I thought this was an interesting tidbit from the Center for Constitutional Rights.
"While the "aiding the enemy" charges (on which Manning was rightly acquitted) received the most attention from the mainstream media, the Espionage Act itself is a discredited relic of the WWI era, created as a tool to suppress political dissent and antiwar activism, and it is outrageous that the government chose to invoke it in the first place against Manning. Government employees who blow the whistle on war crimes, other abuses and government incompetence should be protected under the First Amendment.
We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy, while those responsible for the war crimes remain free. If the government equates being a whistleblower with espionage or aiding the enemy, what is the future of journalism in this country? What is the future of the First Amendment?
Manning’s treatment, prosecution, and sentencing have one purpose: to silence potential whistleblowers and the media as well. One of the main targets has been our clients, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, for publishing the leaks. Given the U.S. government’s treatment of Manning, Assange should be granted asylum in his home country of Australia and given the protections all journalists and publishers deserve.
We stand in solidarity with Bradley Manning and call for the government to take heed and end its assault on the First Amendment."
By volunteering to join the military and obtain security clearance, Manning waived his First Amendment right to disclose anything he saw fit. If he only broke the law to reveal evidence of government wrongdoing, then there might be a case that he was just a whistleblower. However, leaking hundreds of thousands of additional classified documents that demonstrate no government wrongdoing is indefensible.
While some may believe that the incriminating leaks were excusable, the rest of his behavior should not be forgotten. Honing in on one aspect of Manning's actions does not justify making him a martyr or painting this trial as purely an assault on the First Amendment.
> By volunteering to join the military and obtain security clearance, Manning waived his First Amendment right to disclose anything he saw fit.
Yes. And how soon is it that our government locks everyone into a similar deal? Over 3 million people have security clearances. (And many more who don't have active ones, but are still bound by many of the rules around clearances.) How soon until you need clearance to do serious work in any number of areas?
How soon until giving up those rights is part of doing business? And is standard practice?
It already is in some areas of my field. I know of other subfields where the same is true.
Maybe it is time that we start protecting the rights of all and not pretending like those who have security clearances are an extremely rare exception whose rights can be waived without issue.
I'm not saying the rules should be that anyone can disclose whatever classified information they like, because obviously that doesn't work. But I don't think because someone made a choice at some point in their lives to get a clearance means we shouldn't discuss what circumstances and latitude they should get to speak their minds.
We share a field. In what ways does that field demand that you surrender your rights?
I don't have much of a problem with the idea that contributing infosec work to the government requires you to become a part of something that is bigger than you or your individual rights, and have resolved that conflict by simply not working for the government; that also eliminates some other moral hazards of working for/with the military/industrial complex.
It doesn't demand you surrender your rights yet. It is just becoming more and more encouraging that you do so and I know many young researchers who are opting to make that choice a lot more often than I used to see.
The governmental sector in our field is the main area I was thinking of. And it is one that is only growing with time. A lot of avenues and research sub-fields require clearances if you don't want to be on the outside looking in. In particular, our ability to get realistic threat information on large scale actors is vastly limited and my research suffers from that lack of context.
This is worse in some specific subfields than it is in others, crypto comes to mind. Though that is one area where academia seems to have actually maybe made that less true than it used to be.
There are people in bio and other areas who are experiencing similar pressures. The scope of the work done by people with clearances is trending upwards and the subfields in which someone's ability to participate in them is more limited without a clearance seems to be expanding.
You should encourage your peers not to go work for the government. There's a misconception on HN (I don't think you hold it) that GSA work is a major feeder for infosec, for vulnerability research, and for defensive security work. It isn't. Most of the researchers anyone here has "heard of" don't do any work for the government at all.
I talk every once in awhile about how Matasano chooses not to do government work, which makes it sound like we're taking a difficult principled stand. In reality, it's a very easy principled stand; our calendar is uniformly packed, we have no sales team, and I don't even remember the last time we needed to think about the the USG.
I personally have no problem with offensive security people working for the USG. It's not a choice I would make, but I see how other people might decide differently. But if you decide to do that, to make your work part of the national defense, it makes sense to me that you're going to lose some control over that work and over some of what you learn as you do that work.
Let's be honest: people doing "cyber" work for the government aren't poor kids from the suburbs trying to pay for college by doing a tour of duty. Relative to the market as a whole, they're immensely well compensated.
Its funny that you say "people doing "cyber" work for the government aren't poor kids from the suburbs trying to pay for college by doing a tour of duty." This is essentially what the CyberCorps Scholarship for Service is sans combat. The program has been going on for a long time now, Mudge played a part in the creation of the program.
> I'm not saying the rules should be that anyone can disclose whatever classified information they like
But that's exactly what Manning did. If he were being prosecuted for discretely releasing specific information about specific crimes, we'd be talking about a different case.
Yet people say the same thing about Snowden, who seems to have "discretely released specific information about specific crimes" to a larger extent than Manning did.
