Well, I know she is a she now, but I also know this was a recent declaration, and that at the time of enlistment and the crime itself his self declared gender was male. And I was carefully talking about what that service person knew was their sworn duty at that moment they chose to ignore their duty.At which specific point he was a self declared male.
So in fact, I was genuinely trying to be inclusive of the persons own intents as they evolved. Did you note I wrote [quote=“tigkiwi, post:39, topic:94829”]
Manning, by the way, was a service person
[/quote] to do exactly that?.
Tomorrow, if I become aware that she has identified as male, I will cheerfully use that pronoun for her from that point on. And if I find somewhere where she specifies she ALWAYS has considered it some particular way, then so will I.
It isn’t my place to retcon the persons various assertions, and I wouldn’t even want to, quite happy to offer her the same kindness she would offer me.
What does that mean, duty to report to the people?.
Because if we know a crime has been committed, we report it to the police. That is the limit of our duty. We don’t break into the files of the criminal, take their address book, check stubs, and diary, and carry that to the police, we certainly don’t carry it to the press.
In this case, you would report to the FBI I guess.
But what they did was illegal, they thought their moral standing made it right . . . but then tried to dodge their penalties. Which any common criminal would do.[quote=“Michael_R_Smith, post:40, topic:94829”]
Whats (sic) an oath, anyway?
[/quote]
Nothing, to some people, certainly. Some might never have heard the term.
First, I think the situation is quite different from the Iran hostage crisis. The Iranians wanted to embarrass Carter, I suspect, at least partly because he made his Christianity so visible (that isn’t a criticism, I rather liked him) and it suited their narrative to present a Christian democratic president as weak and ineffectual. Reagan at least would be a consistent enemy who would help them keep the people on side by presenting the US as a threat to Iranians.
Snowden is a more complicated phenomenon. I am sure there are widely differing views within the Russian establishment as to what should be done about him. Reports of those views probably get out from time to time. Which is more important - for the next potential Snowden to see Russia as a safe haven, or to get a few seconds of the Trump attention span?
The next Snowden, instructed by the previous examples, is likely to do a better job of disappearing with the goods. Trump is pissing off a lot of educated people. If Russia continues to look after Snowden, who knows what might fall into their hands next, and this time without any publicity? Against that, if they do return Snowden, it will provoke argument in the US. Trump might even not see it as a win. He might see it as the Russkies stirring up Liberals against him and them.
It’s tempting to see Russians as chess players - do I need this pawn? No; then I can sacrifice it in pursuit of the longer game. But the reverse of that is, do I appear to protect this apparently useless pawn so I get my opponent to fall into a trap?
The government broke the law, not Snowden. He’s a witness.
Trans woman here. Surprise! It is not kindness to continue using male pronouns for the past. For many of us it is misgendering and it is very distressing. I can ETA later on why but honestly? I don’t owe you that. My word should be enough. Unless she says she prefers male pronouns for the past, don’t use them. That’s kindness.
I think Trump knows who owns him. I think it’s the only thing he knows.
I’m not calling you an idiot, for all love. I’m trying to determine your parameters for anarchy because a lot of conservatives (not necessarily you) have labelled these peaceful protests undemocratic and run by “rabid feminists”. I asked because you said “everyone shouting out their causes then ducking for cover” and that sent up a red flag to me, suggesting that you were equating anarchy with protest.
You just seem to have a very idealistic view of the rule of law, especially now that 45 does not care for the rule of law only what he decides what’s right and wrong. They might or might not be breaking the law, that is not for us to decide, but the rule of law has failed chelsea manning in a spectacular way. You don’t imprison someone for 3 years in solitary confinement 23 hours per day before they even go to trial, that’s not following the rule of law, that’s purely revenge. But i agree with @lasermike026 here, the government broke the law and they both did their civic duty to bring it into the light and to hold them accountable. I’m reminded of the peelian principles when any discussion of law and order comes up but unfortunately we don’t seem to be doing too good a job abiding by them.
- To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
- To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
- To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
- To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
- To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
- To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
- To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
- To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
- To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
That remains to be seen. And to see it, we need a court case.
You and I agree the government broke the law, no doubt, but we are not the judges society has agreed on, just that simple.
No point being upset with me, I am just pointing out a pure simple fact. Your, and my, ethical judgement isn’t the rule of law. Any more than that of our ideological opponents’ is. To protect us from one and anothers enthusiasms, we have legislatures. They are not perfect, but we can work on that by offering ourselves up for causes we believe in. But doing so doesn’t commit the rest of society to agree with us, it is a gamble. These guys tried to have their cake and not have to eat it too.
