#1 2011-01-22 01:18:23
and I've got sand in my clit
The commentary expresses the weakness of two generations removed from real external threat.
Last edited by Emmeran (2011-01-22 01:18:41)
Offline
#2 2011-01-22 01:43:21
I guess he shouldn't have done something stupid... like break the law.
Less likely you end up in a gulag when you honour your contracts and the laws of the land.
Offline
#3 2011-01-22 02:02:57
as we've always said: U Signed (the) Motherfucking Contract.
Break that oath and pay the price; this definitely isn't a Julian Assange discussion.
Offline
#4 2011-01-22 08:26:49
Having to surrender his clothing, etc. does not sound like an unreasonable precaution for the authorities to take in the case of an individual who is on suicide watch. Even being deprived of his vision (his glasses) can probably be justified in that context.
However, the article doesn't say how long Manning has been subjected to these conditions.
Emmeran's comment is basically right; but anyone who doesn't suspect that this particular prisoner is being made an example of is just being naive.
You military men--doesn't your oath specify that you must obey any lawful order? I'm pointing this out not to say that Manning has a legal leg to stand on; only to suggest that might be his POV.
Offline
#5 2011-01-22 09:40:38
As far as we know, the leaks have not damaged the US in any way at all, and in fact may well have helped. Just plain folks in Tunisia are quite happy with them. I may not be the sharpest crease in the suit but I have a pretty good idea of when I'm being played. The whole response stinks in the same way WTCB #7 still stinks, but my BSdar has been wrong before.
Military personnel must take an oath to obey lawful orders, but that defense didn't hold much water at Nuremberg. Now they must follow lawful orders provided the orders are morally defensible, which I admit is a tough standard to meet. I have a much easier job: All I have to do is decide who the military's boss should be and then vote.
Offline
#6 2011-01-22 10:11:38
This isn't a case of following a lawful order, had he been ordered to suppress public information that reasoning may have held some water. Remember he is being accused of intentionally seeking out and disseminating classified information, this far different from Nuremberg or My Lai; he wasn't breaking these orders to save lives rather to make a political statement.
He also understood (but maybe didn't fully realize) the price for his actions; he is sitting in a USMC Brig, being guarded by men who take oath and honor extremely seriously. It goes without saying that his treatment, while obeying the law to a T, will be harsh; but tha there is no way any treatment would be allowed which would give him even the slightest legal gambit.
It also should be mentioned that a diet of bread and water is still within the law whilst in the brig; the military is not designed to be a moddly-coddly world.
Offline
#7 2011-01-22 11:14:50
When did loose lips stop sinking ships?
Offline
#9 2011-01-22 15:51:21
Dmtdust wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/22/detainee.documents/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
Yes, lets keep all the secrets secret.
The U.S. military gave the ACLU the documents earlier in the week as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the rights group.
Damn that openess, further proof that they are trying to hide something.
Offline
#11 2011-01-22 17:40:54
Emmeran wrote:
It also should be mentioned that a diet of bread and water is still within the law whilst in the brig; the military is not designed to be a moddly-coddly world.
Scurvy shows up in about a month, beriberi in six weeks, and so forth. Lawful? I beg to differ.
Imagine how different the world might be if there'd been some gutsy whistleblower in the days when Saint JFK was starting the Vietnam War.
Offline
#12 2011-01-22 17:42:20
What Sig said.
Offline
#13 2011-01-22 18:19:19
Dmtdust wrote:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Some get it. Most don't.
Off course it's a racket; just look at North Korea.
Offline
#14 2011-01-22 18:25:32
sigmoid freud wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
It also should be mentioned that a diet of bread and water is still within the law whilst in the brig; the military is not designed to be a moddly-coddly world.
Scurvy shows up in about a month, beriberi in six weeks, and so forth. Lawful? I beg to differ.
Imagine how different the world might be if there'd been some gutsy whistleblower in the days when Saint JFK was starting the Vietnam War.
