Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison

maarten

It's a bitter irony when you expose crimes, and the people perpetrating these crimes walk free, whereas the whistle blower goes to jail.

The sentencing of Bradley Manning is a strong statement that whatever crimes you witness in a war, you'd better keep your mouth shut, because "national security" interests will count more than giving the people the information they need to decide whether a war is still fought in a just way. Mind you that in this case, the prosecutors could not prove anyone died or even sustained injuries from what Bradley Manning released. What damage was in fact done stays classified and we won't be able to judge it.

By chance I came across this powerful plea on men to step forward in taking a stance in violence against women.

I think this message translates verbatim to us, in that - as long as free speech still exists - we have to voice our opinion that it's unacceptable when whistle blowers go to jail and the real criminals get off the hook.

Zayl

Somehow I am less than surprised.

Zero

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/usa-commute-bradley-manning-s-sentence-and-investigate-abuses-he-exposed-2013-08-21

USA: Commute Bradley Manning’s sentence and investigate the abuses he exposed

"Instead of ‘sending a message’ by giving him a de facto life sentence the US government should turn its attention to investigating violations of human rights and humanitarian law in the context of the ill-conceived ‘war on terror’.
More than anything else, the case shows the urgent need to reform the USA’s antiquated Espionage Act and strengthen protections for those who reveal information that the public has a need and a right to know.
Manning’s defence counsel is expected to file a petition for clemency shortly with the U.S. Department of Justice office that reviews requests for pardons and other acts of clemency before passing them on to the President for a final decision.
Such requests are normally made after all appeals are exhausted, but the President may grant clemency at any time."
Source: Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International

Jason

It seems like only a few decades ago, people who exposed the state secrets and abuses were considered whistleblowers and given relatively fair trials, even under a Republican administration (e.g., Daniel Ellsberg). Today, they're tortured and given 35 year sentences (which is actually on the 'lenient' end), and under a Democratic administration no less. The news of Manning's sentence and the ongoing hunt for Edward Snowden brings to mind a paragraph from Hal Draper's prescient 1967 article "Who's going to be the lesser-evil in 1968?":

So besides Tweedledee-Tweedledums and besides the Lesser Evils who really are different in policy from the Greater Evils, we increasingly are getting this third type of case: the Lesser Evils who, as executors of the system, find themselves acting at every important juncture exactly like the Greater Evils, and sometimes worse. They are the product of the increasing convergence of liberalism and conservatism under conditions of bureaucratic capitalism. There never was an era when the policy of the Lesser Evil made less sense than now.

In my opinion, once people start to realize that simply voting for one party or the other (an electoral version of the 'lesser of two evils' principle) doesn't really make that much of a difference, that there's something inherently wrong with the system itself, the better off we'll be. And that goes double for those of us on 'the left' since one of the biggest problems with the lesser of two evils strategy is that it consistently pulls the Democrats farther to the right (e.g., in many ways, Nixon was arguably more liberal than either Clinton or Obama).

Personally, I think it's high time we started thinking outside the box of two-party electoral politics, stopped blindly supporting the lesser evil as our sole act of political activism, and started doing more to hold those in office accountable for their actions, which includes rallying around government whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden.

how

how can a country that has
the highest per capita count of it's own citizens in jail
call itself "the land of the free" with a straight face.

Bunks

As Zach DeLaRocha sang:

"What, the land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy."

Zayl

@How you're assuming that all of us do.

We don't. I consider this place a "golden cage" for lack of a better term. Instead except of gold we get shot at or lied to.

vinlyn

I think there are 2 different issues here.

One is a group of things clumped together under the question what is America and what does America stand for.

The other issue is Bradley Manning and his punishment. Are you telling me that he didn't have any understanding that he was breaking the law?

Just a response to Jason. Well, we have some people thinking out of the 2 party box...and that brought us the Tea Party. Also, you're right -- there was a time when this would have been considered whistle blowing...but there was also a time when this might have resulted in an execution.