And while we're talking about it. It wasn't like the Pentagon Papers were all that specific. Ellsberg leaked the 47 volumes wholesale.
I'm too unfamiliar with the specifics to respond with precision, but I will point out that "47 volumes" is not necessarily unspecific. Nor does it necessitate quantity of specific crimes.
All it really says is that it was useful, for some reason or another, to divide the information into 47 parts.
At what point do you just say, you know what? US imperialism is just so fucking out of control, that we need to do whatever it takes to resist it, not get caught up in anal retentive legalism, or analyzing what the implications of various legal reforms would be, and just do whatever needs doing to support those who have taken courageous steps toward undermining the regime?
Do you really not believe that a revolution is called for?
Sure, you are free to discuss what circumstances and latitude people bound by the UCMJ should have to speak their mind. You might be able to argue that the portions of Manning's leak that show evidence of wrongdoing were justified. That does not change the fact that he recklessly leaked hundreds of thousands of other classified documents, and is therefore guilty of espionage.
My point about Manning waiving his rights was primarily in response to this quote from the parent post:
> Government employees who blow the whistle on war crimes, other abuses and government incompetence should be protected under the First Amendment.
Waving the First Amendment around is meaningless when the affected parties have agreed to not reveal classified information and waive their rights as citizens. Arguing that the First Amendment broadly trumps the UCMJ and classification leads to nonsense. As you said, doing so obviously doesn't work. You can make a case that leaks are justified under some circumstances. That case does not involve appealing to the First Amendment.
> That case does not involve appealing to the First Amendment.
I think it must. You can make a case that UCMJ and waiving of rights are limited exceptions that must be allowed under the first amendment for the government to do its work, but as these rights are fundamental, I think it is the government that must justify restrictions on any citizen's right to free speech. And it is our system which requires that those restrictions be as limited as possible.
IMO, the First Amendment is in play because any restrictions on speech must be justified and limited.
The most useful section appears to be "freedom of the press", in which military personnel published information against the wishes of security review.
"On appeal, the USCMA concluded that a regulation requiring security review was valid and, therefore, did not violate the military member's first amendment rights, noting that the right to free speech is not an indiscriminate right and is qualified by the requirements of reasonableness in relation to time, place, and circumstances."
My short interpretation is that: (1) the vast majority of people waving around the First Amendment flag have no idea what they're talking about, but (2) I have been incorrect in the blanket claim that there is no First Amendment protection for soldiers.
The Constitution also gives Congress the power to 'make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces'. You seem to think the Bill of Rights trumps the rest of the constitution. It doesn't, but rather stands on the same plane as it, and where there are conflicts between different parts of the Constitution the matter typically ends up in the Supreme Court sooner or later.
There's a lot more to the Constitution than just the Bill of Rights, but most people only seem to remember the latter.
Yes. There's a bunch of clauses that allow a bunch of things. None of them involve tossing the first amendment out the window and all of them involve an analysis where the fundamental right to free speech is in play, but also often balanced by other legitimate governmental concerns.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said in my post.
That's not what you said at all. Your stated position is that rights are fundamental and government has to justify any imposition on those, yes? So you're saying that the bill of Rights > the Rest of the Constitution.
Go read the Federalist Papers, there is no way the founders intended it to work that way and courts have never interpreted it that way either. James Madison explains it beter than I can:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
The Federalist papers argued against the need for things like the Bill of Rights, which were considered redundant and perfectly placeable in the law itself (and possibly counter-productive, if it was ever assumed that the Bill of Rights represented the sum of your rights, which is what the 9th Amendment was passed to try to prevent).
Either way, that doesn't answer the point of whether this argument by Madison is valid or not.
That Bradley Manning is in prison while many of the depraved murderers and corrupt officials he blew the whistle on remain free and employed is a disgrace.
It's not a question of law. It's a question of basic morality and humanity. Laws that put people of conscience in prison while protecting murderers are not laws worth following, respecting, or defending.
We also try and imprison people for war crimes, although this process is slow and uneven, for a variety of reasons. It is a question of law, because there's no universal standard of morality. The Nidal Hassan trial is a classic example of that: by the fundamentalist religious standards that he adhered to, his actions were perfectly justified, but people who are not adherents of his religious or less extreme adherents of it think the exact opposite.
News flash: Laws are not about morality. They are about behavior.
Being a "person of conscience" only means he was doing what he thought was right. Doesn't have anything to do with legal behavior. Many violent people are "people of conscience".
If you don't want people to legislate morality, then don't be surprised when there is no morality in your legislation.
Many people like to have justice in their legal system, but it doesn't make so just because you called it that.
Laws and morality are not mutually exclusive, but the presence of one doesn't require the other. Justice is where laws and morality meet. Did we apply the laws and was the outcome morally fitting? But if you don't have both, you can't have justice.
"Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice." [1]
There are many dictionaries which define "justice" as having a component of fairness or morality, as opposed to a merely mechanical sort of rules-based accounting of the Law. They are not hard to find, nor is it challenging to find reasonable (non-YE Creationist) people who might agree with those definitions. Even Websters, which does not mention morality, does include fairness. And, here [2] is a thing that calls itself "Law.com" and cites "The Peoples' Law Dictionary" and also includes "moral rightness" in its definition of "justice".
Do you enjoy these little time-wasting sophist nit-picks?
> Do you enjoy these little time-wasting sophist nit-picks?
I enjoy people backing up their arguments with logic and reason instead of FUD and rhetoric.
If you're trying to prove a certain point you should be careful that your arguments are tailored to the point instead of being so broad that they could as easily be used to prove the opposite.
For example, what you've provided here is much more in support of your argument than "lots of people think $FOO".
And who is to decide whether the leaked documents demonstrate government wrongdoing or not? If not for whistleblowers, we wouldn't even know that these wrongdoings exist, which would preclude our ability to judge them as such. This is the fallacy behind government secrecy.
Information must always be free --- non-disclosure contracts never take precedence over the First Amendment. Imagine if the Nazis were somehow able to cover up the Holocaust, would a non-disclosure contract prevent a German citizen from leaking the existence of the genocide? But you say, genocide is clearly wrong. But without the leaked information, how would we even know a genocide happened?
That's the risk for whistleblowers. You have to be careful what you leak, and make sure that it is relevant. That's one reason why this case and the Snowden case are very different. Manning leaked a ton of stuff, a lot of which wasn't applicable. Snowden leaked very specific things, so he has a better shot at being considered a legit whistleblower.
Also - Godwin. Don't use Nazis as examples, it just diminishes your argument.
Reductio ad absurdum, a perfectly legitimate form of proof, begs to differ with Mr. Godwin.
Anyone can leak anything, as anyone can say anything. This is the law as per the First Amendment. You could lose your job contract for leaking information, but you could also lose your job for no reason at all. Those that would argue that only criminality should be leaked --- who is to determine that criminality if no one knows about it in the first place? Evidence of the act before judgment of the act. And to those who say leaking information can lead to soldier casualties --- so can lying to a public about the motivations for countless aggressive wars, and then assuming the public "can't handle the truth". Jessup went to prison for that, thanks to a few good men. Unfortunately, Americans don't listen to their movies, only watch them.
Reductio ad absurdum, a perfectly legitimate form of proof, begs to differ with Mr. Godwin
Godwin's law isn't about legitimate forms of proof, it's about the level and quality of discourse. It's not saying you're wrong it's saying that your point would be stronger without Nazi references.
You can't just say anything. The First Amendment is not absolute - there have always been limits on it. Saying "fire" in a crowded theater is the canonical example.
Do you know who is responsible for determining what is criminal and what isn't? A judge and/or jury. That's the way our system works. That's the risk for whistleblowers. They have to be prepared to go to trial to determine if they get protected.
Seriously - in "A Few Good Men" Jessup went to jail for ordering the beating of a soldier. That has absolutely no bearing on this.
Godwin's law came about for a reason - using Nazis as an example is overdone. Its like comparing software to cars - it's an overused analogy. Because of this, you lose most of the power your argument may have had. Pick something else if you want to point out how ridiculous something is.
Walter Block disagrees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPeqXcJqkeg . His hypothetical situations at the end may seems unrealistic to you, but consider them as illustrative of the dangers of blanket prosecution over much more favorable voluntary solutions.
Collecting and understanding the evidence of a situation may be up to a a judge/jury, but natural law is not. A judge cannot lawfully reject the First Amendment, which universally defends whistleblowers. "That's the way our system works" is not an argument.
The issue at the heart of A Few Good Men was the notion that an enlightened minority can lie to a majority for the good of that majority. Jessup beats soldiers, our government drone-bombs children. And they both think they can withhold these acts from public view, because it's in the "public's interest not to know". Whistleblowers rightfully reject this view, as did the jury in A Few Good Men.
Okay, I'll use Stalin and his genocides. Does it make a difference?
In which case even Block, an academic anarcist prepared to go to the extremes of defending one's right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre is pretty unequivocal about the enforceability of voluntarily-agreed contracts against such speech. Such as by those who contracted to work for the military, for example?
Love or loathe what Manning did (and it's possible to do both: to believe he is both a whistleblower and someone who disclosed a lot of other information with no justification), the First Amendment was never intended to protect his course of action. Which leaves us with whether his course of action was ethical, and ethics and the military have never been easy bedfellows.
Collecting and understanding the evidence of a situation may be up to a a judge/jury, but natural law is not. A judge cannot lawfully reject the First Amendment, which universally defends whistleblowers.
Natural law doesn't come into it, and is usually the refuge of people who don't have an argument. A judge can't just reject the First Amendment, but there are well-established limits on it, and your claim that it 'universally defends whistleblowers' is strictly imaginary. It doesn't say anything about protecting people who reveal government misdeeds.
This is something I think people really don't appreciate about the Snowden case: He's been extremely shrewd about the tiny amounts he's leaked. It's all gold and no dross, so is pretty damn credible, and very possibly legal. He may be a free and clear, able to come home, free man, by his 40th birthday.
