Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
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.
Now do you see how you're reacting? I haven't mentioned NewBuddhist.com. In fact, I was referring to another Buddhist forum I used to be on where moderators made people disappear on an almost daily basis.
But what you just did was react the way that virtually all organizations react when someone raises a question or concern. Organizations will begin to immediately protect the organization. It doesn't matter if it is the American government, or the Army, or my school, or a forum, or a company...or for that matter, an individual. The study of organizational behavior works in all types of organizations.
I've watched the military do it over and over and over again. And even when a reformer (to any organization) comes in, and actually makes reforms, over some period of time the organization begins to protect itself. It's what the military is doing now is the Manning case...and all these other cases. It's what the Democratic Party began to do after the McGovern debacle. And the Republican Party began to do after the Goldwater debacle. And my school system did after the 2 student suicides over disciplinary policies.
And the minute that organizational self-protection begins, it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
@Gui it seems that the oath can work against itself, in the cases like with Manning though. Technically, wasn't he defending the constitution, yet by doing so, he was breaking the Military Code of Justice? How can one promise to do one thing, yet promise to follow a code, and/or orders that go against what they just promised to defend in the previous sentence? It seems conflicting, to me.
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.
Now do you see how you're reacting? I haven't mentioned NewBuddhist.com. In fact, I was referring to another Buddhist forum I used to be on where moderators made people disappear on an almost daily basis.
But what you just did was react the way that virtually all organizations react when someone raises a question or concern. Organizations will begin to immediately protect the organization. It doesn't matter if it is the American government, or the Army, or my school, or a forum, or a company...or for that matter, an individual. The study of organizational behavior works in all types of organizations.
I've watched the military do it over and over and over again. And even when a reformer (to any organization) comes in, and actually makes reforms, over some period of time the organization begins to protect itself. It's what the military is doing now is the Manning case...and all these other cases. It's what the Democratic Party began to do after the McGovern debacle. And the Republican Party began to do after the Goldwater debacle. And my school system did after the 2 student suicides over disciplinary policies.
And the minute that organizational self-protection begins, it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
And here I thought I was just having a discussion about the importance of whistelblowers, but apparently I have a more insidious agenda than that. Pretty clever debating tactic there. If I continue to comment and make my points, or attempt to get you to clarify yours, I'll just be accused of protecting the NewBuddhist 'organization' simply because I happen to be a moderator here (Big Brother!). But let me ask you this, if I was really protecting the NB organization (assuming that's a real thing and there's something to protect it from) as you insinuate, then wouldn't I be editing or deleting your posts, or at least threatening you in some way to stifle your free speech instead of just letting you say whatever you want, including accusing me of automatically protecting NB?
It's true that I thought you were talking about NB from the way you phrased things, and if not then that's an error on my part, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that I'm simply protecting the 'organization' because I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. If I am, however, then you have my blessing to expose my abuses and wrongdoings.
@Gui it seems that the oath can work against itself, in the cases like with Manning though. Technically, wasn't he defending the constitution, yet by doing so, he was breaking the Military Code of Justice? How can one promise to do one thing, yet promise to follow a code, and/or orders that go against what they just promised to defend in the previous sentence? It seems conflicting, to me.
Ah, and that's where the complexity of the cases comes in.
Yes. And that's why I put the oath here for all to see. I would love to argue in front of the Supreme Court that Manning did not break his oath. I'm not even sure the laws he did break are constitutional. Certainly not following orders that are illegal or unconstitutional are covered in the UCMJ. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean doodly-squat.
I was in the Naval Reserves for a short time (long story) and I recall taking this oath. However, they do not by any means go over the UCMJ with you. They imply a few things. Specifically DADT was in play at the time, so my recruiter basically said "well, I can't ask you if you are gay, but you are still required to know that it's not allowed, so really if you are you should just tell me anyhow." The gay aspect was honestly the only part that was even discussed. There was no discussion on what the USMJ was, what it entailed, and so on. I'm sure this obviously varies by recruiter. But I find it interested that anyone (including myself) agrees to uphold a code that they likely don't even know what it entails.