Max penalty is 3 days B&W combined with confinement; can not be combined with other punishments and only lawful whilst underway. Used mostly for attitude problems, does not harm the individual. The intention appears to be affirmation of authority - particularly useful in todays volunteer military.
Lawful? Ask the Supreme Court - it's been measured and found lawful. Welcome to the real world where people die from your actions/lack there of.
Offline
#15 2011-01-22 19:07:13
Emmeran wrote:
Welcome to the real world where people die from your actions/lack there of.
Welcome to the real world where "the decider" starts a war for stupid reasons, without having to explain himself.
W took us into a war on evidence that would never have stood up to examination in a US court murder trial. There's a deep need to question authority in our nation, considering who's in charge. Even right now, today.
Last edited by sigmoid freud (2011-01-22 19:24:28)
Offline
#16 2011-01-22 19:15:04
sigmoid freud wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
Welcome to the real world where people die from your actions/lack there of.
Welcome to the real world where "leaders" start wars for stupid reasons, without explaining themselves. Jingoism isn't a virtue.
And where detainees are stripped naked and held in solitary confinement except for when they're being shit on by 18 year old jarheads.
Offline
#17 2011-01-22 19:33:18
Tall Paul wrote:
And where detainees are stripped naked and held in solitary confinement except for when they're being shit on by 18 year old jarheads.
I edited my post considerably after Paul posted this, so I will say that the quoted text is accurate, and I agree with the comment.
Offline
#18 2011-01-22 23:22:23
And let's not forget that American law now states that whoever the President, lets say Sarah Palin for example, says is worthy of indefinite detention will be picked up and thrown into the pit without due process or hope of reprieve. Is that what you took an oath to defend?
Offline
#19 2011-01-22 23:48:28
George Orr wrote:
You military men--doesn't your oath specify that you must obey any lawful order? I'm pointing this out not to say that Manning has a legal leg to stand on; only to suggest that might be his POV.
Yes, it does. However, when you choose to disobey an order, you don't get to say "I think it's unlawful, so I refuse".
Well, you do get to say that, but the response in Canada is always this:
"I'm sorry you feel that way. You are under arrest and will be charged with disobeying an order, insubordination, and conduct unbecoming. Sergeant, escort this man to jail."
After which you will eventually be tried. If the order is determined by due military process to be illegal, you win - your record is cleared, you are released and go on about your happy way while they pimp-slap the guy who gave you the order. If you were an asshole about how you refused the order, you'll be pinned on one or both of the other two charges, although they're only likely to land you a few days in jail, a fine, and delay your promotions for the rest of your career.
If the order is determined to be legal, you stay right where you are, and have your whole life essentially destroyed.
A lot of people have the mistaken impression that the caveat that a soldier must not follow an illegal order permits a soldier to determine what orders are legal or not. Soldiers are always free to act their conscience, but they are always required to receive the consequences of their actions.
In Manning's case, he doesn't have a chance. He clearly broke the law, and even if he pulls the "well in my opinion it's an illegal war/situation/whatever" card, the tribunal is still going to tell him to go fuck himself. He should consider himself lucky. 50 years ago, they'd have executed him as a spy for what he did.
Offline
#20 2011-01-23 02:20:21
The whole Manning/Assange thing is ridiculous. I can't think of one American that actually knows what Glasnost was that would oppose it. It doesn't matter if they are from the left or the right. Suddenly when information about the governments goings on becomes public in our country we treat it as if it's a sacred cow. If you think it was right for the Soviet Union to allow it's people to know what it was doing, perhaps even to their expense, quit being hypocritical and apply the same reasoning to the U.S.. There has been a very large death toll along with trillions of dollars taken at the expense of Americans over the last century and it's only right that the people dying and paying the bill know why. In this modern age of information it's no longer acceptable to give the simplistic answer that "it's for their own good".
Offline
#21 2011-01-23 02:34:43
As the old order fades, as nations are re-submerged there is going to be a heap of resistance. This is but one phase. The nation state is artificial, and like static borders are all starting to fray.
