Diplomatic cables was just the most recent batch. Before that there a bunch of after action reports, analysis, info about sources, informants, intel. All this stuff is extremely valuable, the same way simply knowing the rough location of a unit of troops is valuable.
"if a general turns against a king for the good of their country...."
All you're really pointing out here is that might makes right, winners write the history books, etc. People who over through their government are "rebels", those who fail are "traitors" all that. I really hope this is not news to anybody.
"If that were true then military personnel would be required to be complicit in the most heinous crimes."
You're confusing this with the right to disobey an unlawful order. I respect this principal, though I'll tell you it doesn't usually work in practice. Regardless, it doesn't translate to a right to undermine your side if you feel there are wrongs being committed (and there are ALWAYS wrongs being committed). That's still treason.
The enemy is trying to kill you, facts, etc.
Who's not talking about facts? If we're in a battle, you're on my side, you start tossing the enemy magazines, I'm gonna kill you. I don't need to get shot by those bullets first.
"Perhaps you can explain how it's wholly appropriate to kill someone when you don't believe it's needed"
Now you are just trying to misrepresent what I said. Death is an appropriate penalty for his crimes, it would not be unreasonable. Due to some mitigating factors (mostly youth, naivete, and ignornance) I would probably rather that not be the result. His case is sad. He still should of known better, and yes, he needs to be "made an example of" for all the same reasons movie villains make examples of people (so that no one else is stupid enough to do the same thing) but his case is still sad.
See now, if that was the only thing the kid exposed, we'd be having a very different conversation. But it's not. I STILL say the concept of "whistle blower" either has no place, or a much more specific and limited place, than it does in civilian life. But that's not all the kid let loose, so we're talking about different things, now.
A) Intent is determined in a court of law, in this case it will be a military court.
B) Intent is not required for all crimes, though it often mitigates. Think of "manslaughter". You can do wrong, without intending to do wrong, and be punished for it, sometimes severely.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
I think you would like to derail a conversation about treason into one on IP law, stealing vs infringing all that. I actually agree with you on the definition of stealing, or not, of information, but the impact on ownership is not in any way the concern here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
I think you would like to derail a conversation about treason into one on IP law, stealing vs infringing all that. I actually agree with you on the definition of stealing, or not, of information, but the impact on ownership is not in any way the concern here.
*We are at war. Officially, actually, in all sorts of ways, including how the GI bill counts time served and so forth. (I should know) Point is, Declarations of War are essentially obsolete, they're not used anymore, don't expect they will be. You can have all sorts opinions on that fact, I do, but it is a fact, and thus the lack of a "declaration" is not material to this conversation.
*#2 is provably false.
*I also disagree with this, though it's less definite, but it's also not the point. Point is, Manning gave the enemy ammo. Even if the enemy missed and failed to kill anyone with it, that doesn't mean giving the enemy ammo isn't enough to damn you. It's "aiding and abetting the enemy" not "successfully assisting the enemy to a win".
*Military personal LITERALLY do not have the same rights that a private citizen does. They are subject to the UCMJ, civilians are not, and penalties according to UCMJ certainly include death. Penalties for treason also include death under civilian law, but the standards are different. Did you know that PUNCHING a superior officer can literally get you a death sentence in time of war? It almost never does, unless someone assaulted their superior on the battlefield, but the rules are there, and they have been used.
* Yes, yes, I do, in the military at least. It simply wouldn't work otherwise. The rules are different, NEED to be different, when there is an organized group trying to kill you. Laxity, freedom to act other than at organized direction, disobedience on even small things, can lead to comrades dying. There's a reason boot camp breaks you down.
Well, they're obviously talking about the information. This isn't really the place for an IP conversation....."aiding and Abetting" is ever so much bigger an issue than that.
Second of all, you all can get upset about the whole declaration of war thing, I don't even disagree. But it's pretty tangential to the "is he traitor" thing. It's also a larger subject than any of the recent wars......I don't believe we've been actually declared war on anyone since Korea, so you're fighting some 60 years of history at this point.