Though, since that time I have read the UCMJ, and while I have not looked at it in several years, I recall having an overall sense of "Oh, good. It's written in here that we stand for good and so even is bad is happening around me, it's ok to say something." That was just my thought process, and yes, I was young at the time. So it makes me want to go read the basics o the UCMJ to see if I see get that sense within it. It makes me wonder if Manning has every reason to believe he not only should not have been tried and found guilty, but protected by it.
And here I thought I was just having a discussion about the importance of whistelblowers, but apparently I have a more insidious agenda than that. Pretty clever debating tactic there. If I continue to comment and make my points, or attempt to get you to clarify yours, I'll just be accused of protecting the NewBuddhist 'organization' simply because I happen to be a moderator here (Big Brother!). But let me ask you this, if I was really protecting the NB organization (assuming that's a real thing and there's something to protect it from) as you insinuate, then wouldn't I be editing or deleting your posts, or at least threatening you in some way to stifle your free speech instead of just letting you say whatever you want, including accusing me of automatically protecting NB?
It's true that I thought you were talking about NB from the way you phrased things, and if not then that's an error on my part, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that I'm simply protecting the organization because I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
LOL.
Well, first, the whole whistle-blowing thing is where I think you have to understand organizational behavior to really get the why of this. I think you mentioned the Ellsbergs a while back...or someone did. Without looking it up, almost no Americans I know could go back and tell you what the Pentagon Papers really involved...and yet, at the time, it was "crucial to American security and the lives of individual Americans". And a few years from now, almost nobody -- without going to look it up -- is going to remember much about the Bradley Manning case. At most, both cases gave/will give America a black eye. Black eyes go away pretty quickly. There are rare exceptions. Watergate changed the political landscape forever, even beyond taking down a president. Every time a political scandal arises, the same phrase used so often in the Watergate hearings comes up -- "What did he know and when did he know it."
And that's an important point, too. Do you think the military started out, or has been honest with the Executive Branch or the Congress or the media in the current scandal? Or did they give up the truth a little bit at a time? And the Executive Branch and the Congress will follow suit.
As far as how people stifle freedom of speech, actions can come at once or can occur down the road.
Jason, don't get me wrong. Of all the posters we have on NB, you're one of the most intelligent we have, and more often than not, my views are not that different than yours.
But let me give you a chilling thing to think about. Manning is going to appeal to President Obama for a pardon. I very much doubt that he'll get it. But let's say the President does. Karmic result? Well, I don't know if we could say it's karma, although it will be cause and effect -- the next President will be a Republican because once gain the Democrats will be perceived as being weak on defense.
Or let's chill it even further. Scenario: Obama is successfully impeached over this. Biden becomes President. Congress blocks his choice of a VP. John Boehner is then next in line to be President if something happened to Biden. Brrrrrrrrrrr!
I think a lot boils down to what americans will accept. The legal system is now extremely lenient towards people who commit torture, do war crimes, break international law, or lie (under oath) to the american people. It must be because the american people are ignorant on this or don't care enough, is there some other explanation? As a matter of fact, the european people are not much better, they don't care if their governments are basically in bed with the USA. On the other hand (and this is a recent development), the legal system is extremely harsh on people who try to expose what has been covered up.
The legal system cannot possibly work if the people allow the government to have a free interpretation of the law. Justice is not served if only the people who are inconvenient to the government are punished.
I was agreeing with you until you said "simply because of an oath".
I always valued the saying, "My word is my bond."
Namaste,
I too have always valued my word as my bond. I may not be qualified to speak on this matter as I am a non American. But I have worked for the Federal Govt out here at a certain level of security and I can understand WHY a lot of information is kept out of the public arena. And as much as this will probably piss a lot of you off, we are NOT entitled to know everything just because we want to. There are a lot of reasons why information is withheld. Now.... I understand that when someone uncovers wrongdoing there is a moral obligation (mostly) to do something about it. But I cannot accept Manning did not expect consequences for the way he went about it. Let's be real here for a minute, if you take on the govt, any govt, you're going to get shat on from a big height with a lot of force. Manning HAD to know that. How could he have effectively avoided that? I honestly don't know.
