roll:

[August]

Thats says nothing, August. With that statement you can excuse abandoning any legal standards or basic principles of justice in Western traditions' understanding completely. You can even excuse electroshocks or stage-tribunals like the Volksgerichtshof with that.

Formally he has not been found guilty of any crime, his guilt has not been proven at court, or am I wrong? That means he must be assumed innocent, for the time being - a vital principle of all Wetsern legal systems that is. In dubio pro reo. The guilt must be proven, not the innocence. ;)

And even if he is found guilty of a crime, this does not justify the legal system striking back at him by the means of psychic or physical torture. At least as long as the claims of America for what principles it stands still have any meaning.

Justice and law enforcement - are something totally different than revenge. Cruelty by the authorities - must and shall have zero space in any legal system worth that name.

First you're assuming any of these claims are true Skybird. Do you have any proof of this from a halfway neutral source or should we just take his lawyers claims as gospel?

Second, from the description his life in prison awaiting courts-martial is still far easier than the lives of his fellow soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq who he has put at increased risk by publishing their operational details for our enemies to read and learn from.

Third, TV time and regular showers do not compare to electro shocks or kangaroo courts and i'm kind of insulted that you'd actually try to extend my statement to include them. Why not just claim that any incarceration at all is a violation of his rights and let the little traitor go free right?

[August]

I'm an American and I'm glad it happened. Too many Americans have blind love for our government and military. If you can't spend it, screw it, or eat it, most Americans don't want to be bothered. We fight bleed and die for our countries super rich and vote against our own interests.


We? Where have you served?

[MaddogK]

I'm an American and I'm glad it happened. Too many Americans have blind love for our government and military. If you can't spend it, screw it, or eat it, most Americans don't want to be bothered. We fight bleed and die for our countries super rich and vote against our own interests.

I'm curious as to why you think betraying your oath (your sworn promise) to not divulge classified information entrusted to you is a good thing. The military doesn't allow loopholes in the rules to allow this because an individuals conscious demands he break his oath.

[danlisa]

I'm curious as to why you think betraying your oath (your sworn promise) to not divulge classified information entrusted to you is a good thing.

Where it states "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Or is there another Oath that supersedes that one?

[MaddogK]

Where it states "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Or is there another Oath that supersedes that one?

THAT phrase was NOT part of the security agreement, which I believe supercedes the general oath you're quoting from.

[DarkFish]

We? Where have you served?I sincerely hope you don't mean to say that anyone who hasn't served is a less good/patriotic/worthy citizen.

[danlisa]

THAT phrase was NOT part of the security agreement, which I believe supercedes the general oath you're quoting from.

So that's the Oath of Office then?

I'm having trouble finding this 'Oath of Security'.

How many contradicting Oaths are there?

[Blood_splat]

I sincerely hope you don't mean to say that anyone who hasn't served is a less good/patriotic/worthy citizen.
He is, besides my dad spilled his blood in that nice little war in Vietnam.

[TLAM Strike]

I suppose its progress?
back in the cold war didn't people who leak information to the KGB get executed?

No. John Anthony Walker is up for Parole in 2015. Pelton got 3 life sentences. Hannssen got life. Aldrich Ames got life.

The Rosenbergs were the only ones I think, and that was way back in the 1950s.

[DarkFish]

THAT phrase was NOT part of the security agreement, which I believe supercedes the general oath you're quoting from.Yes, he did fail his duty as a soldier.
But as a citizen of the United States, he did what he should have done.


Seriously, why do you Americans put so much emphasis on this guy, and not on what your government does? Your government is the bigger criminal here. Yet you all insist on going after the "petty thief" while letting the big bad guy walk away.

Does this mean that:
- You are so indoctrinated by your government that you accept everything it does to you
- You think your government is entitled to do literally everything it wants, even things that go against your own constitution
- You think that being a spy is a bigger crime than being a government that betrays and lies to its own people

Now which of the above is it?

[DarkFish]

He is, besides my dad spilled his blood in that nice little war in Vietnam.Good for you. Now does that make you or your dad a better person than the average John Doe on the streets?

[Blood_splat]

Good for you. Now does that make you or your dad a better person than the average John Doe on the streets?
Nope. :up:

[Growler]

Seriously, why do you Americans put so much emphasis on this guy, and not on what your government does? Your government is the bigger criminal here. Yet you all insist on going after the "petty thief" while letting the big bad guy walk away.

Does this mean that:
- You are so indoctrinated by your government that you accept everything it does to you
- You think your government is entitled to do literally everything it wants, even things that go against your own constitution
- You think that being a spy is a bigger crime than being a government that betrays and lies to its own people

Now which of the above is it?

Whoa, easy, DF. I'm one of those "you all" to whom you're referring, and last time I checked, I hadn't shoved an oar into this conversation stating any of the above statements you're attributing to me.

[Skybird]

First you're assuming any of these claims are true Skybird. Do you have any proof of this from a halfway neutral source or should we just take his lawyers claims as gospel?

Second, from the description his life in prison awaiting courts-martial is still far easier than the lives of his fellow soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq who he has put at increased risk by publishing their operational details for our enemies to read and learn from.

Third, TV time and regular showers do not compare to electro shocks or kangaroo courts and i'm kind of insulted that you'd actually try to extend my statement to include them. Why not just claim that any incarceration at all is a violation of his rights and let the little traitor go free right?

YOU feel insulted...???

The insult lies in implying that keeping somebody in a box the size of three or four beds all day long, asking him every five minutes that he is not asleep and "well", and effectively denying him the opportunity to sleep - is not torture.

The insult lies in implying that his suffering is lesser than that of the troops in Afghanistan's garrisons. I'd prefer their "fate" to his any time I would need to chose.

The insult lies in implying that just because his laywer claims his innocence, his guilt must no longer be proven.

You are overstepping the borderline to pure cynism, August. Or as I said in the headline: to mere will of taking revenge.

In the medieval, and later, even just 150 years ago, people were chained to the wall and kept in fixiated psoitions all day long, in order to "heal" their mental disorder, or to make it easier for prison guards. Much of what we see in Guantanamo, and now with the conditions of Manning's imprisonment, is not far away from that.

Normal people do not even treat their dogs like that. This is torture as severe as torture that leaves scars and bleeding wounds, this torture carried out in a way that it hopes to evade being labelled as torture, this torture that tries to leave no openly visible traces of torture. Like waterboarding, which is nothing else but the implementation of enforced physical and mental agony.

The waterboarding was introduced to create information. But torturing Manning like this, does not even serve the information business, which leaves a joy for cruelty, sadism and/or the desire to take revenge by making him suffer the only alternative explanations.

But it may help to make him agreeing to coinstruct - most likely: false - accusations against Assange having ordered him to steal the infomation, in exchange for reliefs of his imprisonment conditions. If there is one person America hates even more than Manning, then it is Assange.

Hi Osama. Long time no see!

[MaddogK]

Yes, he did fail his duty as a soldier.
But as a citizen of the United States, he did what he should have done.


Seriously, why do you Americans put so much emphasis on this guy, and not on what your government does? Your government is the bigger criminal here. Yet you all insist on going after the "petty thief" while letting the big bad guy walk away.

Does this mean that:
- You are so indoctrinated by your government that you accept everything it does to you
- You think your government is entitled to do literally everything it wants, even things that go against your own constitution
- You think that being a spy is a bigger crime than being a government that betrays and lies to its own people

Now which of the above is it?

Firstly- as a volunteer in the U.S. armed forces he should have understood he was no longer a citizen, but property of the U.S government. He gave up his freedom to act as an individual when he signed the contract to be part of the 'team' called the military, and again when he signed the confidentiality agreement when he applied for a security clearance.

I'm not defending the actions of our government, but you mistakenly think it's OK to NOT do what you promised to do because you don't agree with it.

How is this any different than the doctor who was recently courtmartialed because he refused to deploy, because he didn't agree that the president wasn't legally elected ?

This Manning fellow shared classified material with a foreign national because he felt it was his duty to NOT do his duty. He might as well shared plans for our nuclear missles because he feels it's wrong to be able to kill on such a large scale.

[DarkFish]

Whoa, easy, DF. I'm one of those "you all" to whom you're referring, and last time I checked, I hadn't shoved an oar into this conversation stating any of the above statements you're attributing to me.I'm talking about the general US guy I see posting here. There are individuals to whom my statements do indeed not apply. There'll always be.
I also don't know if what I think is indeed true, but it definitely does seem so to me.

Firstly- as a volunteer in the U.S. armed forces he should have understood he was no longer a citizen, but property of the U.S government. He gave up his freedom to act as an individual when he signed the contract to be part of the 'team' called the military, and again when he signed the confidentiality agreement when he applied for a security clearance.

I'm not defending the actions of our government, but you mistakenly think it's OK to NOT do what you promised to do because you don't agree with it.

How is this any different than the doctor who was recently courtmartialed because he refused to deploy, because he didn't agree that the president wasn't legally elected ?

This Manning fellow shared classified material with a foreign national because he felt it was his duty to NOT do his duty. He might as well shared plans for our nuclear missles because he feels it's wrong to be able to kill on such a large scale.Didn't you read what I wrote or what? Read this:
Yes, he did fail his duty as a soldier.

[MaddogK]

Didn't you read what I wrote or what? Read this:

Yes, I read that, but it was superceded by But as a citizen of the United States, he did what he should have done.
...and thats what I was replying to.

[August]

YOU feel insulted...???

The insult lies in implying that keeping somebody in a box the size of three or four beds all day long, asking him every five minutes that he is not asleep and "well", and effectively denying him the opportunity to sleep - is not torture.

You misread it. He is not denied the opportunity to sleep. I don't know what right a prisoner has to not be bothered at all like you seem to be demanding. The man is on suicide watch! You'd prefer they just leave him alone so he can figure out a way to kill himself?

The insult lies in implying that his suffering is lesser than that of the troops in Afghanistan's garrisons. I'd prefer their "fate" to his any time I would need to chose.

Really? you'd prefer an IED blowing up in your face? You'd prefer eating dust and sweating your butt off waiting for the Taliban to attack? You'd prefer having scorpions and spiders bite you like what killed a young man from a nearby town that was stationed in that hell hole just a couple weeks ago? You'd prefer having your limbs blown off or being blinded to that nice safe cell? Please. :roll:

The insult lies in implying that just because his laywer claims his innocence, his guilt must no longer be proven.

I never implied that at all. I think he's guilty. I have the right to my opinion. You'll note that I am neither judge or jury in that case.

In the medieval, and later, even just 150 years ago, people were chained to the wall and kept in fixiated psoitions all day long, in order to "heal" their mental disorder, or to make it easier for prison guards. Much of what we see in Guantanamo, and now with the conditions of Manning's imprisonment, is not far away from that.

By that line of reasoning any incarceration at all is "not too far away from that". He is not being kept chained to the wall, he is not kept in a fixated position.

