A system of revenge

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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]

Originally Posted by danlisa

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.

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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?

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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?

[Growler]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

No he betrayed his fellow soldiers and his country

He 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

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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

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!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

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?

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

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:

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/wiki...cancun-cop-16/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...bles-spying-un

[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

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by danlisa

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.