> Information must always be free --- non-disclosure contracts never take precedence over the First Amendment.
This belief is very naive and unrealistic. There are some kinds of information that should obviously not be free. Credit card numbers, PINs, SSNs, identities of confidential informants, etc. In order for society to function there will be secrets. What we need is a healthy debate over what secrets should be allowed, how they should be kept, and how responsible oversight should be administered without publicly divulging everything. Statements like "information must always be free" provide nothing but straw men for those in favor of minimal oversight to knock down. Making such assertions is counterproductive.
> By volunteering to join the military and obtain security clearance, Manning waived his First Amendment right
Quoting this for importance. Soldiers do not have the same First Amendment rights as other citizens; they do not have the same set of rights at all. I can probably dig up something more credible than my own hearsay if needed.
Soldiers have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, so a soldier who sees evidence of gov't wrongdoing suddenly has a dilemma on his or her hands.
"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
The correct "route" has worked just fine in many other cases (Abu Ghraib, Mahmudiyah killings in Iraq).
Regardless though, there were many other routes Manning could have taken that would have been more proper.
And whatever route Manning took, he could have limited his disclosures to those detailing war crimes instead of a mass disclosure of classified operational information.
>The correct "route" has worked just fine in many other cases (Abu Ghraib, Mahmudiyah killings in Iraq).
On the contrary, there is no scarcity of examples of whistleblower protection failing miserably at protecting the whistleblower. It is a defective system that one would be a fool to put any trust in. Advocacy of that path is naive or ignorant at best.
>Regardless though, there were many other routes Manning could have taken that would have been more proper.
That is speculation, but I agree it is possible. Manning himself would probably agree with that. Hindsight is 20/20, and all that.
>And whatever route Manning took, he could have limited his disclosures to those detailing war crimes instead of a mass disclosure of classified operational information
That appears to be true, though the importance of the "classified operational information" appears to be wildly exaggerated for the most part. Lots of the material which is classified arguably shouldn't be.
Personally, my opinion is that the disclosures have been overall beneficial to US citizens and therefore to the US gov't. Far more useful to people all over the world who are interested in honest and just discourse, and foreign relations than to US enemies as operational intelligence.
> We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy
Why do people continue using the flawed argument that because someone does good thing X, that it necessarily excuses a multitude of bad things Y?
If all he did was to leak war crimes and nothing else we'd be treating Pfc. Manning like we treated Pfc. Justin Watt (as a hero who uncovered horrific crimes [1]).
But, that's not all he did, and so that's not how we treat him. There's a reason Snowden was so careful to note in his first interview how different his own behavior was from Manning's.
He leaked classified diplomatic cables that, however interesting, did not reveal war crimes or really crimes of any sort.
This isn't just a theoretical point: Would you allow the IT staff at your company to post "interesting" emails by management to your competitors, or the public at large?
Even the very public organization I develop for still has private mailing lists.
While I agree with you to some degree that indiscriminate sharing of government information is not the same as whistleblowing, we should avoid any metaphors referencing corporations. Corporations cannot put you in jail for life; our government can. The government is held to a different standard, and rightly so. You work for a company, the government works for you.
> Corporations cannot put you in jail for life; our government can. The government is held to a different standard, and rightly so. You work for a company, the government works for you.
You speak about theoretical things but I have to say; corporations have been far more damaging to me personally than the governments here in America ever have.
Even your example about jail, for instance, would require that I do something bad enough to warrant life imprisonment, that I get caught, that an investigation into my actions returns an indictment, that the case against me doesn't get thrown out on a technicality, that the prosecution then goes on to positively prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm guilty, and then goes further to prove I'm such a danger to society that I should be removed for life.
Oh, and that a judge agrees with the sentence, it never gets overturned on one of multiple layers of appeal, and that the prisons don't get so overcrowded that they have to release nice guys like me early.
Now, if you're going to say that the government could imprison me by taking extralegal actions I would actually agree. But then the same applies to corporations and individuals in general.
So while I agree that the government works for the people and should be held to that standard, I disagree that the government works for me or you personally, which is one of the reasons we allow governments to maintain information controls at all (because it's in the interest of society at large).
I was prepared to be outraged at the verdict after the defense appeal to vacate the 'aiding enemy' charge was thrown out by the judge the other day[0], but being found not guilty is very important in terms of both his sentence and precedent for future military whistleblowers.
It also vindicates the defense decision to stick with a military hearing rather than a ~~civil~~ jury[1], which almost certainly could have been stacked to find a guilty verdict on the aiding the enemy charge (especially in Virginia - the preferred jurisdiction for fed government prosecution because of the slanted jury pool of ex-military and ex-gov types).
This is probably the best Manning could have hoped for, the evidence was stacked heavily against him on the other charges and he had already pleaded guilty to most.
Manning was never under threat of being judged by a civilian jury. It would have been a military jury, who even if pulled from Ft. Meade would have come from all walks of life before joining the military.