Jason

vinlyn said:

I think there are 2 different issues here.

One is a group of things clumped together under the question what is America and what does America stand for.

The other issue is Bradley Manning and his punishment. Are you telling me that he didn't have any understanding that he was breaking the law?

Just a response to Jason. Well, we have some people thinking out of the 2 party box...and that brought us the Tea Party. Also, you're right -- there was a time when this would have been considered whistle blowing...but there was also a time when this might have resulted in an execution.

Wow, that's so deep. I guess he got off lucky then?

vinlyn

Jason said:

vinlyn said:

I think there are 2 different issues here.

One is a group of things clumped together under the question what is America and what does America stand for.

The other issue is Bradley Manning and his punishment. Are you telling me that he didn't have any understanding that he was breaking the law?

Just a response to Jason. Well, we have some people thinking out of the 2 party box...and that brought us the Tea Party. Also, you're right -- there was a time when this would have been considered whistle blowing...but there was also a time when this might have resulted in an execution.

Wow, that's so deep. I guess he got off lucky then?

Actually, I haven't stated any judgement about that. I'm just saying that as American history has evolved, a similar action could have resulted in death, imprisonment, or (as you pointed out) recognition as a whistle blower. And I'm pointing out that he's an intelligent fellow, and he certainly knew the potential consequences of his actions.

Americans going into the military take oaths of allegiance (http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html). Since it's now an all-volunteer army, if one cannot accept the oath, then one should not enter the military.

I caught your sarcasm, Jason, but to be honest, this is not the easy issue you make it out to be. There are liberals who are aghast at the sentence, conservatives who are cheering their asses off, and a lot of us somewhere in-between who have only the facts that the liberal media or the conservative media hand us.

I suppose you're coming down on this -- at least in part -- from the perspective of unlimited free speech. In my life I have been associated with organizations (a school system) which prohibits certain aspects of free speech. Are you associated with any groups that prohibit free speech? Because when it comes right down to it, the vast majority of us limit free speech at some point or another; it's just a matter of scale.

ThailandTom

I do not care who reads this tbh but I am in full support of anon and I believe what has happened here is a great injustice, yet I am not surprised. He brought to the public's attention information that IMHO needed to be brought out into the open, crimes against the constitution and this guy gets more prison time than a pedophile.

The US is heading for martial law I am pretty much convinced of that, every so often a little bit of your freedom gets taken away, little by little, and in doing it this way there is little reaction because most people brush it off. It is like the frog in the slowly heating up water, the frog dose not know it is slowly being boiled to death but it is. If I was a US citizen I probably would either be getting the hell out of there sooner rather than later or be making a difference in some way shape or form.

Jason

vinlyn said:

Americans going into the military take oaths of allegiance (http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html). Since it's now an all-volunteer army, if one cannot accept the oath, then one should not enter the military.

That's a bullshit argument, in my opinion. If someone signs up for something and then discovers that the institution they serve is doing some shady, corrupt, unethical shit, they have every right to break their oath as far as I'm concerned. I wish more people had to balls to do that instead of just passively accepting whatever's going on because they took an oath of allegiance, signed a contract, or whatever.

vinlyn said:

I caught your sarcasm, Jason, but to be honest, this is not the easy issue you make it out to be. There are liberals who are aghast at the sentence, conservatives who are cheering their asses off, and a lot of us somewhere in-between who have only the facts that the liberal media or the conservative media hand us.

I suppose you're coming down on this -- at least in part -- from the perspective of unlimited free speech. In my life I have been associated with organizations (a school system) which prohibits certain aspects of free speech. Are you associated with any groups that prohibit free speech? Because when it comes right down to it, the vast majority of us limit free speech at some point or another; it's just a matter of scale.

