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

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, it is....

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

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.

They have determined who the enemy is and know they are aiding them.

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.


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.



Wow, its really dark down that rabbithole, quiet too.
At least there was a sensible follow on though.:up:

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.

:haha:

Skybird will burn out your mouse wheel. :O:

Luckily I do not use, mouse Wheel, :D