Normal people do not even treat their dogs like that. This is torture as severe as torture that leaves scars and bleeding wounds, this torture carried out in a way that it hopes to evade being labelled as torture, this torture that tries to leave no openly visible traces of torture. Like waterboarding, which is nothing else but the implementation of enforced physical and mental agony.

Now you're just being a drama queen. You just can't compare a heated cell and TV, book reading, visitor and letter writing privileges with torture that "leaves scars and bleeding wounds".

But it may help to make him agreeing to coinstruct - most likely: false - accusations against Assange having ordered him to steal the infomation, in exchange for reliefs of his imprisonment conditions. If there is one person America hates even more than Manning, then it is Assange

Yeah right, Just more unsupported speculation from a guy with a known history of bad mouthing my country. Tell me why we should listen to anything you say?

[DarkFish]

Yes, I read that, but it was superceded by
...and thats what I was replying to.Meaning that if he hadn't given his oath, I would have agreed with him.
He has broken his oath and he should be punished for that. It doesn't mean he should be tortured though (yes, he is being tortured as Skybird points out).

Most of you attack Assange as well, who has no such oath, not even any allegiance with your country. Many of you think he should be punished as well. Why is that, if he hasn't sworn any oath? If you still think Assange should be punished that would make your oath argument bogus as it would apparently not be any argument in your very own eyes...

[August]

I sincerely hope you don't mean to say that anyone who hasn't served is a less good/patriotic/worthy citizen.

I usually say exactly what I mean Darkfish. The man said "we". That implies inclusiveness.

[August]

He is, besides my dad spilled his blood in that nice little war in Vietnam.

No I am not and your father is not you.

[DarkFish]

Really? you'd prefer an IED blowing up in your face? You'd prefer eating dust and sweating your butt off waiting for the Taliban to attack? You'd prefer having scorpions and spiders bite you like what killed a young man from a nearby town that was stationed in that hell hole just a couple weeks ago? You'd prefer having your limbs blown off or being blinded to that nice safe cell? Please. :roll:To back up Skybird here, I know I would.

Yes, soldiers have a *small* chance of being killed/handicapped. Yes, they are fighting in harsh, hot, dusty and dangerous conditions. But at least they are not confined to a 1.8 by 3.6 metres cell 23 hours a day. They are not disturbed every 5 minutes and they are not systematically woken up every few hours at the discretion of their superiors.

I usually say exactly what I mean Darkfish. The man said "we". That implies inclusiveness.With "he" he likely means the American people. Not exclusively the US military. The military are part of the people though, so they can be included in the "we". That does not mean every "we" is a soldier.

[August]

Yes, he did fail his duty as a soldier.
But as a citizen of the United States, he did what he should have done.

No he betrayed his fellow soldiers and his country and he's gonna burn for it.


Seriously, why do you Americans put so much emphasis on this guy, and not on what your government does? Your government is the bigger criminal here. Yet you all insist on going after the "petty thief" while letting the big bad guy walk away.

Does this mean that:
- You are so indoctrinated by your government that you accept everything it does to you
- You think your government is entitled to do literally everything it wants, even things that go against your own constitution
- You think that being a spy is a bigger crime than being a government that betrays and lies to its own people

Now which of the above is it?

None of the above. Your very questions show you do not understand us at all.

[August]

To back up Skybird here, I know I would.

Yes, soldiers have a *small* chance of being killed/handicapped. Yes, they are fighting in harsh, hot, dusty and dangerous conditions. But at least they are not confined to a 1.8 by 3.6 metres cell 23 hours a day. They are not disturbed every 5 minutes and they are not systematically woken up every few hours at the discretion of their superiors.

So I'm curious. How would you handle this? Would you just let him return to his duties until his court martial?

With "he" he likely means the American people. Not exclusively the US military. The military are part of the people though, so they can be included in the "we". That does not mean every "we" is a soldier.

When a man has volunteered to wear his countries uniform then he can claim "we" when he's talking about those that actually do the fighting, bleeding and dying.

[DarkFish]

No he betrayed his fellow soldiers and his countryHe betrayed his fellow soldiers. He has broken his oath. He betrayed his government. He didn't betray his country.

and he's gonna burn for it.Ah, the sweet smell of revenge:roll:

None of the above. Your very questions show you do not understand us at all.If it's none of the above, then what is it? Why are you all angered because of this Manning guy, while you don't seem to care about what your government did?

And you're quite right about me not understanding US citizens. You guys keep surprising me time after time, and not for the better.

[DarkFish]

So I'm curious. How would you handle this? Would you just let him return to his duties until his court martial?Neither Skybird or I has ever said he should return to military duties. This question has never been about if Manning should return to military duty, just about if "his suffering is lesser than that of the troops in Afghanistan's garrisons", to literally quote Skybird.

Please don't change the question into one that suits you better.

As to what I would do, I've repeatedly told already that Manning should be punished according to the law.

When a man has volunteered to wear his countries uniform then he can claim "we" when he's talking about those that actually do the fighting, bleeding and dying.Two simple questions:
- Are US troops also US citizens?
- Are US troops fighting?

[August]

He betrayed his fellow soldiers. He has broken his oath. He betrayed his government. He didn't betray his country.

They're the same thing. "government by the people, for the people and of the people". It's a concept you Europeans with your long history of monarchs and dictators probably just don't seem able to understand.

Ah, the sweet smell of revenge:roll:

What revenge? A hope isn't revenge. It isn't even a threat of revenge, or are you implying that I personally have a say in Mannings guilt or innocence?

If it's none of the above, then what is it? Why are you all angered because of this Manning guy, while you don't seem to care about what your government did?

What exactly has our government done that's so bad according to Wikileaks? Being worried about Indian bio weapon custody? Seeing Russia as run by organized crime? Talking about Ghadaffis large breasted assistant? You people keep implying there is some sort of bombshell dropped by Assange. So far all I see is a few slight embarrassments.

You guys keep surprising me time after time, and not for the better.

Oh i'll sure loose sleep over that! :roll:

[Skybird]

You misread it. He is not denied the opportunity to sleep. I don't know what right a prisoner has to not be bothered at all like you seem to be demanding.
Yeah, lets bother him to kill some time. Let'S limit water and food a bit, or reduce the oxygene level. Or limit his sleep intervals to harmfully short intervals.

The man is on suicide watch! You'd prefer they just leave him alone so he can figure out a way to kill himself?
You are malicious if seriously trying to make people believe beeing woken up every 5 minutes (if you have slept indeed) is "being given the opportunity to sleep". Calling that suicide watch is malicous and cynical, too. If you would be forced to exist in such a restricted manner like he is, you would think about suicide, too. So would I, so would most others sooner or later, if not even all people.


Really? you'd prefer an IED blowing up in your face? You'd prefer eating dust and sweating your butt off waiting for the Taliban to attack? You'd prefer having scorpions and spiders bite you like what killed a young man from a nearby town that was stationed in that hell hole just a couple weeks ago? You'd prefer having your limbs blown off or being blinded to that nice safe cell? Please. :roll:

That is better than sitting in a cell, bein g asked every 5 minutes, being refused a biologically meaningful ammount of sleep, being boredcbvoredboredboredbored all day, long, staring at the wall, being hindered to excercise in a cell that even is nothing more than a box. Again, you are malicious and cynical if you seriously want us to believe that his everyday life is nothing else but psychological torture. Yes, I prefer a painful life of exhaustion and effort to that - every time I needed to chose. Becasue Manning - is being buried alive. I would even prefer to get executed or commit suicide, than being forced to vegetate from day to day, like Manning. It's no life, it is not even life in prison. It's being buried alive.


I never implied that at all.
You said: "or should we just take his lawyers claims as gospel?"

I think he's guilty. I have the right to my opinion. You'll note that I am neither judge or jury in that case.
What you (or me) think, is not the point here. What a court has found about the case - that is what matters in any system of justice worth the name, as long as it bases on principles and laws that represent a consenus of a society and culture about what "just" and "fair" means. Believing he is guilty, is not sufficient. Assuming he is guilty, is not sufficient. Guilt must be proven. For that, people must be brought to court. So far Manning has not even been brought to court. Has he even be charged for anything...?

By that line of reasoning any incarceration at all is "not too far away from that". He is not being kept chained to the wall, he is not kept in a fixated position.
If you are being denied to lay or sleep when you are tired over the day, and if you are being woken up every five minutes when you sleep at night, or try to sleep at least, and if you are kept in a box the sioze of three or four beds, then it is like I said: then it is not far away from having people fixiated with iron chains on the wall, or bind them on beds in a psychiatry and do with them what you want. I assume you also belong to those naive people who seriously think that moving prisoners around in camp delta by having them chained on on rolling beds is to protect them from health riosk in case they stumble over their feet...?

What they do with Manning, is nothing else but sleep deprivation. Do you want to discuss with me what sleep deprivation does to a human's psyche and mental status...?

Now you're just being a drama queen. You just can't compare a heated cell and TV, book reading, visitor and letter writing privileges with torture that "leaves scars and bleeding wounds".
I compare sleep deprivation, sanctionising and chicanes every 5 minutes (under the false claim to protect him from himself), a little box 6x12 feet, and massive, very massive limitation of beign able to kill time by having more than just one book available, or doing some work, or more time for TV, or excerscising in his cell (which he is forbidden), to intimidation, mental punishing, and torture.


Yeah right, Just more unsupported speculation from a guy with a known history of bad mouthing my country. Tell me why we should listen to anything you say?

"Bad mouthing your country" can only be assumed by somebody who cannot differ between himself and his country, and who has been taught to be totally uncritical to his superiors. You by this your naivety and blind trust you allow yourself to will inhumane measures and treatements, while nevertehless claiming a certain moiral status and superiority of your nation (that it nevertheless violates). And because the consequence of your acting is such inhumanity and immorality, I also call it not only naivety but cynism and malice and revenge-taking.

The unsupported speculation, as you called it, is a very well supported claim presented by many commentators in the German, British and European press. It is no secret that the US so far has not been able to come up with a charge against Assange that it found to be promising enough so that it would stand, and that the US tries to sue him for espionage,l for which it must be shown that the people feeding him information did so by his order, or by a deal he offered them in advance. But possible that American papers do not print it. The censorship in America regarding Wikileaks seems to have grown since for example the Air force has interruplted all media and internet links on its platforms to all national and foreing newspapers linkling to the Cablegate story.

[Skybird]

They're the same thing. "government by the people, for the people and of the people". It's a concept you Europeans with your long history of monarchs and dictators probably just don't seem able to understand.
Maybe we have learned to no longer being so naive to believe that idealistic utopia. You are basing on a theoretical concept - and take that as the excisting reality. But the reality does fail you. You refuse to see that. The truth is your nation is as little democratic anymore as ours, but is as oligarchic and plutocratic like ours. The strings of power are pulled by people who are unavailable for your precious little election comedies or any legitimation procedures in a democratic understanding. For a former soldier who believed he served his country and people it must be difficult to accepot that he only had served the business intzerests of a few profiteers, all soldiers seem to have that problem becasue nobody wnats to believe that he served a purpose that is murky at best. If you serve in the military and risk your life, you want to do that with the conviction that you served the forces of light and honour and justice (as long as you are no mercenary at least). The truth is not welcomed, I totally understand that. But still it is the truth, welcomed or not. You have been betrayed and lied to. The only question that counts now is - how much longer do you buy their lies?