This is just my 0.02. I probably have made no meaningful contribution by this post and for that I apologise.
I think a lot boils down to what americans will accept. The legal system is now extremely lenient towards people who commit torture, do war crimes, break international law, or lie (under oath) to the american people. It must be because the american people are ignorant on this or don't care enough, is there some other explanation? As a matter of fact, the european people are not much better, they don't care if their governments are basically in bed with the USA. On the other hand (and this is a recent development), the legal system is extremely harsh on people who try to expose what has been covered up.
The legal system cannot possibly work if the people allow the government to have a free interpretation of the law. Justice is not served if only the people who are inconvenient to the government are punished.
Most people who I maintain contact with back home in England have really strong feelings about being in bed with the US, even when I was there it was 'un-cool' to like the US in any way shape or form in most social circles. A lot of people dislike the US and the government set up over there, but just accept it as there is little that can be done about it.
As for your first part I would say most people are ignorant to it (willful ignorance implied as well), which in fact is even worse than simple ignorance. However people are waking up to what is going on and with the help of some organisations such as P.A.N.D.A who is against the NSA and others the word is spreading.
I think a lot of British people care deeply that its government is in bed with the US government @maarten. I dont detect much antipathy towards the American people, but the antipathy towards the government of the USA is in the same ballpark as the feeling about the government of Russia. But it stops short of the feelings about the government of North Korea...
The irony to me in the way countries (not just the US) have reacted to having their diplomatic cables exposed is that, after reading hundreds of these communications, I found myself respecting all the countries involved more--not less. These cables show diplomats and liaisons hard at work, doing the dicey social and political dance necessary to actually communicate with others of often vastly different cultures. I found the exchanges endearing and heartening. I think a culture of secrecy is inherently problematic--these are the diplomatic exchanges of people hired or elected to represent us, after all, and their activities are very non-private in most other respects, subject to FOI requests, etc. These are not private communications between two private individuals (which, ironically, the US government has no problem violating). I really believe that, at least from what I've read so far, citizens would respect their own and other countries more if they read these cables. They show the very human reality of diplomacy.
@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."
It's spot on, in my opinion. I think more media outlets should be as vocal in their defense of Manning (or any other whistleblower for that matter) instead of simply cashing in on the information she's provided and then shrugging and walking away from the fact that their 'source' is facing 35 years in prison with barely a peep.
And here's a quick review of some of the bombshells Chelsea Manning revealed, if anyone's interested:
I do want to comment on two things...which will probably just make you angry again...sorry if it does.
The first is from the What The Media Owes... article. Overall, it's a good article. The first thing that I would question in the article is the idea that the public needs to know everything there is to know about government. Now, at first glance, that's a "gasp statement". But, just looking at it historically, the more the public has been able to know about our government -- through the media -- the more gridlocked the government has become, the more polarized the public has become, and the meaner and nastier politics has become...and those qualities don't harbor well for our future. I also look at California, the state where democracy has probably been most active through referendums. No state has more citizen involvement than California. And it's a ------- mess.
Before I state my second comment, I'll self-disclose that I'm a left-leaning center of the road Democrat. I tend to listen to CNN for news and MSNBC for commentary...occasionally PBS if I'm driving.
The statement in the article I question is: "The U.S. media hates to be seen as taking a political stand, and it also hates to be seen as working as some sort of unified front, rather than as a collection of fiercely independent competitors." Really????? Has no one ever listened for Fox News? They take a stand on virtually every political or governmental topic they report. Has no one ever listened to MSNBC? Can anyone honestly say that Martin Bashir, Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz (whose program is returning) don't take political stands? And again, while I fore go Schultz, I often listen to Bashir and Matthews, occasionally to Sharpton, and once in a while to Maddow...and I tend to agree with many of their POVs. And then there are the newspapers. When I lived in the Washington area, if you were liberal you read the Washington Post. If you were conservative you read the Washington Times. Now, in little Colorado Springs, I ignore our city's only paper -- the Colorado Springs Gazette because of its conservative stands, and get the Denver Post since it is more liberal. And in fact, almost every significant newspaper in the country has a political slant. Now I know that the exact wording in the article was that the media "hates to be seen as taking a political stand", but I think we've gotten to the point where many news media sources don't even hate to seen taking a stand.