I never said it was an easy issue. But I am saying that I support Manning and I think both his treatment and his sentence are complete bullshit. And that has to do with my belief that people like Manning, who are willing to risk everything to make these things public, are the only recourse regular, everyday citizens have against the secrecy of the state. As Joseph Pulitzer allegedly once said, "There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy. Get these things out in the open, describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the press, and sooner or later public opinion will sweep them away. Publicity may not be the only thing that is needed, but it is the one thing without which all other agencies will fail."

zenff

As Joseph Pulitzer allegedly once said, "There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy. Get these things out in the open, describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the press, and sooner or later public opinion will sweep them away. Publicity may not be the only thing that is needed, but it is the one thing without which all other agencies will fail."

Yes, I think public opinion is the only protection a whistleblower ultimately has. He cannot avoid breaking the law.
So there would have to be a political decision not to prosecute him. Only public outrage can bring about such a political decision.
I think it were the people of the US who let Manning down.

vinlyn

Well, I think your last paragraph is excellent. I can see that viewpoint.

But I can't say that an oath or contract has no value.

zenff

@Jason
In my opinion, once people start to realize that simply voting for one party or the other (an electoral version of the 'lesser of two evils' principle) doesn't really make that much of a difference, that there's something inherently wrong with the system itself, the better off we'll be. And that goes double for those of us on 'the left' since one of the biggest problems with the lesser of two evils strategy is that it consistently pulls the Democrats farther to the right (e.g., in many ways, Nixon was arguably more liberal than either Clinton or Obama).

Is this (de facto) two-party system really the problem?
We get the government we deserve; at least I think that’s true for relatively open and democratic societies like the US.
Politicians do their research and take the position that will most likely get them in office. The whole political spectrum (two candidates or five or twenty) moves in the direction of public opinion.

Blaming politicians for being what they are is like blaming the prostitute you just hired for being indecent.

vinlyn

I agree zenff. In the time I spent in Thailand, I saw a multi-party system. What a dirty, filthy, corrupt system from top (and I mean the very top) to the bottom. It's a cess pool.

Jason

zenff said:

Is this (de facto) two-party system really the problem?
We get the government we deserve; at least I think that’s true for relatively open and democratic societies like the US.
Politicians do their research and take the position that will most likely get them in office. The whole political spectrum (two candidates or five or twenty) moves in the direction of public opinion.

Blaming politicians for being what they are is like blaming the prostitute you just hired for being indecent.

Which is why I don't simply blame politicians but try to articulate the fact that the problem is far more complex and systematic than that, but that's another topic altogether.

Jason

vinlyn said:

Well, I think your last paragraph is excellent. I can see that viewpoint.

But I can't say that an oath or contract has no value.

I didn't say that an oath or contract has no value. What I said was, "If someone signs up for something and then discovers that the institution they serve is doing some shady, corrupt, unethical shit, they have every right to break their oath as far as I'm concerned. I wish more people had to balls to do that instead of just passively accepting whatever's going on because they took an oath of allegiance, signed a contract, or whatever." And that's exactly what Manning did, which is why I consider him to be a hero. In his own words:

The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.

I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.

In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy — the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps — to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.

If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.

ThailandTom

zenff said:

@Jason
In my opinion, once people start to realize that simply voting for one party or the other (an electoral version of the 'lesser of two evils' principle) doesn't really make that much of a difference, that there's something inherently wrong with the system itself, the better off we'll be. And that goes double for those of us on 'the left' since one of the biggest problems with the lesser of two evils strategy is that it consistently pulls the Democrats farther to the right (e.g., in many ways, Nixon was arguably more liberal than either Clinton or Obama).

Is this (de facto) two-party system really the problem?
We get the government we deserve; at least I think that’s true for relatively open and democratic societies like the US.
Politicians do their research and take the position that will most likely get them in office. The whole political spectrum (two candidates or five or twenty) moves in the direction of public opinion.

Blaming politicians for being what they are is like blaming the prostitute you just hired for being indecent.