[August]

Yeah, lets bother him to kill some time. Let'S limit water and food a bit, or reduce the oxygene level. Or limit his sleep intervals to harmfully short intervals.

Why do you insist on exaggerating? Nowhere are oxygen levels mentioned. Nowhere does it say his food and water is being limited (he actually has a water source in his cell) and nowhere does it say his sleep intervals are limited either.


You are malicious if seriously trying to make people believe beeing woken up every 5 minutes (if you have slept indeed) is "being given the opportunity to sleep".Again Skybird. It. Does. NOT. Say. That! Calling me names does not make it so.

Calling that suicide watch is malicous and cynical, too. If you would be forced to exist in such a restricted manner like he is, you would think about suicide, too. So would I, so would most others sooner or later, if not even all people.Since you exaggerated your conclusions are invalid.

boredcbvoredboredboredbored all day, long, staring at the wall, being hindered to excercise in a cell that even is nothing more than a box.He gets a daily 1 hour exercise period. He gets TV. He gets up to 15 books at a time. Your exaggeration must be deliberate because your reading comprehension just can't be that bad!

The rest of your post is just more of the same so I won't even bother addressing it.

[Skybird]

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Art 13: Punishment Prohibited Before Trial

I fail to see him being treated in conformity with this.

And the 15 books. That is a list he may request. But he is allowed to have only one magaztione or book at a time. He is allowed to consume TV for 1, 2 or 3 hours. He is all day long in solitary confinement, and isolated. He is not allowed to spend time with excercising in his cell oputsiode the 1 hour period. He is not allowed to lay and sleep over the day - he then gets forced to wake up and stand up. He is being asked every five minutes to confirm he is awake and "well".

That is not just custody. That is already penalty, chicane, and psychological pressure. Manning has not been charged so far, I just checked, and no judge has called for these measures.

[August]

I fail to see him being treated in conformity with this.

That's because you believe your own exaggerations Sky. I'm sorry but there it is...

[DarkFish]

They're the same thing. "government by the people, for the people and of the people". It's a concept you Europeans with your long history of monarchs and dictators probably just don't seem able to understand.Our long history of monarchs and dictators has learned us not to blindly trust the government, and overthrow them if necessary (French revolution, anyone? Republic of the Seven United Netherlands? Russia 1917? Berlin wall?) If there's anything we Europeans understand a lot better than the US, it's that there is no such thing as a "government by the people, for the people and of the people." We have been betrayed too often to believe that anymore. Which is why we don't put blind faith in them like you seem to do.

What revenge? A hope isn't revenge. It isn't even a threat of revenge, or are you implying that I personally have a say in Mannings guilt or innocence?You are hoping for revenge. He betrayed the US military, and you hope he will "burn for it". How does that not qualify as revenge? As Skybird says, it looks awfully much like you've already made up your mind about his guilt. A suspect is innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Ever seen this monty python scene? To most Europeans I know the US reaction on Assange an Manning seems awfully much like it.

What exactly has our government done that's so bad according to Wikileaks? Being worried about Indian bio weapon custody? Seeing Russia as run by organized crime? Talking about Ghadaffis large breasted assistant? You people keep implying there is some sort of bombshell dropped by Assange. So far all I see is a few slight embarrassments.A 1 minute google search shows at least these two things. I'm pretty sure there's much more out there (remember that a massive majority of documents hasn't even been released yet) but really don't want to spend more time searching for things the US has done wrong.

http://mgx.com/blogs/2010/12/07/wikileaks-cablegate-reveal-blackmail-at-copenhagen-climate-accord-cancun-cop-16/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

[MaddogK]

I think you're weeping a bit too much for this guy DF, just because his lawyers say he's being mistreated doesn't mean it's true.

Remember, O.J.'s lawyers said he was innocent.

[DarkFish]

I think you're weeping a bit too much for this guy DF, just because his lawyers say he's being mistreated doesn't mean it's true.It doesn't mean it's not true either.

Remember, O.J.'s lawyers said he was innocent.Yeah, and Roy Williamsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Williamson)prosecutor said he was guilty:roll:

[MaddogK]

It doesn't mean it's not true either.

Yeah, and Roy Williamsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Williamson)prosecutor said he was guilty:roll:

Roy Williamsons lawyers were incompetant:
The defense failed to point out that although the hair samples could have implicated the pair, they equally could have cleared them both. Despite his rapidly failing mental health, no motion was made to assess Williamson's competence.
...Maybe Mannings are as well.

[Ducimus]

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/12/typical-day-for-pfc-bradley-manning.html


A prison should not be a luxury hotel, but this is not only hilarious, but is a way of mistreating somebody by a form of torture that tries to evade being labelled as torture.

You could as well put him into a coffin-sized box and put him on a drip to feed him, and lay a pipe for breathing air. Isn't it enough that he can breath, lives, and can move his fingers?

You'll have to excuse me for not shedding any tears or having any concern about the treatment or welfare of a traitor. (Which, IMO he is) I can think of no crime greater then treason. He's betrayed his brothers in arms, the US army, the US government of which he is property of, his family, his community, and his nation. Frankly I don't even care if they put him up against a firing squad after the court martial. A traitor, is the lowest form of scumbag. I would rate rapists and pedophiles higher in social stature then a traitor.

[Skybird]

Wowh, Ducimus. Just wowh.

[DarkFish]

Wowh, Ducimus. Just wowh.Yeah, I was about to quote Ducimus with a "Pedobear Approves" sign, but decided it would be inappropriate for this forum.

Someone who exposes his government's wrongdoings lower than a pedophile?!

Wow, just wow.

[ReFaN]

****...

[the_tyrant]

guys, please
let this thread sink

its the holidays, and yet we are talking about traitors and torture?

[August]

Our long history of monarchs and dictators has learned us not to blindly trust the government, and overthrow them if necessary (French revolution, anyone? Republic of the Seven United Netherlands? Russia 1917? Berlin wall?) If there's anything we Europeans understand a lot better than the US, it's that there is no such thing as a "government by the people, for the people and of the people." We have been betrayed too often to believe that anymore Which is why we don't put blind faith in them like you seem to do.

And I'd counter by saying that your European mistrust and disownership of your own governments have never really worked out all that well as the long history of bloody European wars and various pogroms clearly attests.

You are hoping for revenge. He betrayed the US military, and you hope he will "burn for it". How does that not qualify as revenge?Because revenge is an act, not a hope! Action versus preference. Do you not understand such a basic difference? It's like me saying that because you seem to dislike our government that you're overthrowing it.

A suspect is innocent until proven guilty, remember?Immaterial. That is a standard for those who have to determine a persons guilt or innocence, not the general public. As Americans we're allowed to have our opinions without the nanny state stepping in to tell us what we can or cannot say, unlike you Europeans who can't even state the obvious without being threatened with jail for their troubles.

Oh and I still think OJ did it.

To most Europeans I know the US reaction on Assange an Manning seems awfully much like it.Yeah well Europeans have been misunderstanding us and prognosticating our doom for over 200 years. Y'all ain't been right yet.

A 1 minute google search shows at least these two things.Hopefully that's not the best you can do! "OMG we collected data on the UN leadership and tried to curry favor by giving aid! Tear down the Statue of Liberty. We are so chagrined!" :haha:

I'm pretty sure there's much more out there (remember that a massive majority of documents hasn't even been released yet) but really don't want to spend more time searching for things the US has done wrong.No you'd rather make some serious allegations and then not provide any real proof to back them up.

[Ducimus]

Someone who exposes his government's wrongdoings lower than a pedophile?!



He handed over classified material to unauthorized sources, and did so knowing said material would become visible to all enemies of this nation during a time of war. That's treason.

[CaptainHaplo]

@ Skybird....

His cell is 6x12 and he is the sole occupant.

The average US jail cell? 6x8 and normally has 2 occupants.
Those under a life sentence are in an 8x10 cell which also has 2 occupants.

Manning is being held at what is called "Supermax" level. The standard is not just in the US but is used in Europe as well. This entails constant supervision, via camera and in person when required. The requirement is a check on the prisoners welfare every 30 or 60 minutes - not 5 as suggested by his attorney. So we have the first exaggeration. Then, folks like you, Skybird, embellish it more with the "decrease his oxygen level" hyperbole. Take an uncomfortable situation, one person sensationalizes it, and now those who support the ACTS do the same...

Want to complain about the kind of treatment a Supermax prisoner gets, Skybird? How about you go picket or protest outside Stammheim Prison (you can find it it Baden-Württemberg) since YOUR government, YOUR country - is doing the exact same thing to its Supermax prisoners there....

Or are you complaining just because you happen to think what this guy is accused of is no crime and thus have a different standard?

See, this is where us Americans have such a problem. Europeans castigate us and fault us, when oftentimes they are doing the exact same things in their countries, but turn a blind eye to it.

Pointing out the mud on another fish's fins won't help you swim. Complaining about us doesn't put you on some higher stool because your doing the same thing in your "back yard".... Telling us how we are evil and wrong when your country does the same thing just makes us wonder why it is you feel threatened by us - because there is no other explanation as to why you would attack us for doing the same things your doing yourself unless your insecure or fearful. I don't mean that as an attack on you skybird, but rather its the reason why Americans often discount European viewpoints entirely. Double standards don't fly with us too well.

Europe has at least 15 "Supermax" facilities (though they also house less dangerous elements as well). Ireland, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, Denmark and of course Germany have them that I know of.

@ Darkfish - since your unhappy about this too - and your in the Netherlands - when did you last go speak out against the treatment of prisoners held at Nieuw Vosseveld in Vught?

As for the links you provided - hmmm diplomats acting as spies. Gee, that never has happened before has it? I mean, its not regular practice for all nations to place intelligence operatives as diplomats? Pfft - wow its so EMBARRASSING to get found out that your doing the same thing everyone else is ..... please. :doh: The second - hmmm ya know we give you alot of foreign aid because you can't seem to govern your way out of a poverty paper bag - and since we have been helping you out alot with foreign aid we'd really like it if you did us a favor. Of course, if you can't see your way to do it we might need to reconsider our friendship since that would make you nothing but a parasite of our people.... Yea buddy that sure is a horrible thing to do isn't it? Especially when its being done to SUPPORT ecological and climate "good behavior"..... I mean sheesh, I could see people yelling if we did it to support genocide - but to support the agenda of tree huggers around the world, and people STILL complain???

There seems also to be some confusion regarding Manning going to court with some of the posters here. He will NOT be tried in a civilian court. His trial will conform to military standards, not civilian ones. Nor is he, as property of the US government (which he is by his voluntary act of enlistment), entitled to a speedy trial of his peers.