And meanwhile, liberal Americans rail against Fox News for broadcasting the network's political views instead of the news and tune into MSNBC; conservative Americans rail against MSNBC for broadcasting the network's political views instead of the news and tune into FOX.
My comment about the second article you posted is that I'm glad they recounted the information. I badly needed a review. But remember what I mentioned yesterday -- that after such leaks, throughout history, most of the leaks that were so critical at the time quickly fade into oblivion. How many Americans would remember almost any of those leaks mentioned in the list? How many of the disclosures brought real long-term change?
Now before you (or someone) jumps on me, keep in mind: 1. I still haven't taken a position on Bradley Manning's sentence. 2. I haven't said that media should be restricted. 3. I'm just posting some things to think about to get a fuller view of issues.
I do want to comment on two things...which will probably just make you angry again...sorry if it does.
The first is from the What The Media Owes... article. Overall, it's a good article. The first thing that I would question in the article is the idea that the public needs to know everything there is to know about government. Now, at first glance, that's a "gasp statement". But, just looking at it historically, the more the public has been able to know about our government -- through the media -- the more gridlocked the government has become, the more polarized the public has become, and the meaner and nastier politics has become...and those qualities don't harbor well for our future. I also look at California, the state where democracy has probably been most active through referendums. No state has more citizen involvement than California. And it's a ------- mess.
Before I state my second comment, I'll self-disclose that I'm a left-leaning center of the road Democrat. I tend to listen to CNN for news and MSNBC for commentary...occasionally PBS if I'm driving.
The statement in the article I question is: "The U.S. media hates to be seen as taking a political stand, and it also hates to be seen as working as some sort of unified front, rather than as a collection of fiercely independent competitors." Really????? Has no one ever listened for Fox News? They take a stand on virtually every political or governmental topic they report. Has no one ever listened to MSNBC? Can anyone honestly say that Martin Bashir, Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz (whose program is returning) don't take political stands? And again, while I fore go Schultz, I often listen to Bashir and Matthews, occasionally to Sharpton, and once in a while to Maddow...and I tend to agree with many of their POVs. And then there are the newspapers. When I lived in the Washington area, if you were liberal you read the Washington Post. If you were conservative you read the Washington Times. Now, in little Colorado Springs, I ignore our city's only paper -- the Colorado Springs Gazette because of its conservative stands, and get the Denver Post since it is more liberal. And in fact, almost every significant newspaper in the country has a political slant. Now I know that the exact wording in the article was that the media "hates to be seen as taking a political stand", but I think we've gotten to the point where many news media sources don't even hate to seen taking a stand.
And meanwhile, liberal Americans rail against Fox News for broadcasting the network's political views instead of the news and tune into MSNBC; conservative Americans rail against MSNBC for broadcasting the network's political views instead of the news and tune into FOX.
My comment about the second article you posted is that I'm glad they recounted the information. I badly needed a review. But remember what I mentioned yesterday -- that after such leaks, throughout history, most of the leaks that were so critical at the time quickly fade into oblivion. How many Americans would remember almost any of those leaks mentioned in the list? How many of the disclosures brought real long-term change?
Now before you (or someone) jumps on me, keep in mind: 1. I still haven't taken a position on Bradley Manning's sentence. 2. I haven't said that media should be restricted. 3. I'm just posting some things to think about to get a fuller view of issues.
I'm not angry, and I don't think I was before, but whatever. I'll start by saying that I never said everyone should know everything about government; but I think they should know enough, which includes what their government is doing, particularly when it involves some incredibly shady shit, shit that includes illegal and arguably immoral activity. In my opinion, we, the public, the citizens, deserve to know these things since they're being done in our name and with our tax dollars. Moreover, it's our responsibility to hold our government accountable.
