Well, I for one have been gassed and beaten for protesting against the wars. I doubt I am the only one to survive similar violence.
So either this other poster is a troll who is ironically aiding/enabling this whole violent system, or this other poster is a toady who is honestly aiding/enabling this whole violent system.
George Washington said âGovernment is like fire: it makes a good servant but a bad master.â Letting government go after whistleblowers because they are âaiding the enemyâ is the government as master. Just because some people reflexively kowtow to any authority figure doesnât mean it is a good idea.
Thereâs a very big difference between âwhistleblowersâ who alert people to misconduct and people who leak classified information that puts security in jeopardy. Letâs not lionize them.
Manning broke the law and plead guilty.
If you want to argue that the law should be selectively applied, then go right ahead. If you want to argue that the judge who convicted Manning made a mistake, then make that argument. If you want to argue that Obama should have pardoned Manning, make that case.
But, the place you start is this : Manning broke the law, plead guilty and was convicted.
other than to say that Obama isnât responsible for the things he said because he didnât mean them they way he said them
Obamaâs record shows that he said exactly what I said he did.
Or maybe This Other Poster is neither a troll nor a toady (nice name calling! Very mature!) but is someone who feels that holding up people who do foreign spiesâ work for them and are sloppily âmaking information freeâ are criminals who deserve to be arrested. Thereâs smarter ways to whistleblow or change the system than leaking classified information to the press.
The sets have a large overlap. Besides, the âjeopardizing securityâ argument in the listed cases was proven false a number of times.
Why not? They did a good job for We the People, letting us peek at some small shards of raw, unprocessed, ugly truth, truth that we usually can not see through the smokescreen of sanitized official press releases. The government decided for the wars in question, not the people; itâs not their war and it is not even in their name.
The song of democracy should be sung loud and bold, by a chorus of Deep Throats.
Not quite as simple as that.
[quote]She was given credit for 1,293 days of pretrial confinement, including 112 days for her treatment at Quantico,
{emphasis added}[/quote]
This could be rephrased as â112 days credit for the mistreatment she received at Quantico.â
3+ years in prison prior to the commencement of the trial can reasonably be assumed to take a lot of the fight out of most mortals.
Should? I would argue that it absolutely has been selectively applied, to the detriment of Manning and all the other whistleblowers named upthread, and to the benefit of the more powerful people whose abuses were exposed.
Right now the law has been selectively enforced, protecting the criminals in high places while prosecuting the whistleblowers who expose them.
You were implying that dissidents are aiding the enemy, which makes me wonder whose enemy, since they exposed the governmentâs crimes, and since the police/government have been known to describe protesters as the internal enemy.
You are an apologist for violence against dissidents, so either troll or toadie, and worse, [or completely unaware of what you are doing].
I donât know, instead of noisy/divisive public trials/incarceration,cant we just build some nice little âresortsâ in Alaska where we can silently ship them?
Mod note: Knock of the snark and stay on topic.
Thatâs a fantastic observation, but, again, almost completely worthless in a conversation as to whether or not whistle blowers should have more protections, as promised, or less, as demonstrated.
Okay, since youâre going to ignore his promises to protect whistle blowers, this has officially become as useful as a conversation about geology with a young-earth creationist. So, reply if you want. Iâm quite finished. Adios Amoeba!
Question: Why is snark/humor the issue, rather than everything else in that last discussion?
Youâve yet to provide evidence of who or what kind of security has been put in jeopardy.
Again, as long as people respect a law that says, âBad behavior by the government is classified. Reporting on bad behavior is therefore reporting classified information,â then you get the secretive, abusive government you deserve.
I tried to knock off the Snark but it turned into a Boojum . . .
Once again: Iâm talking about the article. The one that this thread is about. The one that specifically references people who have leaked information that aided countries we are at war with.
Please, please, read that article.
No. I am not an apologist for violence. Nor am I a troll, nor a toadie, nor worse.
I am specifically stating my belief, which is that stealing and leaking classified information from the government is a sloppy way to enact âjusticeâ and is a criminal act that should not be deemed heroic across the board. Are there good uses for whistleblowing? Absolutely. Are some leaks brave and useful? Absolutely. Are there good reasons to lock up a lot of people who leak classified information? Yes, absolutely.
Right, read it. Are we at war with Iran? What other countries are we at war with which are mentioned in the article?
for someone truly worthy.