Some laws tread on some individuals wished for rights. Some tread on many individuals wished for rights. This is the necessity of living together in our millions.
I don’t owe you anything either except civility and taking you at your word. Which you are not according me, you realise.[quote=“politeruin, post:48, topic:94829”]
I’m not calling you an idiot, for all love. I’m trying to determine your parameters for anarchy because a lot of conservatives (not necessarily you) have labelled these peaceful protests undemocratic and run by “rabid feminists”.
[/quote]
WOW. What makes me a conservative?. I was a died in the wool communist from the age of reason. Are you saying only the right believes in the rule of law?. Too bad for all the civil rights laws of the world eh?. You know, the ones the Left brought in?. The ones that my people, for one, have often gone to the barricades to protect. Try to free your mind from rigid views, friend, it leads smarter people that you into error every day.
Nope, Service people are held to strict rules, by society, as a trade off in that we let them murder. They have to be held accountable, especially the special ones like Manning who have extreme measures and abilities to damage our society through their position.
So I take it that you don’t believe in civil disobedience then.
Snowden has stated that seeing how completely legitimate whistleblowers in the NSA were treated in the last 15 years by the government, as well as his concerns being blown off when raised, made it clear that “going through channels” wouldn’t do a damn thing. You can say “Too bad, he should have followed the law anyway” but that’s going to be a pretty hard sell given what he exposed (monitoring of all US citizens illegally).
When I was sixteen, 1981, I was first on a barricade for a cause. Didn’t get arrested simply because instead I got my scalp split by a baton, and my leg medium bitten by a police dog. The police detained me, didn’t want to deal with me or the three other people under age with wounds I saw sitting by me, (probably a pre-emptive directive from the government of the day) took our names and handed us over to some church types and told to not come back.
The protests slowly convinced the government that supporting foreign racist governments was bad. President Mandala made a point of singling our stand out for praise.
The next year we came out twice to protest Nuke ships.
So, nah, you take it wrong, in fact, it seems to me you take it on your own ideological convictions. Only people who agree with you entirely, can be moral. You a conservative? /irony
Well, clearly you’re a telepath and read minds.
You’re not arguing with people in good faith here. Good luck with that.
[quote=“tigkiwi, post:39, topic:94829”]
If they really thought it was vital, they ought to have put their own freedom on the line about it. I say this because OTHERWISE there is no point where the rights of society are protected from its servants. You and I no doubt agree that Manning and Snowden did good, but that is not the way you run laws, having them up for barter and quibbles to suit people individually.
The only way bad laws get changed, is by someone standing up to be counted.
[/quote] and
No, I am not the one arguing in bad faith. People saying that I don’t believe in civil disobedience, when I have repeatedly said I even think it is MORAL and duty . . . that does seem like a ploy at least, if not specifically bad faith.
I sense you feel attacked by me. I’ll give you my reply was aggressive, but this is a touchy subject for me. You were arguing it’s a kindness to misgender trans people under certain conditions (whether you are aware that’s what it equates to or not). Its not to me or any of the women I know, and I wanted to make that clear.
Fine. I am glad to take your opinion on the subject as one to be guided by, in the future, and thank you for the offering of it. I was merely doing what I reasoned out to be civil behaviour in a complexity.
I am very glad we have slowly raised ourselves from that horrible past, and remain committed to a better future.
We have a ways to go, but I really know we have come far. ( for a certain value of “we” of course. 
)
Done. (Or at least the dominoes are falling).
But we (think we) did it to ourselves.
[ETA: Yeah, I should probably do reading the political streams late at night. It brings the fatalist/cynic out in me.]
Woah. I didn’t know if you are a conservative which is why i said ‘not necessarily you’, but your viewpoint has a distinctly conservative leaning, to me anyway. Calling someone conservative is not an accusation.
Am i saying only the right believes in the rule of law? Have i implied anywhere i’m saying this? No, i’m not saying this but about this so called ‘rule of law’ you keep mentioning: the jim crow laws were once the rule of law, going to prison for being gay was once the rule of law, not allowing women to vote was once the rule of law… the rule of law doesn’t seem like this never changing, pristine thing to me. You seem to think, or at least you imply through your words, that todays rule of law is set in stone and can never be changed. It seems to me that you are the one who has a rigid view on this, not myself.
Yes they are held to strict rules but this does not give them carte blanche to kill indiscriminately, they should be held to a higher responsibility than that.
“they should be held to a higher responsibility than that.”
They are. Well, generally they are, except for the generals.
Key phrase there. They should always be. No exceptions.
As he explained in Citizen Four, his stance is a result of the rampant lawlessness of the NSA and the treatment of previous whistleblowers.