The issue here isn't how he is being treated. The only reason you Europeans are here whining and pointing your fingers and shaking your heads at us is because you don't see anything wrong with what was done, if he was the one to do it.

[Webster]

As to what I would do, I've repeatedly told already that Manning should be punished according to the law.




i agree with you, Manning should be court martialed and shot without delay so he doesnt suffer too much watching reruns of i love lucy

[Webster]

But the reality does fail you. You refuse to see that.

ok Skybird, we get it, you think his jail cell and conditions aren't a very comfortable place to be and you think it should be better, but if he is monitored less as you seam to want, then when he commits suicide you will be posting murder conspiracies the second that happens so you get posting topics either way.

i got news for you, go see the conditions in any supermax segregation unit if you want to see how convicted criminals are treated, so far this guy has gotten no more or less rough treatment then any dangerous criminal waiting to stand trial would get.

and to use your own words:
The truth is not welcomed, I totally understand that. But still it is the truth, welcomed or not.

[TLAM Strike]

Ever think this guy is locked away for his own protection. How do you think the other prisoners will treat him giving what he is accused of doing.

If he is convicted he will no doubt be incarcerated in the same quarters not just for his punishment but for his safety.

[Oberon]

No real surprises, actually, one real surprise that he hasn't suffered a 9mm brain hemorrhage yet, or hung himself...no, hanging himself, that'll probably be the method. Oh dear, suicide, what a shame, next...

He knows what he did, he knew what the consequences would be, just like when he signed up he knew that he might one day be called upon to fight a war. I understand why he did what he did, and I suspect that he hopes to be a martyr for his cause, perhaps he will get that wish, but chances are it will be wrapped up in a nice cover story which will discredit him enough to avoid mass-martyrdom.
Espionage is a murky game, just ask Mr Litvenenko or Mr Markov, and what Mr Manning conducted was espionage, it's a bit more complicated because he wasn't working for a foreign country, however it is still the divulging of top secret documents outside of their intended area.
Now, the outcome of what he did is a double edged sword, on one hand, a lot of nations know where they stand with the US now without the diplomatic bull, on the other hand a fair few diplomatic bridges have been burnt or badly singed. To be honest, if there was a wikileaks from the UK, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few choice words about the US in there along with about fifteen pages worth of choice words about Russia, the way things are at the moment, but because that's just supposition, the great US-UK friendship is...well...no...it's pretty dire at the moment, but I think that's a sign of the new great isolationism which the US is toying with at the moment in the greater rift between the US and Europe which seems to deepen by the year, it's a shame but it's also not the first time the US has gone isolationist, and it's always eventually come back out to play, usually when someone in Europe has gone nuts and tried to invade the rest of Europe...hopefully not Germany again this time, that would just be too cliché.

Anyway, it's late, and I'm rambling...which means I'm starting to make less sense than usual. So I'll sum it up with a TLDR:

PFC Manning knew what he was doing, and knew what he would get, he has exposed a pretty dodgy system, but then again every flaming government is bloody dodgy these days and no-one's going to do jack about it, even with wikileaks. So his ultimate sacrifice, because this chap is probably going to wind up dead somehow, will be in vain because it will take a LOT more than wikileaks to get a modern western global power nation to bring down its government...and even then, what would replace it? Not something better I'd be willing to bet, most likely military rule. So, really, as rubbish as the system is, and it is rubbish, there is not really much in the way of an alternative with human nature as it is. If some divine being came down and removed human greed and hording tendencies, and lowered our reproductive drive a little (sorry California) then perhaps we could just drop-kick money and governments and live in the 1960s...but that would take some divine intervention and I don't know if even the big man could pull that off, more likely than not he'd rather do a three pin boot.


(Disclaimer: This post was made at 0154Z, by an individual that really should have gone to bed two hours beforehand, therefore any insults that may be derived from the aforementioned post should not be taken to heart and instead discarded as the disjointed ramblings of a tired islander)

[krashkart]

Should the article be taken at face value? Rule number one for this type of journalism is to push people's buttons -- and the article has certainly succeeded in doing just that.

"Poor Pvt. Manning. Held against his will in the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison and tortured at the hands of the ruthless United States military. He is isolated in a tiny cell and kept under constant supervision. Oh, whatever will become of him? *sob* *weep*"

And just forget that he still gets to stretch his legs and absorb some stray EM from the television while he eats his chow. Oh the humanity! :wah:

On a related note, who is the most indoctrinated out of all of us? The US? Germany? UK? Any others I missed? How about all of us. We're all suckers.

Anyway, since this isn't so much about Manning as it is about airing perceived grievances against the US... have a wonderful and safe holiday, everyone. :salute:


@CaptainHaplo - Good to see you around.

[Tribesman]

wow its so EMBARRASSING to get found out that your doing the same thing everyone else is ..... please.
It is when people make such a song and dance about other countries doing it and claiming that the land of freedom and democracy is so much better than countries which do such things.

The second - hmmm ya know we give you alot of foreign aid because you can't seem to govern your way out of a poverty paper bag - and since we have been helping you out alot with foreign aid we'd really like it if you did us a favor.
wow. such blindness.
So we have American foriegn aid being given to the people who are funding the terrorists who attack America.
We have foriegn aid that is meant for fighting the terrorists that is being used for other purposes and being diverted to the very terrorists it is supposed to be used against.
We have foriegn aid going to crazy dictators who require huge bribes just to pretend to be friendly to the US while constantly upping their demands yet doing bugger all in return.
Then of course you have the foriegn aid to people who should in theory be well placed to aid in the war on terror but appear to be directing their anti terror efforts at getting rid of any local political opposition instead and whose primary anti terror unit is actually banned by US law from being eligible for any aid as it is just a good old fashioned death squad which just kills with impunity whoever it feels like.
It really appears that some people havn't the faintest idea what the wikileaks has revealed.
As any single one of those constitutes treason by the US against the US as it means you are willingly financing your own enemies and acting against your own laws and own national interests.
But hey its just helping out against poverty in exchange for a favour right:rotfl2:

[MH]

This thread is good example why some things need to be confidetial.Its not that wikileaks reviled that much so far.
Maybe it just brought some from fantasy world and hurt some pride.

[Tribesman]

Maybe it just brought some from fantasy world and hurt some pride.
Well pride does come before a fall, plus when that pride is based on some fantasy world reality can be a big shock.
It explains why there was so much hysteria about wikileaks "treason" and it endangering lives, even leading some to call for assasinations.
Though of course many wish to retain that "pride" they had so are crawling back into their fantasy world where that pride can be real again.

[Platapus]

I guess the real question might be: Is Manning being treated any differently than any other prisoner in pre-trial confinement for a equal or similar crime?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

First you're assuming any of these claims are true Skybird. Do you have any proof of this from a halfway neutral source or should we just take his lawyers claims as gospel?

If it is not true, the basis for this discussion would not exist. Thus, if we are to discuss this, in the absence of any clear source saying otherwise, we discuss it on the basis it is true.

Besides, you seem to think it is just desserts for him to be treated this way, so why do you doubt the veracity?

Second, from the description his life in prison awaiting courts-martial is still far easier than the lives of his fellow soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq who he has put at increased risk by publishing their operational details for our enemies to read and learn from.

If all of this helps bring them home, would he still have, in overall terms, put them at "increased risk"?

And as for whether it is easier, perhaps we can trade. Manning goes to Iraq, one lucky grunt gets out of Iraq but goes into Manning's Supermax cell with the regime as described. Tell me if you can get anyone to volunteer.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Firstly- as a volunteer in the U.S. armed forces he should have understood he was no longer a citizen, but property of the U.S government. He gave up his freedom to act as an individual when he signed the contract to be part of the 'team' called the military, and again when he signed the confidentiality agreement when he applied for a security clearance.

I'm not defending the actions of our government, but you mistakenly think it's OK to NOT do what you promised to do because you don't agree with it.

OK, litmus test question: What do you think of Viktor Belenko?

[Krauter]

Sorry if this has nothing to do with the past 5 pages of discussion, but I haven't the time nor patience to read about how this guy is mistreated.

First off: Betray your country, expect it to shat on your life.

Secondly: Go to any hospital, mental ward, etc and they do this (checking every 5-10 minutes). It's called suicide watch.

Cheers.

Kraute

[CaptainHaplo]

Kazuaki Shimazaki II,

That question is rigged, because the defector in question assisted the US. If MaddogK was a Russian citizen, then the question would be reasonable. Your trying to compare a person who HARMED MaddogK's country with one who helped it.

What your doing is setting up a moralistic question against a patriotic one.

Morally, Viktor was in the wrong. However the view of a US patriot contradicts that. This is your intent of course, to see which supercedes, moral fiber or patriotic ferver.

The problem here is that while Viktor did in fact HELP the US, while harming the Soviet Union, Pvt. Manning has harmed the US but helped NO ONE. He has not saved any lives, he hasn't changed the course, but he has done irreperable harm to his country and his fellow service members - for what? So that terrorists could pour through the documents and figure out who some informants were? So they could know more about which arab governments to trust, and which to target?

All this guy did was harm. He is lucky he isn't up facing crimes against humanity charges IF he was the one who actually did it.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Kazuaki Shimazaki II,

That question is rigged, because the defector in question assisted the US. If MaddogK was a Russian citizen, then the question would be reasonable. Your trying to compare a person who HARMED MaddogK's country with one who helped it.

What your doing is setting up a moralistic question against a patriotic one.

Morally, Viktor was in the wrong. However the view of a US patriot contradicts that. This is your intent of course, to see which supercedes, moral fiber or patriotic ferver.

Looks like you basically got my intent - I want to demodulate MaddogK's attitude into "promise breaking" or "hurting his own country" versus "hurting the US" components. Perhaps rather nasty of me but serious discussion IMO is only worthwhile if it is mostly the former rather than the latter.

The problem here is that while Viktor did in fact HELP the US, while harming the Soviet Union, Pvt. Manning has harmed the US but helped NO ONE. He has not saved any lives, he hasn't changed the course, but he has done irreperable harm to his country and his fellow service members - for what? So that terrorists could pour through the documents and figure out who some informants were? So they could know more about which arab governments to trust, and which to target?

All this guy did was harm. He is lucky he isn't up facing crimes against humanity charges IF he was the one who actually did it.

Analogies are never 100% fits, but I'll disagree. Viktor definitely hadn't saved lives or changed the course of his country other than making sure yet another sum of roubles would be destined for weapons changing (not even developing) rather than the Soviet People, and it is hard to see how he could realistically have hoped otherwise. Personally, I think Viktor is a whiny, traitorous brat and I'm not Russian.

Now for Manning (yes he isn't convicted, but we probably all think he did it, and if not his name can be used as a convenient placeholder for whoever actually did).

His critics often say (summarized) "Manning deserves execution" and "Manning didn't leak anything too stunning" simultaneously. IMO, it is one or the other. In any case, considering the opponent and data content, it can't be as painful as the MiG-25 was. As for the "help" side of the equation, there is hope (at least more than in Belenko's actions) that the leaks will cause additional media pressure for the US troops to return home. The idea that Iraq and Afghanistan intervention was a mistake is hardly uncommon even in the US, and if we agree with that premise, than anything that helps the US make the decision to recall the troops is a good thing. So Manning broke the law, but I don't think he's a traitor.