As for the rest, I'm not going to respond to the majority of it since I think it's a bunch of provocative drivel; but I will say that bullshit like FOX and MSNBC isn't 'news,' and I probably read a lot more than you give people like me credit for (hint: I'm not a liberal or conservative). In addition, I remember a lot of what was leaked, both past and present, and I honestly don't care what your stance on Manning or the media is—I'm not posting for your benefit. If you don't think that these kinds of 'disclosures' have any long-term benefit, then continue to remain ignorant to what your country is doing and/or defend the ruling class' right to secrecy because I sure as fuck won't.
They say "ignorance is bliss", and perhaps it is if you want to shut yourself off from reality. But the point of Buddhist practice is to wake up. That means facing up to unpleasant truths you may not like.
Jason is right. Democracy is worth nothing if everyone wilfully buries their head in the sand and hopes with childlike naivete that their political masters will do what's best.
I once saw written in someones sig on a gaming forum that the two greatest obstacles to democracy are the poor's belief that we have one and the rich's fear that we should ever get one.
They say "ignorance is bliss", and perhaps it is if you want to shut yourself off from reality. But the point of Buddhist practice is to wake up. That means facing up to unpleasant truths you may not like.
Jason is right. Democracy is worth nothing if everyone wilfully buries their head in the sand and hopes with childlike naivete that their political masters will do what's best.
I read a quote the other day which is apt here. 'You can try to ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality'
@Talisman...Jason did in fact use 'her' in his above post....and the discussion is really about whistle blowers and the fear/punishment. I do recognize the change she has vocalized.....But as a government employee I didn't want the conversation to get off track about people's gender....instead of me getting 35 years for saying stuff our government is doing. Especially because of the negative slant the media now seems to be trying to connect with the timing of her change and the punishment. A couple of posts have the Bradly instead of the Chelsea, but I think the sudden name change just takes getting used to ....even for those of us that are mindful about recognizing it. In the previous page, someone did bring up her coming out....but it is difficult when some of our reference pages are from before the announcement. Just a logistic at this early stage, I think. I honestly am more concerned about her mental well-being going through all this AND being thrown to the wolves by the country she was serving.
@ThailandTom actually, a lot of people in the US feel the same way about their own government...that there isn't much that can be done about it. A lot of our highest courts (federal and state both) are appointments. So, while we might think we elect the right person to run our state, that person then makes strange appointments that don't seem to align with his values, and so on. So, even when the people try to make a move in the right direction, they still get screwed by the appointments made by the elected person. Most people don't feel they have much control at all anymore. We vote, but a lot of people don't feel it really matters because our government is a run away juggernaut accountable mostly only to the people with money and the corporations. No matter how much people express their disapproval by voting someone out, the next person is just as bad, or worse. There was a poll done not long ago that said if given the options 83% of American's are so unhappy with Congress that they would vote to replace the entire lot of them if they could. Except in the end, it still wouldn't matter. The US stopped being ruled by the people a long time ago.
I would suggest to Chelsea that she follow the same legal procedure that the rest us who have changed our name have gone through. It's fairly simple in most states, can often be done without a lawyer (although she has one), and is relatively inexpensive...and would bolster her being taken more seriously by some.
I have thought a lot more today about this case.
I can't really fault the reporters who published the leaked information. That's news; that's their job.
Manning's job was to be a soldier; he (at the time) was accepting pay for being a soldier, and had enlisted voluntarily. So I don't support the action he (at the time) took. I think what he (at the time) did was illegal. I think she (at the present) deserved to be convicted under the current law. But I also think the sentence was preposterous. I think the prison terms for most espionage should be reduced, including retroactively.
If you have a differing viewpoint from my own, I respect your viewpoint...and understand it; I don't think your viewpoint is "provocative drivel"; I don't think your viewpoint is "bullshit"; and I don't think you're "ignorant". Just as I respect differing opinions about religion, or schools of religion, or sexuality, or politics, I'll respect you and your views unless you are so extreme that you want to break basic human moral codes.
