A system of revenge

[August]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Maybe if the war was wrong to begin with, it is high-time to pull out, August.

Maybe if your Aunt had a beard she'd be your uncle. Prove the war was wrong to begin with Kaz.

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Another Thread that went "I'm right and how stupid can I respond."

Gee Whiz FIREWALL !!! They just don't get it. HuH ?

They wanna win at any cost even when it makes them look like a loser.

[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.

[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.

[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.

He is lucky he isn't up facing crimes against humanity charges IF he was the one who actually did it.

Wow crimes against humanity
Someone is so far down the rabbit hole there is no longer any glimmer of light for them to see by.

I wonder what the UCMJ says about what he did...

Here it is Section 904 Article 104...

TLAM doesn't part (1) of nasty treasonous acts fit like a glove the very actions exposed in some of these cables.
So that means that sections of the US govt. and some of its staff both civilian and military are very very guilty of aiding the enemy.

Just for the fun of it given that Haplo ridiculously raised a different category of crimes, wouldn't the US govt. be guilty of crimes against humanity for some of the acts that were revealed as it is obviously a government, is alledgedly supposed to be organised and is according to its own documents has been playing a big role in some really nasty crimes.

[joegrundman]

An interesting article:

the conservative case for wikileaks

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/12...for-wikileaks/

[Skybird]

My christmas essay for you! (Our christmas was chaotic and delayed by 24 hours, due to weather and traffic problems).

=================

US servicemen need to make an oath when entering service, the versions are slightly different for non National Guard and National Guard services, in that the latter additionally mention the federal state and the governor, otherwise they are pretty much the same.

"I , (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 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. So help me God."

or

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God."

Let's ignore the discrmination of atheists and non-theistic beliuevers for a moment.

What people swear is loyalty to the constituion, and obedience to the president and commanding officers. What people also swear is that they will put their allegiance not only to the constitution, but to single individual people, like the president.

That holds certain problems. Because what if the people you have sworn loyalty to, do violate the constitution that you also have sworn loyalty to...?

Only romanticising, infantile and naive dreamers could ever hope that a president or a governor or all officers in an army higher in rank than you are, are immune to human flaws, never can have intentions of betrayal, or cannot show criminal energy in abusing legal or constituional rules for lobby interests or their own private banking account. We all know from everyday poltiics how very much different politics are. And any politician, including presidents and governors, never are saints. At best you can hope that they are just humnans that beside their motivation to perform as best as they can, nevertheless make human errors and false assessements - almost never it gets better than just this.

Some people seem to automatically imply that Manning deliberately acted on behalf of personal scruples, or intentionally was to commit himself on a moral mission his conscience could not refuse to start, since he wanted to demask "the system" and saw himself unable to support lie and corruption any longer. I don'T know. I hjave no personal impression oif him at all, and what makes me think and hesitate to agree to this assessement is that it was reported that he boasted and bragged with the theft of the data, and even have announced it in advance, if I remember correrctly (I may be wrong on the latter, I am not sure). Bragging and boasting is not the behavior I would expect from somebody acting by moral motivation and moral scruples.

However, I am not limited to see this affair from just a juristic perspective, or just from a military standpoint. I rate this affair by the effects it causes.

There was much material released that just badmouthed individual leaders or countries, this is material that just stirr emotions, but does not any good beyond just this, so one can ask if it really was necessary to release this.

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. That this becomes known, can be a good thing, in a past thread I gave the example of Turkey, that officially is demanded to be brought into the EU, but that in reality is seen as being on the path to become a fundamentalist and autocratic regime that is hostile to Western democratic principles. For the Europeans it is good to know that Washington wants them to do something which Washington ob viousdly thinks is dangerous and harmful for Europe to do. Other examples are the revelations about the widespread Arab support for military action against Iran, or the revelation to what degree America cooperates with tyrannic autocratic regimes, allows to get abused by them at times, and abuses them in return at others - all this whiole the media give a complete different picture of what Washington officially thinks about such issues.

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. I give the example of Washington trying to undermine the widespread European resistence to genetically altered food by recommending punishing and painful (original quote) consequences against the EU and single EU members if they do not allow Monsanto to introduce genetically altered wheat, and establish American monopoles in Europe. That may be what Washington wants. But it is not what the huge majority of European people in almost all European countries want. Punishing governments and economies if they do not act agains their people, may not be a compliment for America - but it certainly is good for the intended receivers of such strikes to know about them.

For the most, the cablegate material so far falls in one of these three categories.

Back top Manning, morals, and the oath of allegiance. 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.

Can loyalty to these people be demanded and still be maintained under such a self-contradicting circumstance, just because of an oath that leaves you in the no win-no win situation that you must violate your loyalty either to the principle or to the person you sworn loyalty to?