[August]

If it is not true, the basis for this discussion would not exist. Thus, if we are to discuss this, in the absence of any clear source saying otherwise, we discuss it on the basis it is true.

Besides, you seem to think it is just desserts for him to be treated this way, so why do you doubt the veracity?

We have already established that the claims on the website are exaggerations and that several of the takes here on it are deliberate misconceptions Kaz. Let me turn the question around. By what reason should I blindly trust it's veracity like you seem so ready to? I can't believe you're part of the crowd who believes Manning is being starved for oxygen are you?

If all of this helps bring them home, would he still have, in overall terms, put them at "increased risk"?

But it won't help bring our soldiers home, we're in this until we win or loose and some low level classified documents are going to change that. What it will do however is lend assistance to the enemies war effort by giving them insight into our operational practices and procedures. If that's not a traitorous act then nothing is.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

We have already established that the claims on the website are exaggerations and that several of the takes here on it are deliberate misconceptions Kaz.

Skimming through the posts, the oxygen thing never appeared on the original at all, so it cannot be faulted on the article.

The other is the 5 min/check vs 30-60 min/check thing, and IMHO the possibility that 5 min is true, and thus the guy is being treated worse than the norm in what is already a not-awfully-humanitarian regime is inadequately explored by its poster (CaptainHaplo).

Let me turn the question around. By what reason should I blindly trust it's veracity like you seem so ready to?

I've explained it in my first post-in-thread. It may be true, it may be not. However, no one can bring a solid counter-article. The debate is thus effectively on whether the treatment as portrayed in the article is proper, and if you don't accept (at least for the purposes of debate) that the article is reasonably accurate, there's not much to discuss.

Personally, I'm inclined to put my coins in the "It's Generally Accurate" betting box.

who believes Manning is being starved for oxygen are you?

Manning must be living in a real luxurious place if they can control the amount of oxygen entering his body, so no :). If such facilities exist, however, I'm not so trusting of the US government that I'll completely exclude the possibility they'll have used it.

But it won't help bring our soldiers home, we're in this until we win or loose and some low level classified documents are going to change that. What it will do however is lend assistance to the enemies war effort by giving them insight into our operational practices and procedures. If that's not a traitorous act then nothing is.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that they are "low level classified" documents, which should translate into "not awfully harmful" documents, then you say he's traitorous.

As for the bring the soldiers home thing, wouldn't the government share some responsibility in not bringing the soldiers home despite a supposedly elevated risk factor?

[FIREWALL]

Gee thank you for that unsolicited opinion. :roll:

No offense August but, when you post you, and anyone else who posts, " Solicites " an opinion.

[August]

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that they are "low level classified" documents, which should translate into "not awfully harmful" documents, then you say he's traitorous.

No I am not contradicting myself. An enemy can learn a lot from documents classified Confidential and Secret, especially when they get access to them in volume. Why else do you think these security classifications exist?

Besides, "not awfully harmful" in WAR still means lives and limbs Kaz. Yeah the little rat is a traitor. Treason isn't defined by the damage done.

As for the bring the soldiers home thing, wouldn't the government share some responsibility in not bringing the soldiers home despite a supposedly elevated risk factor?

Give up a whole war just because of a single security breach? Right. ;)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Maybe if the war was wrong to begin with, it is high-time to pull out, August.

[FIREWALL]

Another Thread that went "I'm right and how stupid can I respond." :roll:

[August]

Maybe if the war was wrong to begin with, it is high-time to pull out, August.

Maybe if your Aunt had a beard she'd be your uncle. Prove the war was wrong to begin with Kaz.

[FIREWALL]

Another Thread that went "I'm right and how stupid can I respond." :roll:

Gee Whiz FIREWALL !!! They just don't get it. HuH ?

They wanna win at any cost even when it makes them look like a loser.

[Aramike]

Where it states "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Or is there another Oath that supersedes that one?Oh man, this is RICH ... so you think that any buck private has the qualifications to decide what qualifies as an "enemy"? That's your argument? Really?:salute:

As a note on the rest of this thread, let's just say it's not shocking the the liberal/anti-America crowd comes down on the same side of this issue.

What IS mind-boggling is that the American far-left that thinks such leaks are a good idea has yet to demonstrate one, singular positive effect of said leaks, rather preferring the idea that we should all simply accept that being able to know everything is intrinsically a positive effect.

All the while those who wish to destroy the very freedoms that grant us the very luxary of publically thinking we are entitled to such information are foaming at the mouth at the precedence of openess without regard to reprecussion.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Oh man, this is RICH ... so you think that any buck private has the qualifications to decide what qualifies as an "enemy"? That's your argument? Really?:salute:

Yes. The oath does not say "all enemies, foreign and domestic, as designated by your boss" or any other similar thing - it says "all enemies", and since you are taking the oath personally, yes, your best individual judgment is being demanded on this affair.

What IS mind-boggling is that the American far-left that thinks such leaks are a good idea has yet to demonstrate one, singular positive effect of said leaks, rather preferring the idea that we should all simply accept that being able to know everything is intrinsically a positive effect.

You live in a democratic society. As such, the free flow of information is an intrinsic good. Every piece of information that is blocked from view is intrinsically bad.

As such, the onus is on those who classify information to justify that each and every piece of information is classified for real net utilitarian advantage.

[MH]

You live in a democratic society. As such, the free flow of information is an intrinsic good. Every piece of information that is blocked from view is intrinsically bad.

As such, the onus is on those who classify information to justify that each and every piece of information is classified for real net utilitarian advantage.


Question is if such a free flow of information can cause the government to not be able to make any significant decisions.
Role of government is to act in the best interest of its country while total openness can contradict those interests.
Of course secrecy can be misused but no system is perfect .
On another hand total anarchy doesn't sound too good for me.

[TLAM Strike]

Yes. The oath does not say "all enemies, foreign and domestic, as designated by your boss" or any other similar thing - it says "all enemies", and since you are taking the oath personally, yes, your best individual judgment is being demanded on this affair..

I would pay more attention to the last part of the Oath, its just as long as the first and just as specific:

and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.It does not say "I will obey all orders based on how I feel they should be carried out based on my individual judgment."

I wonder what the UCMJ says about what he did...

Here it is Section 904 Article 104...


AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

[August]

As such, the onus is on those who classify information to justify that each and every piece of information is classified for real net utilitarian advantage.

That is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read on the internet.

Millions of pieces of information and you demand that every one have it's security classification justified? To who, you? Shall we lay them all out in a parking lot or something so you and your fellow utopians can argue over the merits of releasing them to the enemy?

Pure foolishness. :nope:

[TLAM Strike]

That is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read on the internet.

Millions of pieces of information and you demand that every one have it's security classification justified? To who, you? Shall we lay them all out in a parking lot or something so you and your fellow utopians can argue over the merits of releasing them to the enemy?

Pure foolishness. :nope:

Exactly.

A couple of stories.

I bought my dad a DVD set of "Confidential Films of WWII", now if thats what they considered Confidential back then, some of the stuff on this website about current operations must be Top Secret.

One night a buddy of mine let slip a little nugget of secret information. Our enemies certainly knew that we know all about it. Its obvous to all parties concerned whats going on but I still sat on that nugget until I saw it mentioned in the press by an embedded reporter. Just about anything concerning the 5th Fleet is classified nowadays for obvious reasons.

Now if you think the US makes lots of info classified try researching a country like North Korea; whats in their troops mess kits is a state secret! Compare that to the US, in another thread I was tracking USN Carrier movements based on press photos.

[MaddogK]

OK, litmus test question: What do you think of Viktor Belenko?

Traitor to his country.

<edit> now that I've read all the posts between your question and this post I'll add that it is simply black and white- he's a traitor to his country. His helping the U.S. doesn't mitigate the fact that he stole some of his country's secrets and turned them over for personal gain or an attack of conscious.

[Platapus]

As such, the onus is on those who classify information to justify that each and every piece of information is classified for real net utilitarian advantage.

That is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read on the internet.

Millions of pieces of information and you demand that every one have it's security classification justified? .....


Not as ridiculous as you might first feel. He is more correct than you might think.

The only people who can classify stuff are a select small number of people granted the warrant of Originating Classifying Authority. They do go through a lot of training and are subject to classification review. Even thought a specific person is an OCA, there is a staff that reviews it for his or her signature.

Everyone else in the system is only allowed to create classified documents based on derivative classification. This means based on a classification source. No one at the worker-bee level (which is 99% of the people) is authorized to simply make something classified.

This is why at the bottom of classified documents is the classification block which lists the authority to classify, the source of classification, and the date in which it will automatically become classified (with some exceptions). Also included is the PCN (Personal Classification Number) which is a unique number that identifies the person deriving the classification.

Any piece of classified information had better be able to be backtracked to an OCA or a derivative source authority. :yep:

This is addressed in Executive Order 13526 December 29, 2009.

[August]

...Executive Order 13526 December 29, 2009.

That was interesting Platapus and it sounds about right according to my own (now ancient) experience as a Military Communicator, but it's kind of besides the point too. The stuff that Manning stole was classified and he knew that it was classified, but he took it anyways. He deserves to burn.

[Tribesman]

He is lucky he isn't up facing crimes against humanity charges IF he was the one who actually did it.
Wow crimes against humanity:har:
Someone is so far down the rabbit hole there is no longer any glimmer of light for them to see by.



I wonder what the UCMJ says about what he did...

Here it is Section 904 Article 104...

TLAM doesn't part (1) of nasty treasonous acts fit like a glove the very actions exposed in some of these cables.
So that means that sections of the US govt. and some of its staff both civilian and military are very very guilty of aiding the enemy.

Just for the fun of it given that Haplo ridiculously raised a different category of crimes, wouldn't the US govt. be guilty of crimes against humanity for some of the acts that were revealed as it is obviously a government, is alledgedly supposed to be organised and is according to its own documents has been playing a big role in some really nasty crimes.

[joegrundman]

An interesting article:

the conservative case for wikileaks

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/12/09/the-conservative-case-for-wikileaks/

[Skybird]

My christmas essay for you! :DL (Our christmas was chaotic and delayed by 24 hours, due to weather and traffic problems).

=================

US servicemen need to make an oath when entering service, the versions are slightly different for non National Guard and National Guard services, in that the latter additionally mention the federal state and the governor, otherwise they are pretty much the same.

"I , (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

or

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God."

Let's ignore the discrmination of atheists and non-theistic beliuevers for a moment. :D

What people swear is loyalty to the constituion, and obedience to the president and commanding officers. What people also swear is that they will put their allegiance not only to the constitution, but to single individual people, like the president.

That holds certain problems. Because what if the people you have sworn loyalty to, do violate the constitution that you also have sworn loyalty to...?