Do you think that you will get what you deserve when more of your rights are taken away, where any US citizen can be jailed up to a year without trial purely on suspicion? That is one of many laws being pushed through parliament as we speak. Do you think that (in Hillary Clinton's own words), 500,000 Iraqi children dead was worth the cause, do they deserve the government that is place?

It is true that whoever you vote for now will not make much of a difference if any, and I would not be surprised if before the end of Obama's term there is some kind of policed state put into place and the constitution will have been shat over even more than it has already.

Vastmind

Both parties got me scared enough! lolololo .....I took an oath alright as a
civil servant... Not a citizen of this free country that gave up my right to
think and have an opinion., and still have to keep too
much 'off' stuff under the rug. Yes, I know....'off' can be subjective,
however, I should at least not face life in prison and death for saying something
about some obvious problems I have with my government. I love this country
too! That's why I want to make it better! That's why I care about being
on top of things and how it is run. What is important to keep held
to our chest (national security) and what is not.
I'm a taxpayer first. My service is for the Treasury Dept second. The
people remember?......Let me hush...hahaha I have 3 kids and I need to
keep my good government job! hahaha. I'm a clerk, BTW.....I don't know
too much! I promise.

But I do have an opinion.

Do we target? ....try to get out of paying your taxes and see if we
don't target your ass! lolololol. On both sides, and everything in between.
No one should have taken the 5th. Just sayin'.......

:rockon: The struggle continues........

Florian

I cannot think of a better way of improving the situation than a full and proper investigation of the events surrounding 9/11. There is an online petition and anyone can sign it. It is beyond my comprehension how the original report can seem satisfactory to anyone anywhere. It is surely just a joke in hindsight.

The problem may be democracy. It is inevitable that the state of the economy is all that really matters at election time, so as long as a party delivers on that they can do anything else they like and stay elected.

But I gave up voting when the UK invaded Iraq. Tony Blair being elected was the last straw. I note that he's having a wonderful effect on the Middle East as a peace envoy. The whole region is clearly benefitting greatly.

Gui

If I recall correctly (it's been 40 years), the United States Code of Military Justice, that all GIs are required to follow, states that it is a soldier's duty to refuse an illegal order and also to report war crimes. In my mind, if reporting a war crime only results in a cover up, it is that soldier's duty to make that crime public. The recent handling and coverage of revelations of US government criminal activity is nothing but politics of fear.

karasti

I obviously don't know either Snowden or Manning, but it *seems* to me that they both had at least an idea of what would happen if they blew the whistle. What makes them heroes in a sense, is that they did it anyways, risking their freedom and in effect their lives as they previously knew them, to bring the information to light. The question is, what do we, as the citizens who now have the information, do with it? What do we do about it? CAN we do anything?

Normally I would agree with @vinlyn on what he said about taking an oath. But I think in particular with the US government, people still can be rather naive in what they are willing to believe our government does, and they sign up for military for a whole lot of reasons. It's quite possible they took the oath intending to keep it, and then upon realizing that what was going on was unacceptable perhaps that oath took a back seat to an implied personal moral oath.

ThailandTom

karasti said:

I obviously don't know either Snowden or Manning, but it *seems* to me that they both had at least an idea of what would happen if they blew the whistle. What makes them heroes in a sense, is that they did it anyways, risking their freedom and in effect their lives as they previously knew them, to bring the information to light. The question is, what do we, as the citizens who now have the information, do with it? What do we do about it? CAN we do anything?

