A system of revenge

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Blood_splat

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.