Some people here said that American soldiers are "property" of the state. Well, that is a re-introuction of slavery then, because in our cultural understanding only in a system of slavery humans can be the property of institutions or other humans. If it is true that soldiers are just property of somebody, then everybody is a stupid dumbhead voluntaring to become that, and I also cannot bring this into conformity with several basic principles the US claims to depend on. It is also a totalitarian feature: the state/the social context/soiety is all, the individual is nothing. That is if not facism then totalitarianism in its purest form since Sparta (which is often mentioned to have been the first of such a system). In Germany, it is different. The modern German view sees soldiers as "citizens in uniform". Now there is opportunity to rtaise criticism of that, too, and I have done that in an own thread longer time ago. I just bring it up to show that alternatives are possible.

A military organisation of course depends on discipline and hierarchy. Normally, orders must be obeyed without wasting time with discussing them and demanding them to be shown appropriate. Trust plays a role. But trust can be abused - and can be abused the easier the more blindly it is given. There also must be the opportunity for each and every soldier to reject obedience if he is given commands that are illegal or are in violation of the oath he has made. I often have said that one of my main criticisms against Bush, and administratioins before him, was that they betrayed the troops. Vietnam was no war of need, but a war of desire, and it was staged (Tonkin), and politicians constantly messed up the military execution. Betrayal of the troops and the American public. Iraq/Kuwait 91: the military defeat of Iraq - which was absolutely possible and within reach - was deliberately prevented, Saddam was helped to be left in power, the assassination squads of the Kuwaiti rulers were brought back into power, and the troops even were expected to sit on the fence and do nothing while watching Saddam'S helicopters massacring the revolting Kurds and Shias. Betrayal of the troops and the American public ( a revolt the administration had helped to provoke, and then also betrayed). The Iraq war 2003: incompetently planned and prepared, badly executed due to constant political interference by an incompetent defence minister, triggered by lies and faked information, on b ehalf of economic lobby groups. Betrayal of the troops and the American public. Afghanistan: the last thing one must say is that it was incompetently waged for too many years. If not betrayal then at least political incompetence must be called out. Like in Iraq, arrogant dilletant like Rumsfeld and Cheney and anti-intellectual, unedcuated idiots like Bush should not be allowed to influence how a war is being fought, or more precise: they should not even be allowed to have the power to decide whether or not to launch a war at all. Thousands of troops and tens of thousands of civilians have payed their incompetence with their lives.

It is oftenb said that the German Wehrmacht should have revolted against Hitler, instead of allowing their Prussian codes of honour to lead them into blind obedience and loyalty to a regime of evil and a criminal in command who both worked for the doom and the disadvantage of the German nation and the Germn people. And some tried that, there have been many attempts to assassinate Hitler, both from within the military, and from non-military origians as well.I would not complain if the German officer corps would have rejected Hitler's order to attack Poland on grounds of staged events and efaked evidence. And so, I alos would not have complained if the Americna militzary would have rejected to obvey orders to attack Iraq on grounds of constructed claims and faked evidence. Inm both cases, it would have been the duty of the military to not obey, for the sake of the interest of the American people and on behalf of the principles the American nation historically has been founded upon.

We Germansa have a nice word for blind, uncritical obedience in the military. We call it "Kadavergehorsam".

I do not defend Manning, as I said above, becasue I do not know his motivation. 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.

That's why I think it is inevitable to give Manning a public trial, not a hidden tribunal from thnat institution that has own interests at stake and a natural interest to keep certain things hidden while also conducting an intimidating example.

As far as Assange is concerned, and Wikileaks, they did nothing criminal by publishing it. And any law in America that wants to forbid the other TV and press media to publish information given to them by informants, should be considered as unconstitutional and hostile towards basic and inevtiable principles of a free and democratic soceity. The US was not meant to become a police state with censored media.

Instead of calling for legalised censorship (want some of the new Hungarian laws, maybe? ) , you should better understand how dangerous it is to have an uncritical attitutude towards technology and data security - something which Europeans have a much stronger demand for, whileAmericans tend to ridicule right this and often call it a hostile attitude towards technology. Of course, stricter security rules work tw-ways. They make it more unlikely that somebodyx wals in with a USB stick and copies data onto it, but it also allows the state to again move beyond the clountetrcontrol of the electorate and to hide it'S anti-democratric power structures from the public that it betrays.

And finally realise this: if somebody like Manning would not have been American, but Chinese or Russian, and would have leaked the ablegate materiual about the Chinese and Russian state and diploacy, all those of you who know condemn Manning would hail that other guy as a hero and you would celebrate his civil courage, and you would argue how great it is to have the internet and something like Wikileaks, and you would demand China or Russia tpo release him becasue he is a human rights activist and a fighter for civil freedom and open society etc etc.

[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.