Last edited by Dmtdust (2011-01-23 03:32:23)
Offline
#22 2011-01-23 02:58:00
If I remember correctly, the military can put you on a bread and water diet for 3 days. You have to fuck up for them to start thinking about that, and I think at that point you'll be dealing with worse punishment than that already.
Offline
#23 2011-01-23 12:22:50
The restricted diet (bread/water) is used only for the worst douchebags who won't behave themselves in prison, and it's monitored by a doctor.
I have issues with the whole Assange fiasco for a number of reasons...
1. It's been blown way, way out of proportion. For this I blame the media and the ignorant shitheels for which the wikileaks releases were actually news. Seriously. "Civilians killed in war zone" Fuck me! there's a revelation. "Diplomats talk shit behind people's back." Dammit, I'd never have imagined that one. "Politicians bullshit people with lies!" Fuck me sideways, you've got to be kidding! I actually pity anyone who thought that the wikileaks revelations were "news" in any possible way. I was waiting for other real society breakers like "Earth is actually known to be round." What kind of backward, illiterate, ignorant fuck do you have to be to actually find anything new and completely unknown in the wikileaks?
So let's drop any pretense of Wikileaks being some kind of forum for whistleblowers. No whistles have been blown. Not a single one. All that's been done is that some correspondence that would be relatively normal in any situation has been released solely for the purpose of making government officials look like douchebags in the press... like we didn't know they were douchebags already.
2. Assange is making a name for himself on the crimes of other people. He's not encouraging any kind of investigative journalism, uncovering deep hidden truths that have crucial ramifications across western society. No, he is merely encouraging pussies to break contracts and oaths in order to make a name for HIMSELF and make governments (mostly the US government) look silly. Assange is effectively sacrificing that American serviceman, for example. Assange has some kind of weird agenda dealing with striking down the US government. Make no mistake, he has no greater vision of cleaning up the world. It's all about his becoming famous at the expense of regular civil servants working for the USA, Canada and other places. He's prepared to lie and wreck people's lives to do it.
You don't see Assange and his minions, for example, working to uncover the sordid details of the Catholic church protecting boy-bum-banging bishops. Despite the fact that it is *KNOWN* that there is documented evidence of this (occasional small leaks of the same), and despite the fact that Assange would be hailed as a fucking hero of the free world for engineering a large release of damning evidence of Vatican complicity in protecting pedophiles and sqelching victims, he'd rather go after diplomats saying stuff about other diplomants that regular people say about their co-workers every fucking day.
With a bit of work, Wikileaks could destroy the anti-vax movement and have Jenny McCarthy sent to some gulag, I'm sure. By doing this thousands, perhaps millions of lives could be saved. Just get the documentation out that shows these clowns knew they were talking shit from day 1. Again, Assange could be a hero. But once again, doing this doesn't embarrass the US government, so he doesn't give a shit.
Wikileaks is all about boosting Assange's infamy on the back of embarrassed civil servants. It's not about doing anything for the public good.
3. Like it or not, governments require a certain level of secrecy to function effectively and represent the people. That's just a fact. I agree that it's a bit distasteful, but it seems to be 100% accurate. Just because idiots can't understand this doesn't make it wrong. Assange clearly falls into this category.
Through his actions, Assange will end up with a bullet in the ear. No, the US is not going to assassinate him, but he's succeeding in pissing off a lot of other countries that tend to solve issues that way. Do you think the US gov is going to work very hard to stop it if they hear that the Saudis or Israelis are sending a death squad after him?
Offline
#24 2011-01-23 12:56:35
Sorry, this isn't an Assange thread. This is about a twink who hid his sexuality to join the Army then discovering he hated the decision he had made outed himself to get a discharge under DADT then while waiting for discharge channeling his angst into a political mission. Finally in the end breaking the oath he took to the constitution and it's constituents and now reaping the just rewards for those acts.
It's a sad story in the end, aside from the trite info he leaked, he was a promising young man who couldn't come to grips with himself and has earned himself a literal lifetime of misery at Ft. Leavenworth.
Let's leave that twit Assange out of the discussion.