Likewise I don't think this means what you think it means for future whistleblowers. He could still very well be sentenced effectively to confinement for life, after all, and the thing that saved his bacon regarding 'aiding the enemy' is that the judge added another element to the charge, which the prosecution then failed to prove.
With that said, I don't think it could have gone better for Manning under a jury trial, so it certainly looks prudent from his end.
I don't feel outrage these days so much as foreboding. I was convinced the verdict was a foregone conclusion. It's hard to describe how damn good it feels to be wrong on this. When I saw the verdict on cnn.com, I immediately interrupted my coworkers to tell them the news.
This is a pretty balanced verdict, in my opinion. It upholds the law without further perpetuating the reputation of the US government as a body that will cry "enemy combatant!" and "terrorism!" at every political opportunity.
Manning is a whistleblower, not a spy. He has been convicted of spying for revealing crimes committed and perpetuated and covered up by the US government.
The cries of "espionage!" are just as disingenuous as the cries of "enemy combatant!" or "terrorism!".
So all the government need to do is to prove that someone accidentally got more than the main part of the documentation they want to leak and they are not whistleblowers anymore?
Within reason, yes. If they were leaking things indiscriminately, then they shouldn't be considered a whistleblower, even if some of their leaked information was about something that the public had a legitimate interest in knowing.
These aren't black and white issues, so think more in terms of what a "reasonable" person would consider. If your goal is to expose a particular program - then you should be leaking only things relevant to that program. Throwing in diplomatic cables between embassies because you can just isn't relevant. And it weakens your argument for whistleblower protection.
If you consider the systemic problems in the US military industrial complex to be a "fly", including the cover up of mass murder of civilians, I'd hate to see what you consider a big problem.
Fair enough, but the state is pursuing Snowden with similar fervor. Do you believe he will be afforded reasonable whistleblower protections for being more judicious in his revelations? I suspect the state will demonize him in the same way, and seek to send another message to whistleblowers that revealing state crimes will cost you your life.
I think he has a reasonable shot at it. Notice how many high-ranking pols have publically spoken up in support of Snowden...something that never happened with Manning.
Well, had the judge not imposed the extra element on the base version of the UCMJ "aiding the enemy" charge he very well could have been convicted of that too. The UCMJ is sometimes incredibly broad, and that's no less the case here. Certainly there is no minimum document count needed to be convicted. A single document would suffice, in fact.
But doesn't the Espionage charge achieve kind of the same thing? Was he really spying for anyone? He wasn't. So I still don't see this as a fair verdict.
It's pretty much impossible for any judge or jury to find him not guilty of all charges when he leaked over 700000 documents that had absolutely nothing to do with anything illegal that the government was doing. If he had only stolen and leaked incriminating information, his case would have been much stronger.
He took classified data outside his purview and provided it to folks without access, which seems like pretty clear espionage. You don't have to be working for a particular foreign government to be performing espionage.
I'm waiting to see how he is sentenced. According to the article he could be sentenced to practically nothing, or he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
You could, in theory, have 136 one year sentences to be served concurrently. I'm not saying this will be the case, but not every sentence is served sequentially.
Also, life imprisonment is a single sentence that means the rest of your life in jail, or until paroled. I believe you can have a life sentence and other fixed term sentences too. You can also have a total of 136 years in jail (no concurrent sentences) which is effectively the same thing as a life sentence.
Let's say you're sentenced to 125 years in prison, but they're five 25 year concurrent prison terms. The most you'll spend in prison is 25 years, and that includes the time you've already spent.
To broadly estimate the heroism of every other serving member in any singular statement is foolhardy, at best.
There are lots of good people doing good, heroic, insanely patriotic, admirable, and honorable things in that Military-Industrial-Surveillance Complex you describe.
Don't let the mistakes and abuses of the top give you some feeling that the system and everyone in it is corrupt. That system is literally putting themselves in front of bullets right now to defend your right to have such misguided ideas. What are you doing today?
Don't let the mistakes and abuses of the top give you some feeling that the system and everyone in it is corrupt. That system is literally putting themselves in front of bullets right now to defend your right to have such misguided ideas. What are you doing today?
Careful there chief. I'm not sitting in a swank control room in Vegas killing innocent men and women via drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
No one is putting themselves in front of bullets for my rights. They're putting themselves in front of bullets for their own reasons, but not for me.
Again with the sweeping characterizations. Why do you assume that every single person in the armed forces is corrupt?
As someone with a brother and several close friends in the military, this attitude is disheartening. You are free to believe that the leadership or even large swaths of the military is corrupt, but you cannot honestly state that no one is putting themselves in front of bullets for your rights. I have personally met several who repeatedly face bullets and IEDs because of their belief that they are protecting the rights and safety of civilians back home. You may believe their actions are naive or misguided, but that doesn't mean that they are all mindless drones motivated by purely selfish reasons.