Normally I would agree with @vinlyn on what he said about taking an oath. But I think in particular with the US government, people still can be rather naive in what they are willing to believe our government does, and they sign up for military for a whole lot of reasons. It's quite possible they took the oath intending to keep it, and then upon realizing that what was going on was unacceptable perhaps that oath took a back seat to an implied personal moral oath.

c'mon seriously, do you really think that the US government actually cares about your life and well being still? The US government has trashed, spat, shat, and walked all over the constitution and has further bills in the pipeline that will come into power stopping you from doing what you wish and even having certain opinions. How can you put somebody away for 35 years who revealed that the government was doing a wrong justice to it's people and live with that fact? How can you simple carry on with your American ways and think that it is all ok? Honestly, I am not joking or trolling, this is an honest question.

vinlyn

So, on a related topic, will he/she go to a men's or a women's prison?

Vastmind

^^^ I disagree. That's not related to whether whistleblowing is worth the
punishment it gets.

karasti

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, @ThailandTom. In NO WAY do I support them putting Manning away for 35 years (or at all) and in no way do I believe the government as an entity (or even the majority of the people in it) care about individual human beings. That's not what I was saying at all. I was asking what we CAN do because I don't know what to do about it on a personal level. Where did you get that I was supporting either his sentence, or the US governments actions out of what I said??

vinlyn

I disagree. The topic title is "Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison", and the OP is about freedom of personal expression. He has today announced that it is his personal desire to express himself as a woman for the rest of his life. I'm not clear how that's going to work out. It isn't that we've sneakily found out his life's preference...he's publicly announced it to the world.

karasti

I said:
#1 I'm of the opinion that Manning and Snowden probably knew they would get in trouble but did it anyways even with a risk to their own lives to bring the wrong-doing to light. I support that. I don't support them being punished for it.

#2 I said that everyone has different reasons for joining the military, and everyone who does takes the same oath. But it's most certainly possibly that someone agreed with the oath at the time they took it, and later on in their career/service time realized egregious wrongs were being done and made a decision based on their own personal, moral code (that happened to go against the other oath they took) and took the risk at bringing it to light.

That's all I said. No where, in no way, did I say I supported the government, what they are doing, what they have done, what they will do, or the sentences for Manning and their attempts to capture Snowden.

#3 I'm unclear what I can or should do other than writing my own representatives and expressing my support for Manning and Snowden (which I have already done).

vinlyn

karasti said:

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, @ThailandTom. In NO WAY do I support them putting Manning away for 35 years (or at all) and in no way do I believe the government as an entity (or even the majority of the people in it) care about individual human beings. That's not what I was saying at all. I was asking what we CAN do because I don't know what to do about it on a personal level. Where did you get that I was supporting either his sentence, or the US governments actions out of what I said??

Karasti, this is a good example of how emotion -- even liberal emotions -- comes into discussions. I feel attacked here, and yet I have not even expressed an opinion as to whether or not Bradley Manning should or should not go to prison or be otherwise punished.

karasti

Why do you feel attacked, @vinlyn? I mean, in what way?

I'm personally just confused on how my post came across as it apparently did, lol. I probably didn't think through what I was posting well enough and seeing how it might come across. Just that even though he quoted me nothing Tom said was in line with what I think, or with what I intended to put across when I posted.

As for Manning, I did not know that, about his wanting to express himself as a woman. Interesting. I wonder why now.

As for whether whistle blowing is worth the punishment, I guess the only person who can answer that is Manning himself. Whether he has or not, I'm not sure. I guess if it were me, I would in the end feel that it would have to be worth it since I took the risk, but I think I would feel let down by the American people who did not do more to fight for his release. Even though the media has reported on all the things Manning and Snowden unearthed, honestly, not many people I know are even talking about it. I don't know if they don't care, if they don't know what to think, or if they have just accepted these things as facets of how our world is today. But only one person I know personally has brought it up for discussion, commented on it, or anything else.