Offline
#25 2011-01-23 19:14:07
Emmeran wrote:
Finally in the end breaking the oath he took to the constitution and it's constituents and now reaping the just rewards for those acts.
Sounds like every politician there is to me.
Offline
#26 2011-01-23 19:19:53
Tall Paul wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
Finally in the end breaking the oath he took to the constitution and it's constituents and now reaping the just rewards for those acts.
Sounds like every politician there is to me.
Naw, they usually get away with it.
Offline
#27 2011-01-23 22:20:05
Catchy title.
Offline
#28 2011-01-24 01:04:07
doesyourpussyhurt wrote:
Catchy title.
Wow, the only worthwhile post in this entire thread.
Offline
#29 2011-01-24 03:46:45
peco wrote:
The restricted diet (bread/water) is used only for the worst douchebags who won't behave themselves in prison, and it's monitored by a doctor.
You are correct about those being put on a bread and water diet being monitored by medical personnel; How-Ever, you are in-correct about the punishment being reserved for only the worst. The punishment can only be administered to personnel at sea who are found guilty in Non-Judicial (Article 15, UCMJ) proceedings. So, you are basically talking about such minor offenses as absence from place of duty (Which can be as minor as being late reporting for duty) or disrespect to a Non-Commissioned Officer.
Offline
#30 2011-01-24 07:03:47
Decadence wrote:
peco wrote:
The restricted diet (bread/water) is used only for the worst douchebags who won't behave themselves in prison, and it's monitored by a doctor.
The punishment can only be administered to personnel at sea who are found guilty in Non-Judicial (Article 15, UCMJ) proceedings. So, you are basically talking about such minor offenses as absence from place of duty (Which can be as minor as being late reporting for duty) or disrespect to a Non-Commissioned Officer.
Oddly enough, while these offences may seem innocent enough to the layman they are life and mission threatening in a combat situation; very serious offences indeed.
If you don't like the rules then don't sign the contract.
Offline
#31 2011-01-24 10:33:42
Decadence wrote:
peco wrote:
The restricted diet (bread/water) is used only for the worst douchebags who won't behave themselves in prison, and it's monitored by a doctor.
You are correct about those being put on a bread and water diet being monitored by medical personnel; How-Ever, you are in-correct about the punishment being reserved for only the worst. The punishment can only be administered to personnel at sea who are found guilty in Non-Judicial (Article 15, UCMJ) proceedings. So, you are basically talking about such minor offenses as absence from place of duty (Which can be as minor as being late reporting for duty) or disrespect to a Non-Commissioned Officer.
I'm in Canada. We can give it to anyone in the military prison, and it's usually done if they're being a total douchebag. Here it has nothing to do with your crime, it's handed out for not behaving yourself in jail.
Offline
#32 2011-01-25 21:41:10
There is a disease of the human mind, called the metaphysical tendency, that causes man, after he has by a logical process abstracted the quality from an object, to be subject to a kind of hallucination that makes him take the abstraction for the real thing. This metaphysical tendency, in spite of the blows of positive science, has still strong root in the minds of the majority of our contemporary fellowmen. It has such influence that many consider government an actual entity, with certain given attributes of reason, justice, equity, independent of the people who compose the government.
For those who think in this way, government, or the State, is the abstract social power, and it represents, always in the abstract, the general interest. It is the expression of the rights of all and is considered as limited by the rights of each. This way of understanding government is supported by those interested, to whom it is an urgent necessity that the principle of authority should be maintained and should always survive the faults and errors of the persons who exercise power. — Errico Malatesta
Offline
#33 2011-01-26 09:31:33
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Offline
#35 2011-02-06 18:07:53
was an attempt to expose the conditions soldiers were living under
That article is the definition of "unclear on the concept"
Offline
#37 2011-03-16 15:25:46
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/16/k … tml?hpt=T2
Quite a conumdrum here, they can't put a traitor into general population it's too dangerous.
