A system of revenge

[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.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

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]

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?

[Blood_splat]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

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]

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?

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Blood_splat

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]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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

Nope.

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Growler

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.

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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:

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Yes, he did fail his duty as a soldier.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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...