The general impression I get from reading comments and such is that there are 2 camps. One that absolutely supports what Snowden and Manning did and doesn't want any punishment for them. And one that really doesn't seem to have an opinion on them either way, but has accepted drone strikes, spying and everything else to be a part of our world, and something that is "worth it" if even one attack might be stopped/prevented. Too many people (IMO) are willing to give up their freedom of privacy in an attempt to try to stop evil in the world. They don't see it as a problem because in their eyes, they aren't doing anything wrong and only the people who are should be worried. They fail to understand the implications. All they get out of it is "if they find something bad in your email or phone calls, then you must be doing something bad."

vinlyn

Karasti, I didn't feel that your post was attacking me at all; but do about a few others that were, at best, condescending.

I actually think there are "3 camps", and it basically falls into liberal, conservative, and those who just don't know. I'm in the just don't know camp. I believe that wrongs should be righted. But how does a military work if millions of soldiers all feel they can go out and tell all? What efforts did Bradley Manning take to work within the system? I don't know. When you abandon your oaths and contracts, why should I trust you in other things?

And then there's the slant the people on this forum take. It's not balanced. It's a predominantly liberal viewpoint. And I say that being on the liberal side of middle of the road. I went on Fox news dot com last night (first time I ever did that; shudder) to get see the other viewpoint...you can imagine it was 180 degrees. So, no matter how many NB people post here, we need to realize not everyone America agrees with the prevailing viewpoint here.

And then there's the discussion about "the sky is falling" in terms of American freedoms. There's the far left extreme, there's the liberal viewpoint, there's the middle of the road viewpoint, there's the right of center viewpoint, and there's the hard right viewpoint.

And, in this general topic, that's what I've been pointing out and asking about -- in the broad scope of the issue(s), where is reality. But instead, what I read here is mostly a polarized viewpoint with no willingness to see other viewpoints.

poptart

The heavy sentence is intended to deter any other whistle blowers out there tempted to spill the beans and embarrass their political masters abroad. Governments of every political persuasion do not want free thinkers willing to speak the truth. All the more reason everyone should speak the truth.

vinlyn

karasti said:

I said:
#1 I'm of the opinion that Manning and Snowden probably knew they would get in trouble but did it anyways even with a risk to their own lives to bring the wrong-doing to light. I support that. I don't support them being punished for it.

#2 I said that everyone has different reasons for joining the military, and everyone who does takes the same oath. But it's most certainly possibly that someone agreed with the oath at the time they took it, and later on in their career/service time realized egregious wrongs were being done and made a decision based on their own personal, moral code (that happened to go against the other oath they took) and took the risk at bringing it to light.

That's all I said. No where, in no way, did I say I supported the government, what they are doing, what they have done, what they will do, or the sentences for Manning and their attempts to capture Snowden.

#3 I'm unclear what I can or should do other than writing my own representatives and expressing my support for Manning and Snowden (which I have already done).

Here's another of these differences that no one seems willing to discuss. There's been a comparison here between Snowden, Manning, Greenwald/Miranda, and Ellsberg. To me, there are significant differences between them. Manning was in the military. Snowden worked for the CIA. Ellsberg worked for a private corporation. Greenwald/Miranda are "reporters". To me, each has differing responsibilities.

Your #3 is a good question.

karasti

That's true, about the differing occupations/employers. I hadn't really thought about it.

For me, I guess it's hard to know what reality really is in a situation like this. The partner of the person who broke this story was detained for hours and harassed at an airport last week. I guess I just honestly don't know what the truth is, because who do we get the information from and trust to tell us the truth? The media, of course. We all have our favored news programs, and most people tend to get their information from a more biased source (HuffPost is just as biased to the liberal end as Fox News is to the conservative end). So, I guess I have a hard time discussing what the reality is because we don't know what it is. We only know what we are told, and what we are told is based on who we choose to listen to who, most of the time, is aligned with our already-set beliefs.