If you have a differing viewpoint from my own, I respect your viewpoint...and understand it; I don't think your viewpoint is "provocative drivel"; I don't think your viewpoint is "bullshit"; and I don't think you're "ignorant". Just as I respect differing opinions about religion, or schools of religion, or sexuality, or politics, I'll respect you and your views unless you are so extreme that you want to break basic human moral codes.
I never said your viewpoint was provocative drivel or bullshit, nor did I call you ignorant. I called your last comment provocative drivel for a couple of reasons, one being that you repeatedly claim not to have a stance on Manning yet continually argue an obvious stance. I called FOX and MSNBC bullshit and not news, not your views. And I said that if you want to remain ignorant to what your country is doing and/or defend the ruling class' right to secrecy, that's fine, but I won't.
I honestly don't mind that you aren't as supportive of Manning or other whistleblowers as I am. What bothers me is what I feel to be the provocative way you respond to all of my comments, even when they're not directed towards you. That said, I admit that it was a bit harsh to call you last post drivel. While I do perceive many of your responses to be goading, including the one in question, it wasn't fair or nice of me to call them drivel, and I apologize for my harsh speech.
The gal is a hero. The course our country is taking will not be viewed politely by history. Murders get medals, politicians retain their power and all the while innocents die and are imprisoned. I for one am glad Private Manning did not just follow orders, but lived the dictates of her conscious.
Comments
But what you just did was react the way that virtually all organizations react when someone raises a question or concern. Organizations will begin to immediately protect the organization. It doesn't matter if it is the American government, or the Army, or my school, or a forum, or a company...or for that matter, an individual. The study of organizational behavior works in all types of organizations.
I've watched the military do it over and over and over again. And even when a reformer (to any organization) comes in, and actually makes reforms, over some period of time the organization begins to protect itself. It's what the military is doing now is the Manning case...and all these other cases. It's what the Democratic Party began to do after the McGovern debacle. And the Republican Party began to do after the Goldwater debacle. And my school system did after the 2 student suicides over disciplinary policies.
And the minute that organizational self-protection begins, it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
And here I thought I was just having a discussion about the importance of whistelblowers, but apparently I have a more insidious agenda than that. Pretty clever debating tactic there. If I continue to comment and make my points, or attempt to get you to clarify yours, I'll just be accused of protecting the NewBuddhist 'organization' simply because I happen to be a moderator here (Big Brother!). But let me ask you this, if I was really protecting the NB organization (assuming that's a real thing and there's something to protect it from) as you insinuate, then wouldn't I be editing or deleting your posts, or at least threatening you in some way to stifle your free speech instead of just letting you say whatever you want, including accusing me of automatically protecting NB?
It's true that I thought you were talking about NB from the way you phrased things, and if not then that's an error on my part, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that I'm simply protecting the 'organization' because I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. If I am, however, then you have my blessing to expose my abuses and wrongdoings.
Certainly not following orders that are illegal or unconstitutional are covered in the UCMJ. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean doodly-squat.
Though, since that time I have read the UCMJ, and while I have not looked at it in several years, I recall having an overall sense of "Oh, good. It's written in here that we stand for good and so even is bad is happening around me, it's ok to say something." That was just my thought process, and yes, I was young at the time. So it makes me want to go read the basics o the UCMJ to see if I see get that sense within it. It makes me wonder if Manning has every reason to believe he not only should not have been tried and found guilty, but protected by it.
LOL.
Well, first, the whole whistle-blowing thing is where I think you have to understand organizational behavior to really get the why of this. I think you mentioned the Ellsbergs a while back...or someone did. Without looking it up, almost no Americans I know could go back and tell you what the Pentagon Papers really involved...and yet, at the time, it was "crucial to American security and the lives of individual Americans". And a few years from now, almost nobody -- without going to look it up -- is going to remember much about the Bradley Manning case. At most, both cases gave/will give America a black eye. Black eyes go away pretty quickly. There are rare exceptions. Watergate changed the political landscape forever, even beyond taking down a president. Every time a political scandal arises, the same phrase used so often in the Watergate hearings comes up -- "What did he know and when did he know it."