Only romanticising, infantile and naive dreamers could ever hope that a president or a governor or all officers in an army higher in rank than you are, are immune to human flaws, never can have intentions of betrayal, or cannot show criminal energy in abusing legal or constituional rules for lobby interests or their own private banking account. We all know from everyday poltiics how very much different politics are. And any politician, including presidents and governors, never are saints. At best you can hope that they are just humnans that beside their motivation to perform as best as they can, nevertheless make human errors and false assessements - almost never it gets better than just this.

Some people seem to automatically imply that Manning deliberately acted on behalf of personal scruples, or intentionally was to commit himself on a moral mission his conscience could not refuse to start, since he wanted to demask "the system" and saw himself unable to support lie and corruption any longer. I don'T know. I hjave no personal impression oif him at all, and what makes me think and hesitate to agree to this assessement is that it was reported that he boasted and bragged with the theft of the data, and even have announced it in advance, if I remember correrctly (I may be wrong on the latter, I am not sure). Bragging and boasting is not the behavior I would expect from somebody acting by moral motivation and moral scruples.

However, I am not limited to see this affair from just a juristic perspective, or just from a military standpoint. I rate this affair by the effects it causes.

There was much material released that just badmouthed individual leaders or countries, this is material that just stirr emotions, but does not any good beyond just this, so one can ask if it really was necessary to release this.

Then there was material that showed that the real assessement of persons and countries decisevely differs from the wanted media propaganda and what the "official" Washington tells the world that it is thinking about said persons and countries. That this becomes known, can be a good thing, in a past thread I gave the example of Turkey, that officially is demanded to be brought into the EU, but that in reality is seen as being on the path to become a fundamentalist and autocratic regime that is hostile to Western democratic principles. For the Europeans it is good to know that Washington wants them to do something which Washington ob viousdly thinks is dangerous and harmful for Europe to do. Other examples are the revelations about the widespread Arab support for military action against Iran, or the revelation to what degree America cooperates with tyrannic autocratic regimes, allows to get abused by them at times, and abuses them in return at others - all this whiole the media give a complete different picture of what Washington officially thinks about such issues.

Finally there was material released that simply illustrates how Washington kicks other nation'S soveriegnity with both boots and tries to conspirate and lobby for economic or other own interest by trying to punish opther governments if these governments do not accept to delibaertly act in violation of their own people'S explciit will. I give the example of Washington trying to undermine the widespread European resistence to genetically altered food by recommending punishing and painful (original quote) consequences against the EU and single EU members if they do not allow Monsanto to introduce genetically altered wheat, and establish American monopoles in Europe. That may be what Washington wants. But it is not what the huge majority of European people in almost all European countries want. Punishing governments and economies if they do not act agains their people, may not be a compliment for America - but it certainly is good for the intended receivers of such strikes to know about them.

For the most, the cablegate material so far falls in one of these three categories.

Back top Manning, morals, and the oath of allegiance. The question was what to do when you are in thge tricky situation that you should be loyal to a principle, and at the same time should be loyal to a single or group of individuals who violate these principles.

Can loyalty to these people be demanded and still be maintained under such a self-contradicting circumstance, just because of an oath that leaves you in the no win-no win situation that you must violate your loyalty either to the principle or to the person you sworn loyalty to?

Some people here said that American soldiers are "property" of the state. Well, that is a re-introuction of slavery then, because in our cultural understanding only in a system of slavery humans can be the property of institutions or other humans. If it is true that soldiers are just property of somebody, then everybody is a stupid dumbhead voluntaring to become that, and I also cannot bring this into conformity with several basic principles the US claims to depend on. It is also a totalitarian feature: the state/the social context/soiety is all, the individual is nothing. That is if not facism then totalitarianism in its purest form since Sparta (which is often mentioned to have been the first of such a system). In Germany, it is different. The modern German view sees soldiers as "citizens in uniform". Now there is opportunity to rtaise criticism of that, too, and I have done that in an own thread longer time ago. I just bring it up to show that alternatives are possible.

A military organisation of course depends on discipline and hierarchy. Normally, orders must be obeyed without wasting time with discussing them and demanding them to be shown appropriate. Trust plays a role. But trust can be abused - and can be abused the easier the more blindly it is given. There also must be the opportunity for each and every soldier to reject obedience if he is given commands that are illegal or are in violation of the oath he has made. I often have said that one of my main criticisms against Bush, and administratioins before him, was that they betrayed the troops. Vietnam was no war of need, but a war of desire, and it was staged (Tonkin), and politicians constantly messed up the military execution. Betrayal of the troops and the American public. Iraq/Kuwait 91: the military defeat of Iraq - which was absolutely possible and within reach - was deliberately prevented, Saddam was helped to be left in power, the assassination squads of the Kuwaiti rulers were brought back into power, and the troops even were expected to sit on the fence and do nothing while watching Saddam'S helicopters massacring the revolting Kurds and Shias. Betrayal of the troops and the American public ( a revolt the administration had helped to provoke, and then also betrayed). The Iraq war 2003: incompetently planned and prepared, badly executed due to constant political interference by an incompetent defence minister, triggered by lies and faked information, on b ehalf of economic lobby groups. Betrayal of the troops and the American public. Afghanistan: the last thing one must say is that it was incompetently waged for too many years. If not betrayal then at least political incompetence must be called out. Like in Iraq, arrogant dilletant like Rumsfeld and Cheney and anti-intellectual, unedcuated idiots like Bush should not be allowed to influence how a war is being fought, or more precise: they should not even be allowed to have the power to decide whether or not to launch a war at all. Thousands of troops and tens of thousands of civilians have payed their incompetence with their lives.

It is oftenb said that the German Wehrmacht should have revolted against Hitler, instead of allowing their Prussian codes of honour to lead them into blind obedience and loyalty to a regime of evil and a criminal in command who both worked for the doom and the disadvantage of the German nation and the Germn people. And some tried that, there have been many attempts to assassinate Hitler, both from within the military, and from non-military origians as well.I would not complain if the German officer corps would have rejected Hitler's order to attack Poland on grounds of staged events and efaked evidence. And so, I alos would not have complained if the Americna militzary would have rejected to obvey orders to attack Iraq on grounds of constructed claims and faked evidence. Inm both cases, it would have been the duty of the military to not obey, for the sake of the interest of the American people and on behalf of the principles the American nation historically has been founded upon.

We Germansa have a nice word for blind, uncritical obedience in the military. We call it "Kadavergehorsam".

I do not defend Manning, as I said above, becasue I do not know his motivation. But I refuse to damn in general the possibility that somebody refuses to be obedient when he would need to violate his conscience in the meaning of needing to support the violation of constitutional principles and human interests of he nation's people when staying loyal to those who deliberately decide to ignore and violate these, and ordering the military to support this personal agenda.

That's why I think it is inevitable to give Manning a public trial, not a hidden tribunal from thnat institution that has own interests at stake and a natural interest to keep certain things hidden while also conducting an intimidating example.

As far as Assange is concerned, and Wikileaks, they did nothing criminal by publishing it. And any law in America that wants to forbid the other TV and press media to publish information given to them by informants, should be considered as unconstitutional and hostile towards basic and inevtiable principles of a free and democratic soceity. The US was not meant to become a police state with censored media.

Instead of calling for legalised censorship (want some of the new Hungarian laws, maybe? ;) ) , you should better understand how dangerous it is to have an uncritical attitutude towards technology and data security - something which Europeans have a much stronger demand for, whileAmericans tend to ridicule right this and often call it a hostile attitude towards technology. Of course, stricter security rules work tw-ways. They make it more unlikely that somebodyx wals in with a USB stick and copies data onto it, but it also allows the state to again move beyond the clountetrcontrol of the electorate and to hide it'S anti-democratric power structures from the public that it betrays.

And finally realise this: if somebody like Manning would not have been American, but Chinese or Russian, and would have leaked the ablegate materiual about the Chinese and Russian state and diploacy, all those of you who know condemn Manning would hail that other guy as a hero and you would celebrate his civil courage, and you would argue how great it is to have the internet and something like Wikileaks, and you would demand China or Russia tpo release him becasue he is a human rights activist and a fighter for civil freedom and open society etc etc.

[Platapus]

The stuff that Manning stole was classified and he knew that it was classified, but he took it anyways. He deserves to burn.


No arguments from me on that. What he did was wrong. The discussion that what he released has not caused any harm is sophistry at best and inaccurate at worst.

Since there is no way we can ever protect ourselves from someone, with a clearance, from betraying his or her country, we have to "educate" people so that they won't choose to betray their country. That education will come in many forms, one of which is a speedy, fair trial for Manning and if found guilty, I truly believe he needs to be executed.

We can not have people in the military thinking that they can violate the classification laws "just because they feel they should".

Manning, if guilty, is a criminal. And the Government can not afford any perception that he "got away with it". Mannings lack of honour and discipline can spread like a cancer among other weak-minded people.

[Platapus]

TLAM doesn't part (1) of nasty treasonous acts fit like a glove the very actions exposed in some of these cables.


I am not quite following you. So as to prevent any misunderstandings in this discussion, could you give us an example?

[CaptainHaplo]

But I refuse to damn in general the possibility that somebody refuses to be obedient when he would need to violate his conscience in the meaning of needing to support the violation of constitutional principles and human interests of he nation's people when staying loyal to those who deliberately decide to ignore and violate these, and ordering the military to support this personal agenda.

Nothing in the oath says anything about protecting the human interests of the nation's people. It is the role of the government to do this, not the role of the soldier individually. This is trying to say that even a no-stripe private should be able to determine what is "good" for the interest of the nation. We have elections for that. Some good, some bad, but it is the job of the people to determine their course, not the role of the military.

The oath is rather clear actually so let me ask, to claim this was done under the "support and defend the Constitution" clause, one has to be able to show that the Constitution was in danger. Where was the threat to the Constitution? There wasn't one. Where in any of these documents does it show that the Constitution was violated and disregarded?

There was much material released that just badmouthed individual leaders or countries

Then there was material that showed that the real assessement of persons and countries decisevely differs from the wanted media propaganda and what the "official" Washington tells the world that it is thinking about said persons and countries

Finally there was material released that simply illustrates how Washington kicks other nation'S soveriegnity with both boots and tries to conspirate and lobby for economic or other own interest by trying to punish opther governments if these governments do not accept to delibaertly act in violation of their own people'S explciit will.

None of this violates the Constitution. The Constitution does not state that the US Government cannot use leverage (political, monetary, military, etc) in its foreign policy duties.

The question was what to do when you are in thge tricky situation that you should be loyal to a principle, and at the same time should be loyal to a single or group of individuals who violate these principles. How is this a question? For a civilian ok maybe it is, but the oath says nothing about "you decide whether you think this is in line with your own interpretation of what you think the Constitution says, and then don't follow it if you don't like it." Its not about "principles", its about protecting those that would overthrow the Constitution. Not one single thing that has been released can be shown to qualify as an "enemy, either foreign or domestic".