Numerous posters have pointed out why the impression the Rolling Stone article, and by extension you, gave is probably wrong. At the very least it makes the information highly suspect, if not disproving it outright, and never mind that I'm sure most of us would agree wired is a lot more credible a source than rolling stone.
You are showing a consistent liberal bias in your posts, posts that fall outside the technology subjects you pretend to cover. You consistently insist you are not so biased. Do you want to prove that, or not?
So, look, Mike, I don't feel you really responded to any of my criticisms here.
All you did was say "Yeah, right" several times to my calling you a democrat (which was, I have admitted, a bit of hyperbolic trolling on my part, you're a liberal by instinct, your political affiliation is as you wish.)
You didn't really rebut anything else I have said. Saying "It was not lazy reporting" is not a rebuttal by the way.
By contrast, I think I responded fully to everything you leveled at me. (The anonymous, but logged in post, directly after, was mine. You know there are better comment systems out there, right?) Don't you owe me the same?
Mike, I think you should consider, from a game-theory perspective, how misplaced your feelings are. Those you disagree with are much happier to have you largely non-particapatory, than voting against them but somehow "counting" on the rolls of a particular party.
Just cuz a stat gets quoted by reporters (% of registered repubs vs dems) doesn't make it an especially important number, and would think you, more than most, would appreciate that.
Are we talking Kentucky, or nation-wide? You do realize these things vary by state?
Most states, though, you can't vote in any primary unless you're a member of that party. It's too keep people from stuffing the ballot box of the opposing party with votes for a bad candidate, so that they're own candidate wins.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
You're right, I meant "equating". "Equivocating" has a much nicer ring, though...
Back to point, well I disagree pretty directly. I think the NYT Op-ed was saying they were the same thing, and then Mike was echoing that.
As far as NASCAR political, well, I suppose nothing can truly be said to be neutral in this world. Sure, I imagine they have a more right leaning audience (if only do to regional popularity). That's arguably what makes them a good venue for the army to recruit. But the organizers of the sport don't take any particular political position (unless we're counting "support the troops"?). NPR on the other hand has biased reporting to a degree, that many consider it to stray into political advocacy.
I guess the central difference, is that if NPR was selling ads, I wouldn't have any problem with them buying those ads, much as the census did for all those other stations (well, I might if it still came to 20% of NPRs budget, that would be weird). But that's not what's happening. The federal government SPONSORS public broadcasting, in the traditional sense (not in the much looser sense of buying ads) and it's Wrong. It actually represents, over the years, democrats funneling tax dollars into what amounts to soft-voiced campaign fund.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re:
You're misinformed, sir.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: name for it other whistleblower..
Whistlefrag?
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re:
All you're really pointing out here is that might makes right, winners write the history books, etc. People who over through their government are "rebels", those who fail are "traitors" all that. I really hope this is not news to anybody.
"If that were true then military personnel would be required to be complicit in the most heinous crimes."
You're confusing this with the right to disobey an unlawful order. I respect this principal, though I'll tell you it doesn't usually work in practice. Regardless, it doesn't translate to a right to undermine your side if you feel there are wrongs being committed (and there are ALWAYS wrongs being committed). That's still treason.
The enemy is trying to kill you, facts, etc.
Who's not talking about facts? If we're in a battle, you're on my side, you start tossing the enemy magazines, I'm gonna kill you. I don't need to get shot by those bullets first.
"Perhaps you can explain how it's wholly appropriate to kill someone when you don't believe it's needed"
Now you are just trying to misrepresent what I said. Death is an appropriate penalty for his crimes, it would not be unreasonable. Due to some mitigating factors (mostly youth, naivete, and ignornance) I would probably rather that not be the result. His case is sad. He still should of known better, and yes, he needs to be "made an example of" for all the same reasons movie villains make examples of people (so that no one else is stupid enough to do the same thing) but his case is still sad.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Bradley...