Why is it ok, in the court of public opinion, to turn a blind eye to us spying on everyone else, as long as we aren't spying on ourselves? We know we spy on everyone else in the world, but we're aghast at the idea that our government spies on us. And aghast at the idea another country might spy on us. It's just kind of a strange thing to me, I guess. When I was a kid, Van Halen had a video called "Right Now" that I enjoyed, and there is a segment with a quote that says "right now, our government is doing things we think only other governments do." and I don't know that our collective naivete on that is going to change any more than it has in the past 20 years, or 50 years and so on.

vinlyn

Well, in regard to the Greenwald/Miranda case, it turns out Miranda was more than Greenwald's husband. He was on the payroll/expense accounts for the same company that Greenwald was, and was carrying the documents in question. And now Greenwald is going to conduct revenge journalism.

Gui

Actually, Snowden worked for a private contractor to the NSA.
\
On another note; as frustrating as it is to not be able to find a way to change the current situation, I can watch the managers of the police state and militarists go bezerk. Their behavior is predictable, albeit frightening, in a historical sense.
And we must keep in mind that we really don't know the court of public opinion when we have corporate media.

Jason

vinlyn said:

Well, in regard to the Greenwald/Miranda case, it turns out Miranda was more than Greenwald's husband. He was on the payroll/expense accounts for the same company that Greenwald was, and was carrying the documents in question. And now Greenwald is going to conduct revenge journalism.

Yes, but I personally don't think that fact in and of itself is grounds for Miranda being detained, interrogated, and forced to relinquish personal material and passwords for his social media accounts under a law specifically designed for questioning terror suspects and not relieving journalists or their associates of their personal property. That kind of thing kosher isn't kosher in my worldview.

vinlyn

Jason said:

vinlyn said:

Well, in regard to the Greenwald/Miranda case, it turns out Miranda was more than Greenwald's husband. He was on the payroll/expense accounts for the same company that Greenwald was, and was carrying the documents in question. And now Greenwald is going to conduct revenge journalism.

Yes, but I personally don't think that fact in and of itself is grounds Miranda being detained, interrogated, and forced to relinquish personal material and passwords for his social media accounts under a law specifically designed for questioning terror suspects and not relieving journalists or their associates of their personal property. That kind of thing kosher isn't kosher in my worldview.

But my concern was that the situation -- that Miranda was being held simply because he was "my partner" -- was not honest on the part of the reporter. If a reporter is going to be dishonest to suit his situation, then I can't much confidence in his reporting.

There are ways to change laws, rather than just deciding to take the law into your own hands.

Jason

vinlyn said:

Karasti, I didn't feel that your post was attacking me at all; but do about a few others that were, at best, condescending.

I actually think there are "3 camps", and it basically falls into liberal, conservative, and those who just don't know. I'm in the just don't know camp. I believe that wrongs should be righted. But how does a military work if millions of soldiers all feel they can go out and tell all? What efforts did Bradley Manning take to work within the system? I don't know. When you abandon your oaths and contracts, why should I trust you in other things?

I'd personally trust someone who leaked evidence of wrongdoings and cover-ups more than someone who kept it under wraps simply because of an oath.

vinlyn

Jason said:

vinlyn said:

Karasti, I didn't feel that your post was attacking me at all; but do about a few others that were, at best, condescending.

I actually think there are "3 camps", and it basically falls into liberal, conservative, and those who just don't know. I'm in the just don't know camp. I believe that wrongs should be righted. But how does a military work if millions of soldiers all feel they can go out and tell all? What efforts did Bradley Manning take to work within the system? I don't know. When you abandon your oaths and contracts, why should I trust you in other things?

I'd personally trust someone who leaked evidence of wrongdoings and cover-ups more than someone who kept it under wraps simply because of an oath.

I was agreeing with you until you said "simply because of an oath".

I always valued the saying, "My word is my bond."

Jason

vinlyn said:

Jason said:

vinlyn said:

Well, in regard to the Greenwald/Miranda case, it turns out Miranda was more than Greenwald's husband. He was on the payroll/expense accounts for the same company that Greenwald was, and was carrying the documents in question. And now Greenwald is going to conduct revenge journalism.