Seriously, people consider groups like Oathkeepers "fringe" because they are military and civil servants who recognize that certain orders that they may one day be given would violate the Constitutional guarantees we as citizens have. For example, ordering all the privately owned firearms to be confiscated is direct violation, and they make it know that they would not follow sucn an unlawful order. Where can Manning (or whoever did this if not him) point to any action in those leaks and say "Here is a direct violation of the US Constitution"? Whoever it is that did this - can't make that claim.

So the "principles" arguement is shown not to hold legal water. There are recordings of him stating that he did this to let the public - specifically he states his view that the US Government is in the wrong. He makes it clear that his intent is to create a change of direction through public outcry using this classified material. This is a violation of law. You want to talk Constitutional principles? Ok - this guy just violated them because we have elections for changing direction. Take the Apache tape that was released. It was released because the leaker disagrees with the war. So change the direction by legal means - not illegal ones!

This is what makes the principles arguement so laughable - to do this you have to lack principles! As for this:

That's why I think it is inevitable to give Manning a public trial

Not going to happen. He is not legally entitled to one, and while his lawyer will attempt to get public outcry up for one, there is no legal basis or reason to allow it. The only reason anyone wants this is so that he can be made into a martyr.

As far as Assange is concerned, and Wikileaks, they did nothing criminal by publishing it.

There is no data showing Assange was directly involved with either gaining or releasing the data. As long as that stays true, then I agree. However, any person nother that knowingly releases information that results in the death of a human being, such as some of these documents may do by pointing out informers, etc, are, by US law, accessories to murder. If they result in the death of a US Citizen, then those laws are applicable. This is a protection against vigilante justice among other things. So to claim that Wikilieaks et al are free and clear is incorrect.

There is a big difference between a whistleblower and a traitor. A whistleblower does not commit a crime to point out what they think may be another crime. A traitor hides behind any shield that might protect him. This isn't about censoring the media (though nice attempt to divert the discussion), its about whether or not any group, media or otherwise, has a duty to deal with the information they have in a responsible way. If releasing it causes an increased risk of death to others, you don't release it. DUH!

Before anyone starts making the argument that releasing stuff "might" save future lives - remember you don't have the right to go walk down the road, blow some guys head off as he walks the other way, and then use the defense "but he was going to be the next hitler"! You cannot tell the future, but some things blatently and obviously rasie the real risk to other humans - like releasing some things. While releasing information that includes informant details has a very slim chance to change the big picture, your sacrificing lives to try it. I don't care if its Assange, Wiki or anyone else, no private individual or group, media or otherwise, has the right to play with human lives to that degree, especially in attempts to manipulate the public.

[Tribesman]

I am not quite following you. So as to prevent any misunderstandings in this discussion, could you give us an example?
As the government and military are by their supply of arms ammunition training money and other things to the very people they are supposed to be at war with it means that they are the traitors.
It could have been said in their defence that they didn't know their work was benefiting the enemy as they didn't know what the people they were aiding were doing....if it wasn't for the diplomatic cables revealing that they knew damn well that the people they were helping are the enemy.

It is quite simple, if I am giving money and assistance to the very people who are financing and assisting the enemy then if I were to continue giving that money and assistance knowing that it was aiding the enemy then I would be aiding the enemy.
Since that knowledge appears to go through top levels of the military, its foriegn missions and even its supreme commander then undeniably the top echelons of the military are guilty of treason for aiding the enemy.

So there is a ridiculous situation where some low ranking nobody is being called a traitor for publicising the open treachery of his commanders.
He could of course theoreticly have taken his complaints about the treason through proper channels and gone through his superiors...but since the treason was at the very top levels it isn't really an option is it.

[Skybird]

The basic dilemma, if you weant to call it that, you do not adress, Haplo. It is an implication of the oath that you protect the human interests of the American people. It is implicit - else oyu have the unacceptable situation that indeed you form a military that if ordered by the presdient or a giovernor or a superior officer can be used as a tool to supress trhe American people. You are talking about a tyranny and dictatorship then. If this what the oath is accepting and including to happen?

You point out that thgere are elections that bring people to poltiical powerr deciding on behalf of the American people and the coinstitutuons and Amendement's implocit or expclit principles and interest. You take it for granted that this is the case, always. But it isn't like that. In fact you often have polticiians trying to dodge rules and laws and such principles if it is in what they consider to be their interest.

And this is the basic dilemma that I point out. When those whose orders to obey you have sworn, are abusing their power to act in their own or their lobby group's interst but against the interest of the nation and its people - what sort of loyalty to your prioritize then? Do you stay with the Führer-Prinzip? Then you end up the way Germany degenerated in the 30s and 40s of the last century: loyalty to an oath to a group of people, no matter what. See how it ended. Or do your prioritize the loyalty to the American people, and so stand up against those in power violating the Amerian people'S interest? I gave examples of wars that did not serve your country any good.

This blind Kadavergehorsam and this naivety of simply blindly trusting in that the political superiors always decie on behalf of the interest of the American people, is just this: dangerous, and very, very naive. Don't fallow that path. A system demanding your blind obedience in that way, does not deserve neither your obedience nor your loyalty. You should consider your loyalty to be more valuable than to be wasted for just this.

Never accept them to take away independent thinking away from you. Not even the army. If you ust blinmdly obey ALWAYS, even when you start to carry out order that do crime and evil to innocents or your own people, then you become guilty yourself. And probably will try to justify yourself the same way many Nazi commanders and even KZ guards did after the war: "Ich befolgte nur Befehle." There mujst be a morally defined treshhold beyond which you must refuse to be loyal to individual people anymore - even when they are your CO. Even when they are your president.

I agree, it is a difficult issue, a fragile balance between maintaining a functional military and keeping your own moral responsibility and a clean conscience. But be aware of this, Haplo. In case you ever asked yourself how the Third Reich and the blind obedience of the Wehrmacht to Hitler could have become possible - the arguments you just gave and the attitude you illustrated, is the answer to that question. Those in the Wehrmacht for the most were no "evil" people. The officers knowing that Hitler was ruining Germany, and still remained obedient: only some of them were fanatics. Often they were just people often thinking and arguing excactly like you just do. ;)

There shall never be a defence of claims for blind, and total obedience to indiovidual people. There always must be limits to that demand's validity. Not having such limits, leads to abuse, tyranny, and evil. Obedience ion the understanding of discipline, and a reasonable routine in trusting: yes. Blind, uncritical obedience being prhibited to ever doubt: no, at no cost. We have learned our lesson in Germany. But for America, German history, Vietnam and Iraq maybe still were not painful enough to learn that lesson.

On Wikileaks, so far not a single case has become known or reported with evidence where people got killed by cablegate or Iraqgate revelations. But many tens of thisuands got killed and many hundreds of thoisuands lost all or got wounded and traumatised due to decisions and failures reported on by these releases and other investigative journalism in past years). So who is the bigger crimnal here? The traitor betraying his own people and causing the death of tens if not hundreds of thousands, or the one reporting about the betrayal and maybe in the future by doing so enables others to kill some few people more?

If Cablegate wopuld be about China and Russia, and Manning would be a Chinese dissident, many of those now calling for Assanage's assassination would hail him instead.

[TLAM Strike]

TLAM doesn't part (1) of nasty treasonous acts fit like a glove the very actions exposed in some of these cables.
So that means that sections of the US govt. and some of its staff both civilian and military are very very guilty of aiding the enemy.


Different laws govern the executive and legislative branch branch. They have the power to break laws and even the Constitution when necessary and only answer for them if impeached.

[Tribesman]

Different laws govern the executive and legislative branch branch.
So are you saying it is OK for the executive and legislative to commit treason as the particular law you cited doesn't cover them?
If so how does that apply to the military high command too?
Surely all the military officers at all levels involved in this blatant, long running and very nasty treason must be thrown into jail and held before they can be killed once their trial is over.
After all fairs fair and we only want justice eh and its for the good of the country that these people should be held to account for breaking their oaths and becoming enemies of the state they are sworn to defend.

[TLAM Strike]

So are you saying it is OK for the executive and legislative to commit treason as the particular law you cited doesn't cover them?
If so how does that apply to the military high command too?
Surely all the military officers at all levels involved in this blatant, long running and very nasty treason must be thrown into jail and held before they can be killed once their trial is over.
After all fairs fair and we only want justice eh and its for the good of the country that these people should be held to account for breaking their oaths and becoming enemies of the state they are sworn to defend.

Its the duty of the Executive Branch to determine who is the enemy is and after the Legislative branch has its say determine what actions are to be done against said enemy. The Military follows those orders. If those orders include say arming one enemy against the other it must obey those orders or those who do not will be in violation of military law.

The check against abuse of Executive and Parliamentary (Legislative Branch) Privilege is impeachment by the Legislature followed by indictment by the judiciary.

Oh and no they are not bound by the law I cited since that is the UCMJ and only pertains to those in uniform or those who commit military acts against the US.

[CaptainHaplo]

The basic dilemma, if you weant to call it that, you do not adress, Haplo. It is an implication of the oath that you protect the human interests of the American people. It is implicit - else oyu have the unacceptable situation that indeed you form a military that if ordered by the presdient or a giovernor or a superior officer can be used as a tool to supress trhe American people. You are talking about a tyranny and dictatorship then. If this what the oath is accepting and including to happen?

This is where folks like Oathkeepers come in, Skybird. But there is a huge difference between government using military force to repress its own citizenry (which violates the Constitutional protections in the oath) and a specific person who acts as a traitor because they personally feel that the governmental position on a foreign conflict is in error.

You point out that thgere are elections that bring people to poltiical powerr deciding on behalf of the American people and the coinstitutuons and Amendement's implocit or expclit principles and interest. You take it for granted that this is the case, always.

No I don't take it for granted - it IS always the case. When has there ever, in the history of this country after the Constitution was ratified, not been an election as required by law?

But it isn't like that.

Yes, it is....

In fact you often have polticiians trying to dodge rules and laws and such principles if it is in what they consider to be their interest. And this is the basic dilemma that I point out.

Now see this is where you go wrong. Your earlier assumption that elections don't always happen allows you to form a wrong conclusion. Now its true that politicians try and dodge, but thats why the people can throw them out. Recalls, impeachments, elections, politicians being help accountable under the law, etc - all work. Sure, the people might vote them back in, but then when that happens, that is the will of the electorate, whether you or I like it or not.

"Elections have meaning" so Obama said, and so he will learn. But I digress. Lets continue.

And this is the basic dilemma that I point out. When those whose orders to obey you have sworn, are abusing their power to act in their own or their lobby group's interst but against the interest of the nation and its people - what sort of loyalty to your prioritize then? Do you stay with the Führer-Prinzip? Then you end up the way Germany degenerated in the 30s and 40s of the last century: loyalty to an oath to a group of people, no matter what. See how it ended. Or do your prioritize the loyalty to the American people, and so stand up against those in power violating the Amerian people'S interest? I gave examples of wars that did not serve your country any good.