As arjie stated, I don't think they're corrupt. I'm saying they're not serving my interests as a US citizen. My liberty isn't in peril, and if it were, I'd be the first to sign up with BDUs and rifle in hand (my brother served as a Marine).
As I said, no one is standing in front of bullets for my rights. I'll stand in front of bullets for my own rights thank you, when the time actually arrives that my rights are threatened.
Well, technically speaking if there isn't anyone signed up with BDUs and a rifle in hand, then your liberty would be in peril. I mean, if the US government and her lands were just up for whoever wanted to call dibs, I'd take it.
That said, it stands to reason that the reason why your liberty isn't imminently in peril is because someone is already signed up and out there defending it.
To restate everything in broad terms: there's lots of people out in the world that don't like us. Your liberty is always in peril.
Do you want a totally anarchistic society, perhaps? I, for one, don't.
You make it sound like America doesn't have a large, well-off and well armed populace, with the backing of heavy industrial plants that can tool up for war.
I'm not saying America should have no armed forces, of course, but don't you think they're a little excessive?
No, it's not. It's advocating what the founders originally intended, which was a well-armed militia that obviates the need for an Army. In time of war (on American soil) they would organize like an army to fight off invaders. They did advocate for a Navy, however, because it was (and I suppose still is) necessary for the establishment of free trade routes between nations.
I am former military, as an aside, and once found the notion of not having an Army pretty silly, but the notion has grown on me slightly.
I think he isn't claiming that they don't believe it. He's saying that they're not doing what they think. I can fervently believe that I'm protecting American lives by slaughtering chickens in a yard, but that won't make it true.
Perhaps you philosophically disagree with the strategy of the upper management of our Military Operations - and rightfully so, IMO, on many counts - but it's a FACT that they are the ultimate line of defense for our nation's independence.
And without someone willing to put themselves on the front lines where the bullets fly, (to use a tired cliche) we'd easily be speaking German right now.
To take the stance that 'they're putting themselves in front of bullets for their own reasons, but not for me' is incredibly selfish and myopic.
Your other option is to try living in a country with a ragtag militia and government with an organized-crime-level-of-corruption. Let me know how that works.
And 'swank control room in Vegas'? You watch too many movies. :)
>To take the stance that 'they're putting themselves in front of bullets for their own reasons, but not for me' is incredibly selfish and myopic.
No, it is the result of a critical (and perhaps cynical) examination of and conclusion about the motives for the initiation and continuance of the war(s) our military is involved in.
>Your other option is to try living in a country with a ragtag militia and government with an organized-crime-level-of-corruption. Let me know how that works.
The reasons they are killing people right now do not include "our nations independence", or anything resembling it. That is just the propaganda line they use to sell the military to children in high-schools.
> That system is literally putting themselves in front of bullets right now
A fine thing. Deserving of respect, in most cases.
>to defend your right to have such misguided ideas.
That is tripe, and it is wasted on me. It is so well worn, and despite that I remain unaware of any imminent threats to my personal freedom other than from the Military-Industrial-Surveillance (and also Prisons and Police) Complex.
> I remain unaware of any imminent threats to my personal freedom other than from the Military-Industrial-Surveillance (and also Prisons and Police) Complex.
As someone who identifies as fairly libertarian, I'll give you that.
But it stands, to some degree, some aspects of the Military Operations of this country are necessary - and even supremely honorable in nature - in order for this country to exist as have whatever degree of freedoms we (still?) have.
There are _many_ individuals of the military that have put their lives on the line and some unfortunately had it taken from them. Some have done heroic acts that have not been revealed and others that just haven't been recognized. Just because you disagree with why they were put there doesn't make their actions any less admirable.
Bradley Manning put his life on the line and has essentially lost it also.
He joined the military, saw that his organization was acting in a manner that was morally reprehensible and then did something about it. Of course, the same system replied in a manner that's just as morally reprehensible as Manning demonstrated.
The danger of rationalizing evil through the old truisms of "Patriotism, Security, Etc" is that it can corrupt those that rationalize it instead of saying, "This has to stop."
> it's a FACT that they are the ultimate line of defense for our nation's independence.
It's a fact that the military-industrial complex exists to protect the military-industrial complex. Our nation's independence was sold to moneyed interests in the last century.
> government with an organized-crime-level-of-corruption.
that's a very good point, but there hasn't been an official Declaration of War since 1942 per the wiki (which is a whole nother issue, albeit a very valid one).
It was 'declared' by Congress in 2001 (see the AUMF), but either way it's not as if there's a DD Form which is issued daily to all servicemembers listing the enemies of the day. If they're flying jumbo jets into the nation's skyscrapers it's a pretty safe bet that they fall in the 'enemy' bin.
I could be the idiot here, but I'm pretty sure that New York and New Jersey are 2 of the 50 United States which the Federal government is obligated to defend from foreign aggression.
The answer to your first question can be illuminated a bit by considering a different question: Why do seagoing nations use Naval assets (instead of a coast guard auxiliary) to interdict and defeat pirates on the high seas?