And that's an important point, too. Do you think the military started out, or has been honest with the Executive Branch or the Congress or the media in the current scandal? Or did they give up the truth a little bit at a time? And the Executive Branch and the Congress will follow suit.
As far as how people stifle freedom of speech, actions can come at once or can occur down the road.
Jason, don't get me wrong. Of all the posters we have on NB, you're one of the most intelligent we have, and more often than not, my views are not that different than yours.
But let me give you a chilling thing to think about. Manning is going to appeal to President Obama for a pardon. I very much doubt that he'll get it. But let's say the President does. Karmic result? Well, I don't know if we could say it's karma, although it will be cause and effect -- the next President will be a Republican because once gain the Democrats will be perceived as being weak on defense.
On the other hand (and this is a recent development), the legal system is extremely harsh on people who try to expose what has been covered up.
The legal system cannot possibly work if the people allow the government to have a free interpretation of the law. Justice is not served if only the people who are inconvenient to the government are punished.
Namaste,
I too have always valued my word as my bond. I may not be qualified to speak on this matter as I am a non American. But I have worked for the Federal Govt out here at a certain level of security and I can understand WHY a lot of information is kept out of the public arena. And as much as this will probably piss a lot of you off, we are NOT entitled to know everything just because we want to. There are a lot of reasons why information is withheld. Now.... I understand that when someone uncovers wrongdoing there is a moral obligation (mostly) to do something about it. But I cannot accept Manning did not expect consequences for the way he went about it. Let's be real here for a minute, if you take on the govt, any govt, you're going to get shat on from a big height with a lot of force. Manning HAD to know that. How could he have effectively avoided that? I honestly don't know.
This is just my 0.02. I probably have made no meaningful contribution by this post and for that I apologise.
In metta,
Raven
As for your first part I would say most people are ignorant to it (willful ignorance implied as well), which in fact is even worse than simple ignorance. However people are waking up to what is going on and with the help of some organisations such as P.A.N.D.A who is against the NSA and others the word is spreading.
But it stops short of the feelings about the government of North Korea...
"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."
Totally agree.
What the Media Owes to Bradley Manning
It's spot on, in my opinion. I think more media outlets should be as vocal in their defense of Manning (or any other whistleblower for that matter) instead of simply cashing in on the information she's provided and then shrugging and walking away from the fact that their 'source' is facing 35 years in prison with barely a peep.
And here's a quick review of some of the bombshells Chelsea Manning revealed, if anyone's interested:
What Manning Revealed
I do want to comment on two things...which will probably just make you angry again...sorry if it does.
The first is from the What The Media Owes... article. Overall, it's a good article. The first thing that I would question in the article is the idea that the public needs to know everything there is to know about government. Now, at first glance, that's a "gasp statement". But, just looking at it historically, the more the public has been able to know about our government -- through the media -- the more gridlocked the government has become, the more polarized the public has become, and the meaner and nastier politics has become...and those qualities don't harbor well for our future. I also look at California, the state where democracy has probably been most active through referendums. No state has more citizen involvement than California. And it's a ------- mess.
Before I state my second comment, I'll self-disclose that I'm a left-leaning center of the road Democrat. I tend to listen to CNN for news and MSNBC for commentary...occasionally PBS if I'm driving.
The statement in the article I question is: "The U.S. media hates to be seen as taking a political stand, and it also hates to be seen as working as some sort of unified front, rather than as a collection of fiercely independent competitors." Really????? Has no one ever listened for Fox News? They take a stand on virtually every political or governmental topic they report. Has no one ever listened to MSNBC? Can anyone honestly say that Martin Bashir, Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz (whose program is returning) don't take political stands? And again, while I fore go Schultz, I often listen to Bashir and Matthews, occasionally to Sharpton, and once in a while to Maddow...and I tend to agree with many of their POVs. And then there are the newspapers. When I lived in the Washington area, if you were liberal you read the Washington Post. If you were conservative you read the Washington Times. Now, in little Colorado Springs, I ignore our city's only paper -- the Colorado Springs Gazette because of its conservative stands, and get the Denver Post since it is more liberal. And in fact, almost every significant newspaper in the country has a political slant. Now I know that the exact wording in the article was that the media "hates to be seen as taking a political stand", but I think we've gotten to the point where many news media sources don't even hate to seen taking a stand.
