A system of revenge

[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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

Originally Posted by August

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.

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

...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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[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.

[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.