Skybird, I mean this without vitriol, so don't take it badly. But you obviously have very little understanding of the DEPTH of structure our government has. Unlike other republics, our government is layered. Not just federally. States have huge legal rights and responsibilities that the Federal govt cannot cross. The feds cannot even send troops into a state for humanitarian reasons without the consent of that state's governor. Not just troops either - they can't do ANYTHING inside a state on any reasonable scale without state approval. Just look at how long it took to get help to Katrina victims. WHY? Because the governor failed to give the go ahead - as soon as the feds got it, THEN they could move. But not before.

Your arguement is faulty on both the State issue and on the election issue.

his blind Kadavergehorsam and this naivety of simply blindly trusting in that the political superiors always decie on behalf of the interest of the American people, is just this: dangerous, and very, very naive. Don't fallow that path. A system demanding your blind obedience in that way, does not deserve neither your obedience nor your loyalty. You should consider your loyalty to be more valuable than to be wasted for just this.

The system does not require blind obedience. This is your viewpoint that lacks a complete understanding. There are numerous ways to deal with issues other than treason.

Never accept them to take away independent thinking away from you. Not even the army. If you ust blinmdly obey ALWAYS, even when you start to carry out order that do crime and evil to innocents or your own people, then you become guilty yourself. And probably will try to justify yourself the same way many Nazi commanders and even KZ guards did after the war: "Ich befolgte nur Befehle." There mujst be a morally defined treshhold beyond which you must refuse to be loyal to individual people anymore - even when they are your CO. Even when they are your president.

Now your just preaching. Please, leave it to us that are ordained. :03:

I agree, it is a difficult issue, a fragile balance between maintaining a functional military and keeping your own moral responsibility and a clean conscience.

No its not, if your uncomfortable with the military, don't join. If you don't like the direction of the country, get active.

But be aware of this, Haplo. In case you ever asked yourself how the Third Reich and the blind obedience of the Wehrmacht to Hitler could have become possible - the arguments you just gave and the attitude you illustrated, is the answer to that question. Those in the Wehrmacht for the most were no "evil" people. The officers knowing that Hitler was ruining Germany, and still remained obedient: only some of them were fanatics. Often they were just people often thinking and arguing excactly like you just do. ;)

Now you know better than this Skybird. Talk about revising history! Hitler came to power because the Weimer republic allowed political parties to take to the streets in violence against each other. They allowed their citizenry to be terrorized in the open. The Wehrmacht as it stood had little to do with peacekeeping in the civilian world. The reality is the only "input" the Wehrmacht had was that many soldiers who had fought in WW1 and felt betrayed by their government joined with Hitler. The failure of the Weimar republic to do this led directly to the people standing idly by when the Gleichschaltung policies in 1933 that effectively negated the German constitution of 1919 were enacted.

There shall never be a defence of claims for blind, and total obedience to indiovidual people. There always must be limits to that demand's validity. Not having such limits, leads to abuse, tyranny, and evil. Obedience ion the understanding of discipline, and a reasonable routine in trusting: yes. Blind, uncritical obedience being prhibited to ever doubt: no, at no cost. We have learned our lesson in Germany. But for America, German history, Vietnam and Iraq maybe still were not painful enough to learn that lesson.

No one said blind loyalty or total obedience is called for Skybird. Whoever the leaker is, all they had to do was stand up, refuse to do their duty as a soldier and face a court marshal. Then, upon being kicked out of the military, they would be able to pursue whatever political stance against governmental policy they wanted. But if Manning is the person in question, then instead of taking a legal course of action, he took an illegal one. And for that, he will face the consequences.

On Wikileaks, so far not a single case has become known or reported with evidence where people got killed by cablegate or Iraqgate revelations. But many tens of thisuands got killed and many hundreds of thoisuands lost all or got wounded and traumatised due to decisions and failures reported on by these releases and other investigative journalism in past years). So who is the bigger crimnal here? The traitor betraying his own people and causing the death of tens if not hundreds of thousands, or the one reporting about the betrayal and maybe in the future by doing so enables others to kill some few people more?

More posturing? Who is the "traitor betraying his own people"? Bush? He got re-elected so the people spoke their will - you just don't like it. Obama? Who are you talking about here? Tens of thousands of deaths? Okay, and how many people would have died in torture chambers under Saddam, or been mercilessly killed by the Taliban had they been left in control? Based off of what we know historically - Millions - but see you don't want to deal with that. So how is that a betrayal?

If Cablegate wopuld be about China and Russia, and Manning would be a Chinese dissident, many of those now calling for Assanage's assassination would hail him instead.

I haven't seen or heard anyone calling for Assanage to be assassinated. Is this more hyperbole? If anyone is, then they are in the wrong. But then, this isn't about Assange - this is about Manning. If he is the one leaking the data, then he is guilty under the law and should be punished. You can dislike the US, dislike the war on terror, dislike whatever you want, but it is in the rule of law that keeps society functional. To turn your example back upon you - it was the Weimar republics failure to uphold the law that allowed the past that Germany learned from.

[Krauter]

So much reading :88) :o

[TLAM Strike]

So much reading :88) :o

That is why keyboards have a 'Page Down' key. ;)

Or as some around here call it 'The Skybird Key'... :O:

[Aramike]

Yes. The oath does not say "all enemies, foreign and domestic, as designated by your boss" or any other similar thing - it says "all enemies", and since you are taking the oath personally, yes, your best individual judgment is being demanded on this affair.Erm, no ... I'm pretty sure it's clearly referring to enemies as those designated through legal, official channels, as it would make no sense whatsoever otherwise.

It is an oath to defend against America's enemies - not to define them.

[Tribesman]

Its the duty of the Executive Branch to determine who is the enemy is and after the Legislative branch has its say determine what actions are to be done against said enemy.
They have determined who the enemy is and know they are aiding them.

The Military follows those orders. If those orders include say arming one enemy against the other it must obey those orders or those who do not will be in violation of military law.


Sorry but the following orders defence went out the window in spectacular fashion many decades ago.
Plus you are trying to dodge the main issue which is that it isn't arming one enemy against another its arming the very enemy you are sending troops to fight against...but I know why you wish to dodge that as it shows your whole system to be bolloxed and your reasoning on this matter to be without reason.



Oh and no they are not bound by the law I cited since that is the UCMJ and only pertains to those in uniform or those who commit military acts against the US.
Read again what I wrote, the military command are bound, the civilian participants in this long running ttreason are covered differently but all military commanders right to the top are bound by the military law you cite.

Do you see the problem you have again TLAM, its the same as you had with the earlier arming terrorists topic.
You wish to condemn some relatively minor matter, but as a result of the road you have to take to give due condemnation you will have to defend matters that are far worse and far more wide reaching and far more harmful to the country and system you claim to be defending.



I haven't seen or heard anyone calling for Assanage to be assassinated.
Wow, its really dark down that rabbithole, quiet too.
If anyone is, then they are in the wrong.
At least there was a sensible follow on though.:up:

Erm, no ... I'm pretty sure it's clearly referring to enemies as those designated through legal, official channels, as it would make no sense whatsoever otherwise.


Since the whole set up is screwed and the official designations and legal channels are apparently at best contradictory and at worst meaningless the whole point is that it makes no sense whatsoever anymore.

[Gerald]

That is why keyboards have a 'Page Down' key. ;)

Or as some around here call it 'The Skybird Key'... :O: :haha:

[Blood_splat]

Skybird will burn out your mouse wheel. :O:

[Gerald]

Luckily I do not use, mouse Wheel, :D

[Platapus]

As the government and military are by their supply of arms ammunition training money and other things to the very people they are supposed to be at war with it means that they are the traitors.

Foreign relations and international policy is complicated.

It can not always be characterized into neat discrete pigeon holes labeled good and bad. :nope:

That was one of the things that worried me about President Bush when he said, in the context of foreign relations, "I don't do nuance".

Foreign relations and international policy is nothing but nuance. :yep:

You would be surprised at how many "enemies" cooperate with each other. Each maintaining a public position but also having a private relationship.

It would be nice if foreign relations and international policy worked like it was taught in Highschool, but that is not the realpolitik.

[Tribesman]

Foreign relations and international policy is complicated.


Indeed , which is why the "kill him""traitor" nonsense is such nonsense.
For every accusation at Assange they throw one at themselves.
For every example they throw at Manning they throw half a dozen at themselves.
The only defence is that everyone does it, if the only revelation is that everyone does what everyone does then it ain't no revelation apart from to the blind who won't see it even if its branded on their forehead infront of a mirror.


You would be surprised at how many "enemies" cooperate with each other. Each maintaining a public position but also having a private relationship
In case you hadn't noticed, I am Irish, war on terror while supplying the very explosives for terrorists to blow up your own civilian population ain't so shocking as to make the mujahadeen stuff and its later developments too hard to follow(follow ons of which the cables provide confirmation)...though it does make the attempts by some at justification/condemnation really funny

[August]

Manning update:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/02/soldier-held-wikileaks-case-faces-22-charges-including-aiding-enemy/

Soldier Held in WikiLeaks Case Faces 22 More Charges, Including Aiding Enemy

The Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks was hit Wednesday with an additional 22 charges, including aiding the enemy, which is equivalent to treason in the civilian world.

[Onkel Neal]

I agree with Skybird, that's torture. They should just execute the bassterd.

[Castout]

It is torture. The way US govt is treating Manning is America's shame. Just prosecute him with law what;s the torture for? The bastards are the ones who are made to look bad by Manning's revelation. Edit [no offence Neal just my 2 cents]

America is not quite the same country anymore. Egypt, Tunisia and soon Libya are safer countries. At least the majority people know what is right.

[yubba]

So what happened to transparency, no closed doors and open policies that King Obama promised, for a open society we sure have a lot of secrets so whats up with that ? Like tricky Dickey Nixion said it is not the crime that get's you it's the cover up. My hats off to wikki leaks, what you don't know just might kill you. Here's a tid bit if taxpayer money goes to pay public sector workers and those workers pay a percentage of that pay as union dues and the unions give that money in the disguise of campaign contributions to political parties, how's this not a KICK BACK.???

[Sailor Steve]

...bassterd.
Is that a slam on bass players? We don't get no respect. This is all Frau Kaleun's fault.

[Onkel Neal]

It is torture. The way US govt is treating Manning is America's shame. Just prosecute him with law what;s the torture for? The bastards are the ones who are made to look bad by Manning's revelation. Edit [no offence Neal just my 2 cents]

America is not quite the same country anymore. Egypt, Tunisia and soon Libya are safer countries. At least the majority people know what is right.

No offence taken. You are wrong about Egypt etc being safer than the US, especially if you feel that way due to the recent revolutions. Yes, the previous heads of state were forced out of office by people power but we don't really know who has replaced them. Mubarek's enemies could easily have taken advantage of the protests to make their own power play behind the scenes. They could be 100x worse, we don't know.

As for Manning, that's what he gets for his actions. Tough luck.

Is that a slam on bass players? We don't get no respect. This is all Frau Kaleun's fault.

Ha, I used to be a bass player in rock bands, remember? :)