And meanwhile, liberal Americans rail against Fox News for broadcasting the network's political views instead of the news and tune into MSNBC; conservative Americans rail against MSNBC for broadcasting the network's political views instead of the news and tune into FOX.
My comment about the second article you posted is that I'm glad they recounted the information. I badly needed a review. But remember what I mentioned yesterday -- that after such leaks, throughout history, most of the leaks that were so critical at the time quickly fade into oblivion. How many Americans would remember almost any of those leaks mentioned in the list? How many of the disclosures brought real long-term change?
Now before you (or someone) jumps on me, keep in mind:
1. I still haven't taken a position on Bradley Manning's sentence.
2. I haven't said that media should be restricted.
3. I'm just posting some things to think about to get a fuller view of issues.
As for the rest, I'm not going to respond to the majority of it since I think it's a bunch of provocative drivel; but I will say that bullshit like FOX and MSNBC isn't 'news,' and I probably read a lot more than you give people like me credit for (hint: I'm not a liberal or conservative). In addition, I remember a lot of what was leaked, both past and present, and I honestly don't care what your stance on Manning or the media is—I'm not posting for your benefit. If you don't think that these kinds of 'disclosures' have any long-term benefit, then continue to remain ignorant to what your country is doing and/or defend the ruling class' right to secrecy because I sure as fuck won't.
Jason is right. Democracy is worth nothing if everyone wilfully buries their head in the sand and hopes with childlike naivete that their political masters will do what's best.
'You can try to ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality'
really about whistle blowers and the fear/punishment. I do recognize the change
she has vocalized.....But as a government employee I didn't want the conversation
to get off track about people's gender....instead of me getting 35 years for
saying stuff our government is doing. Especially because of the negative slant
the media now seems to be trying to connect with the timing of her change and the
punishment. A couple of posts have the Bradly instead of the Chelsea, but I think the
sudden name change just takes getting used to ....even for those of us that are
mindful about recognizing it.
In the previous page, someone did bring up her coming out....but it is difficult
when some of our reference pages are from before the announcement. Just
a logistic at this early stage, I think. I honestly am more concerned about her
mental well-being going through all this AND being thrown to the wolves by
the country she was serving.
I have thought a lot more today about this case.
I can't really fault the reporters who published the leaked information. That's news; that's their job.
Manning's job was to be a soldier; he (at the time) was accepting pay for being a soldier, and had enlisted voluntarily. So I don't support the action he (at the time) took. I think what he (at the time) did was illegal. I think she (at the present) deserved to be convicted under the current law. But I also think the sentence was preposterous. I think the prison terms for most espionage should be reduced, including retroactively.
If you have a differing viewpoint from my own, I respect your viewpoint...and understand it; I don't think your viewpoint is "provocative drivel"; I don't think your viewpoint is "bullshit"; and I don't think you're "ignorant". Just as I respect differing opinions about religion, or schools of religion, or sexuality, or politics, I'll respect you and your views unless you are so extreme that you want to break basic human moral codes.
I honestly don't mind that you aren't as supportive of Manning or other whistleblowers as I am. What bothers me is what I feel to be the provocative way you respond to all of my comments, even when they're not directed towards you. That said, I admit that it was a bit harsh to call you last post drivel. While I do perceive many of your responses to be goading, including the one in question, it wasn't fair or nice of me to call them drivel, and I apologize for my harsh speech.
The course our country is taking will not be viewed politely by history.
Murders get medals, politicians retain their power and all the while innocents die and are imprisoned.
I for one am glad Private Manning did not just follow orders, but lived the dictates of her conscious.