Offline
#38 2011-03-16 16:07:36
George Orr wrote:
Having to surrender his clothing, etc. does not sound like an unreasonable precaution for the authorities to take in the case of an individual who is on suicide watch. Even being deprived of
Detention of any description sucks. Ask anyone who's clocked a single day inside, alone or with cellmates. That dismisses most everyone here, those of you who need to stfu.
Manning's treatment is punitive and counter productive, unless you want to create a martyr. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Ok, fuck rule of law. I get it.
Offline
#39 2011-03-16 16:18:38
Choad wrote:
Manning's treatment is punitive and counter productive..
Punitive? Yes. Counter productive? Not if your goal is punitive treatment. He has pissed off nearly every person who has taken the military oath, and that includes his jailers. I doubt there are many who view him as a martyr. They may pity the young idiot for being idealistic and foolish, but only other idealistic fools are arguing he was within his rights.
Offline
#40 2011-03-16 16:42:04
phreddy wrote:
Punitive? Yes. Counter productive? Not if your goal is punitive treatment. He has pissed off nearly every person who has taken the military oath, and that includes his jailers.
Which makes us no better than your choice of any other failed state and makes government by Wall Street for Wall Street of Wall Street indistinguishable from North Korea.
Offline
#41 2011-03-16 16:42:48
What Choad said.
Offline
#42 2011-03-16 17:23:55
choad wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Punitive? Yes. Counter productive? Not if your goal is punitive treatment. He has pissed off nearly every person who has taken the military oath, and that includes his jailers.
Which makes us no better than your choice of any other failed state and makes government by Wall Street for Wall Street of Wall Street indistinguishable from North Korea.
I'm not sure what Wall Street, that liberal bastion, has to do with our treatment of traitors. But there is one important universal rule of incarceration. It is always open season on cop killers, pedophiles, and traitors. It makes no difference what country you are in, the rule is pretty much universal.
Offline
#43 2011-03-16 17:48:44
Wall Street backs (read bribes) the party in power. The street doesn't have time for losers, and at the time that article was written the Republicans were losers.
Offline
#44 2011-03-16 17:53:01
phreddy wrote:
I'm not sure what Wall Street, that liberal bastion, has to do with our treatment of traitors. But there is one important universal rule of incarceration. It is always open season on cop killers, pedophiles, and traitors. It makes no difference what country you are in, the rule is pretty much universal.
Like speaking to a brick wall, isn't it Dusty?
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#45 2011-03-16 17:59:39
The thing about the UCMJ is that once your signature is freely given, you are under a different set of rules. If you don't figure that out; then you are a fucking idiot.
Offline
#46 2011-03-16 18:11:01
MSG Tripps wrote:
The thing about the UCMJ is that once your signature is freely given, you are under a different set of rules. If you don't figure that out; then you are a fucking idiot.
High profile mistreatments are especially dumb. The world points, lookit at those pricks, while homegrown homophobes wince at a twink named manning and itch to fuck him. What a world.
Offline
#47 2011-03-16 18:29:38
choad wrote:
High profile mistreatments are especially dumb. The world points, lookit at those pricks, while homegrown homophobes wince at a twink named manning and itch to fuck him. What a world.
Perhaps. What current regulations are being broken?
The world points how? What part of the world can honestly point?
If you must, try to get the regulations changed. So far, the rules appear to have not been broken.
Offline
#48 2011-03-16 19:35:45
We all know the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law, even if the law is the UCMJ. We also all know that in cases like this, just like in a Coca-Cola or a political ad campaign, appearance trumps reality for most of the rubes out there in the world. So what are we arguing about? Manning allegedly fucked up, and the military are allegedly fucking him. What they should have done is visibly lived up to the ideals they claim to be upholding instead of living down to the Ruff Tuff Creampuff rep.
Offline
#49 2011-03-16 19:45:27
Tall Paul wrote:
We all know ....
What is it we all know?
Offline
#50 2011-03-16 20:00:59
MSG Tripps wrote:
Tall Paul wrote:
We all know ....
What is it we all know?
For one thing, how many trolls live under this particular bridge.
Offline