Yes, but I personally don't think that fact in and of itself is grounds Miranda being detained, interrogated, and forced to relinquish personal material and passwords for his social media accounts under a law specifically designed for questioning terror suspects and not relieving journalists or their associates of their personal property. That kind of thing kosher isn't kosher in my worldview.

But my concern was that the situation -- that Miranda was being held simply because he was "my partner" -- was not honest on the part of the reporter. If a reporter is going to be dishonest to suit his situation, then I can't much confidence in his reporting.

There are ways to change laws, rather than just deciding to take the law into your own hands.

Like here in the US, where some of the laws are secret, as well as the courts that oversee them? Good luck with that.

Vastmind

It's not just civilians...We [employees] don't know what to do either...

'...When a scandal — serious or overblown — erupts, political appointees frequently toss some lower-level career feds under the bus. Then, they appoint a task for a blue ribbon panel, which usually vindicates the politicos. '

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/20/3423689/Time-for-feds-to-fight-back-If-so-how

karasti

^ Yes, I agree with that. There are times promises have to be broken. It reminded me of one kid not revealing the abuse of another kid because they promised not to, when clearly it would be better to reveal that information so that the kid might be helped.

Gui

This is the oath you take when joining the US Army.
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.



Taking an oath is not always as simple as following orders.

Jason

vinlyn said:

Jason said:

vinlyn said:

Karasti, I didn't feel that your post was attacking me at all; but do about a few others that were, at best, condescending.

I actually think there are "3 camps", and it basically falls into liberal, conservative, and those who just don't know. I'm in the just don't know camp. I believe that wrongs should be righted. But how does a military work if millions of soldiers all feel they can go out and tell all? What efforts did Bradley Manning take to work within the system? I don't know. When you abandon your oaths and contracts, why should I trust you in other things?

I'd personally trust someone who leaked evidence of wrongdoings and cover-ups more than someone who kept it under wraps simply because of an oath.

I was agreeing with you until you said "simply because of an oath".

I always valued the saying, "My word is my bond."

All the Nazi soldiers who kept their oaths and quietly gassed Jews, communists, and gays without spilling the beans must be real heroes then, while people like Manning are just untrustworthy traitors. Soldiers must well-oiled, obedient machines, after all.

vinlyn

Jason said:

Like here in the US, where some of the laws are secret, as well as the courts that oversee them? Good luck with that.

Yes, it's wrong for the government (or a forum) to have secret laws (and rules) that can result in penalties.

Jason

vinlyn said:

Jason said:

Like here in the US, where some of the laws are secret, as well as the courts that oversee them? Good luck with that.

Yes, it's wrong for the government (or a forum) to have secret laws (and rules) that can result in penalties.

Is that supposed to be some kind of passive-aggressive jab at NewBuddhist?

vinlyn

Jason said:

vinlyn said:

Jason said:

Like here in the US, where some of the laws are secret, as well as the courts that oversee them? Good luck with that.

Yes, it's wrong for the government (or a forum) to have secret laws (and rules) that can result in penalties.

Is that supposed to be some kind of passive-aggressive jab at NewBuddhist?

No, it's saying that there are principles here that fit in many situations.

And you see what the immediate reaction was -- protect the organization.

Jason

vinlyn said:

Jason said:

vinlyn said:

Jason said:

Like here in the US, where some of the laws are secret, as well as the courts that oversee them? Good luck with that.

Yes, it's wrong for the government (or a forum) to have secret laws (and rules) that can result in penalties.

Is that supposed to be some kind of passive-aggressive jab at NewBuddhist?

No, it's saying that there are principles here that fit in many situations.

Like what? There are no secret rules here. Not really sure what point you're trying to make by implying that we do. And an internet forum is nothing like a state government; so again, not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Vastmind

Sorry...the quote from my post did not appear in that day's article(my main reference)...the quote
was from today..
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/20/3428335/Punching-bag-hits-back