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re: Re: One can hope
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re: Re:
B) Intent is not required for all crimes, though it often mitigates. Think of "manslaughter". You can do wrong, without intending to do wrong, and be punished for it, sometimes severely.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re:
*We are at war. Officially, actually, in all sorts of ways, including how the GI bill counts time served and so forth. (I should know) Point is, Declarations of War are essentially obsolete, they're not used anymore, don't expect they will be. You can have all sorts opinions on that fact, I do, but it is a fact, and thus the lack of a "declaration" is not material to this conversation.
*#2 is provably false.
*I also disagree with this, though it's less definite, but it's also not the point. Point is, Manning gave the enemy ammo. Even if the enemy missed and failed to kill anyone with it, that doesn't mean giving the enemy ammo isn't enough to damn you. It's "aiding and abetting the enemy" not "successfully assisting the enemy to a win".
*Military personal LITERALLY do not have the same rights that a private citizen does. They are subject to the UCMJ, civilians are not, and penalties according to UCMJ certainly include death. Penalties for treason also include death under civilian law, but the standards are different. Did you know that PUNCHING a superior officer can literally get you a death sentence in time of war? It almost never does, unless someone assaulted their superior on the battlefield, but the rules are there, and they have been used.
* Yes, yes, I do, in the military at least. It simply wouldn't work otherwise. The rules are different, NEED to be different, when there is an organized group trying to kill you. Laxity, freedom to act other than at organized direction, disobedience on even small things, can lead to comrades dying. There's a reason boot camp breaks you down.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re: Re:
A) Anime quotes are notoriously nonsensical. (I used to think it was the culture gap, but no....it's really just the anime)
B) This particular quote is pretty vapid. Punish those who stand up to you? Yes, that's the usual way of things.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Second of all, you all can get upset about the whole declaration of war thing, I don't even disagree. But it's pretty tangential to the "is he traitor" thing. It's also a larger subject than any of the recent wars......I don't believe we've been actually declared war on anyone since Korea, so you're fighting some 60 years of history at this point.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re:
On the post: Army Propaganda Unit Ordered To Illegally Target US Senators With Psy-Ops Propaganda
Mike, seriously, time for an update
You are showing a consistent liberal bias in your posts, posts that fall outside the technology subjects you pretend to cover. You consistently insist you are not so biased. Do you want to prove that, or not?
On the post: Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member
Re: Re: Mike..........
All you did was say "Yeah, right" several times to my calling you a democrat (which was, I have admitted, a bit of hyperbolic trolling on my part, you're a liberal by instinct, your political affiliation is as you wish.)
You didn't really rebut anything else I have said. Saying "It was not lazy reporting" is not a rebuttal by the way.
By contrast, I think I responded fully to everything you leveled at me. (The anonymous, but logged in post, directly after, was mine. You know there are better comment systems out there, right?) Don't you owe me the same?
On the post: Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
Between buying ads and outright paying for 20% of a company's budget?
That's a real similarity?
On the post: Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member
Re: Re: Disenfranchised yourself
Just cuz a stat gets quoted by reporters (% of registered repubs vs dems) doesn't make it an especially important number, and would think you, more than most, would appreciate that.
On the post: Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most states, though, you can't vote in any primary unless you're a member of that party. It's too keep people from stuffing the ballot box of the opposing party with votes for a bad candidate, so that they're own candidate wins.
On the post: Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
Back to point, well I disagree pretty directly. I think the NYT Op-ed was saying they were the same thing, and then Mike was echoing that.
As far as NASCAR political, well, I suppose nothing can truly be said to be neutral in this world. Sure, I imagine they have a more right leaning audience (if only do to regional popularity). That's arguably what makes them a good venue for the army to recruit. But the organizers of the sport don't take any particular political position (unless we're counting "support the troops"?). NPR on the other hand has biased reporting to a degree, that many consider it to stray into political advocacy.
I guess the central difference, is that if NPR was selling ads, I wouldn't have any problem with them buying those ads, much as the census did for all those other stations (well, I might if it still came to 20% of NPRs budget, that would be weird). But that's not what's happening. The federal government SPONSORS public broadcasting, in the traditional sense (not in the much looser sense of buying ads) and it's Wrong. It actually represents, over the years, democrats funneling tax dollars into what amounts to soft-voiced campaign fund.
Next >>