The U.S. made a formal declaration (the 2001 AUMF).
But I don't even have qualms comparing international waters to Afghanistan, because you have to consider that if a given piece of land is completely ungoverned, does it belong to a specific nation at all?
If you say that the lands in Afghanistan from which AQ organized their terrorism was effectively governed by the Taliban and not a failed state, then it's even easier legally, as you have an actual causus belli for military action in response.
The same way Soviet spies aided the USSR even when we weren't engaged in 'kinetic warfare' with them? You keep pushing the idea that the only enemies you have are the ones you've declared war on, but that simply isn't the case in actual geopolitics.
Well when they make you the reigning monarch then I'm sure the military will bow to your personal definition of enemies. Until then the people have spoken by ballot.
Manning is probably facing life in prison on the espionage charges. The acquittal on aiding the enemy is interesting, but practically not that important.
It is important for future whistleblowers. It is possibly not important for Manning's sentence...though, the willingness of future presidents (maybe we'll get an honest one eventually) to pardon Manning would be greatly diminished had he been convicted of aiding the enemy.
It's also the only sane result. Even people within the various branches have said they knew of no harm that had come from the released information.
It has/would have had an impact on what is considered "giving information to the enemy". If they found him guilty of that, then any document release posted to the public for the intent of the public consumption would be considered "aiding the enemy".
And once again someone takes a bunch of numbers and blindly adds them up. Same thing happened when that guy in San Diego was looking at 100+ years for spray painting the Bank of America.
It's really up to the judge to sentence him. In the end he'll probably get 10-20 years.
So I read (on wikipedia so not the best source) the key tenants of the espionage act which he was found guilty under. I find it to be written generally enough to be ambiguous in a similar vein to recent laws such as the NDAA not really defining hostilites and enemies. I wonder what are the limitations on it? Was the constitutional definition of treason not enough. Again I feel like overly broad language in a law used to convict people that politicians deem need to be convicted.
As a volunteer member of the armed services, he is expected to be held accountable by standards that do not necessarily apply to civilians. That can cut both ways. In this case, it is likely to the defendants disadvantage, but that was always part of the context of his possible actions before they happened.
Yes! I'm at work but started cheering in my chair when I read the verdict of Not Guilty on aiding the enemy. Was truly expecting the worse with that, but to hear a "not guilty" charge on this was very reassuring.
That's was probably the right verdict, keeping in mind that the judge deliberately made that charge more restrictive than is given in the UCMJ. So I'd be careful about drawing too much precedent from that, because for this particular case the judge asked the prosecution to prove that Manning not only aided the enemy in the UCMJ sense, but that he did so with 'evil intent'.
The prosecution didn't prove that (and indeed had a pretty embarrassing closing argument IMO). But the next soldier who leaks military intelligence may not get the benefit of extra elements added to their charge list by the judge.
I agree. The problem with that charge in particular, however, is that it would have had extremely far-reaching implications for all investigative journalism
I realize you're very knowledgable in legal matters and enjoy playing the nitpicking contrarian in these cases, shining the light of truth on all us hopeless ignoramuses, but regardless of under whose jurisdiction the trial actually took place, yes, the US government equating leaks with the definition of treason would absolutely set a precedent that would spill over both into civilian courts as well as into the minds of potential leakers and journalists.
This isn't a nitpick, it cuts down the premise of your whole argument. Military tribunals decide lots of different things--when was the last time you heard a court or a regular person contemplate what would've been the result under military law? This isn't a question of legal experience--I'm asking based on your experience as a civilian person out in the world. Our culture draws an extremely deep distinction between military and civilian law.
Hey, I wanted to apologize for my personal attack earlier. I've been having a bad day and took some of that frustration out on you.
But as for your question, I'm speaking less about legal precedent (of course there's a difference between military and civilian court) and more about perception to would-be whistleblowers and government officials that this is what happens now to people that leak secrets, especially for such a publicized case.
Apparently there's one more than I thought before.
On the other hand Manning's leak has lead to the Arab Spring, if other reports are to be believed. As Egypt continues its horrible unrest and thousands continue to die in Syria (with absolutely no certainty they'll ever overthrow Assad) I wonder if we will decide it was all worth it in the end?
Careful. That same argument undermines the sole remaining justification for the entire USA campaign in Iraq, that we were somehow "improving" their society.
I know. I've said as much (in reverse) to people pointing out that the USA shouldn't have been in Iraq but still somehow claiming that what Manning did is worth it if it leads to democracy in Arab countries.
But the USA never should have gone into Iraq based on what the leaders knew at the time. Why do you assume I think otherwise?
The strategy one employs to deal with being punished for revealing wrongdoing has nothing to do with how "genuine" the activism is. To suggest that Snowden, who has given up his life to alert humanity to the worst surveillance program in the world's history, isn't a "genuine" activist is, frankly, ridiculous.
It's worst in breadth and likely quite bad in terms of depth given their resources (and the ability, IIRC, to listen through landlines and cell phones). Surveillance depth will likely get much worse in the future, however, as they strongarm more companies into baking surveillance capabilities into mass-market devices (although they'll be competing, in this regard, with foreign manufacturers who will be/are also doing the same thing).
This is a false dilemma and disingenuous stance. You are basically saying that "unless you are willing to suffer, the problem you're talking about can't really be a problem".
(Actually you're saying that you can't be an activist without suffering, and the implication is that if it's not worth activism, it's not a big deal. So basically what I said).
I guess that's exactly what I'm saying: You cannot be a true activist without taking heat from the powers that be and not running from them. So I guess we must agree to disagree. That being said, I think if you look at activists that have been studied and/or revered throughout history most have paid a steep price (many with their lives) for causes they support.
The idea that Snowden, by giving up his entire life and making himself a refugee, isn't "taking heat" is an illogical talking point designed to smear him. You try fleeing your country permanently, leaving behind friends and family, and living stateless for weeks with the world's foremost superpower trying to bargain for you and tell me you're not "taking heat".
"jgalt212" takes that position, eh? Have you read the book from whence your name comes? Taking the heat aint exactly part of the objectivist stance. I'm no objectivist, but I am an activist. Sometimes going to jail is a useful part of activism. Sometimes it is a waste of time, money, and life.
I'd rather Manning were not in jail. The information he revealed is his activism. Act of civil disobedience with the intention of being arrested has its place...it definitely has its place. Many dear friends of mine were arrested at the Texas capitol during the recent anti-abortion bill fracas, and I fully support their actions (one chained herself to the railing in the gallery; absolutely amazing and inspiring and impressive given that state troopers were confiscating everything suspicious going into the gallery, including tampons and condoms...she managed to get chains and a lock in). Their arrest was a source of massive media attention, including front page of the Austin Statesman...and that was the goal: making people aware of what was happening at the legislature.
Manning didn't need to be arrested to bring that attention to the leaked information, and it's unfortunate that our government, all the way up to the president (who promised openness, transparency, and to defend whistleblowers), are cowardly enough to shoot the messenger rather than address the crimes revealed by these leaks.
I'm not willing to die because I think drug laws are too harsh (largely because I no longer use them), so obviously random people getting shot by mistake isn't a problem!
Never mind that I am willing to participate in less violent activism for that cause, I'm not a true scotsman.. er I mean activist.
Also, since I don't see you lining up to die for your stance on Snowden and Manning, you must not actually mean it - by your definition of course. Why should anyone care about it?
Throwing yourself upon a pyre is only furthers your cause when very specific conditions are met. For Rosa Parks and MLK, those conditions were met. For Snowden, they surely were not.
There is no reason to throw yourself upon a pyre if it does not further your cause, and indeed many reasons not to.
Why should someone have to lose their freedom for exposing another's wrongdoing? We should incentivize whistleblowers, not make them risk rotting in a jail cell for the rest of their lives.
Er, Manning would likely not have been caught without Lamo ratting him out. Manning 'sticking around' has been entirely outside of his control since that happened.
I think Manning probably lacked the sophistication to have as many options as Snowden.
Snowden, could have remained anonymous a lot longer, too, though probably not indefinitely. What do you think about him disclosing his identity before he had to?
I also don't think Snowden had the same options as Ellsberg to have his contributions to public debate so quickly recognized since there are different attitudes in Congress right now. Quite likely, as long as he remains safe for a few years, he'll get powerful senators as protectors, too.
Snowden's activism is quite different from MLK's so I don't think that's a very fair comparison. MLK was specifically advocating for breaking unjust laws. The whole point was to get arrested and then show the world "this is how African Americans are being treated." The point of Snowden's leak is to reveal unconstitutional spying, it's not necessarily about the plight of whistle-blowers. Getting himself arrested and put on trial does nothing to further his cause.
Here we go again with the "your convictions aren't real unless you're willing to be tortured, imprisoned, and murdered for them" bullshit. As if black people weren't actually oppressed until King was jailed in Birmingham.
"While the "aiding the enemy" charges (on which Manning was rightly acquitted) received the most attention from the mainstream media, the Espionage Act itself is a discredited relic of the WWI era, created as a tool to suppress political dissent and antiwar activism, and it is outrageous that the government chose to invoke it in the first place against Manning. Government employees who blow the whistle on war crimes, other abuses and government incompetence should be protected under the First Amendment.
We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy, while those responsible for the war crimes remain free. If the government equates being a whistleblower with espionage or aiding the enemy, what is the future of journalism in this country? What is the future of the First Amendment?
Manning’s treatment, prosecution, and sentencing have one purpose: to silence potential whistleblowers and the media as well. One of the main targets has been our clients, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, for publishing the leaks. Given the U.S. government’s treatment of Manning, Assange should be granted asylum in his home country of Australia and given the protections all journalists and publishers deserve.
We stand in solidarity with Bradley Manning and call for the government to take heed and end its assault on the First Amendment."
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-condemns-m...