If WikiLeaks Suspect Manning Is Legally Guilty, What Punishment?
Displaying poll results.25704 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6423 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
SW Holiday Special (Score:4, Informative)
Is unconstitutional Cruel & Unusual Punishment
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:SW Holiday Special (Score:2)
However, I suspect you could legally sentence him to community service, which is not unusual at all, and make him produce a two-hour documentary on the making of the Star Wars Holiday Special, plus an extra hour's worth of inane "special features" for the DVD. Since he'd be producing something, it would technically be a service to the public and thus I imagine it would probably fall under standard community service guidelines, provided some suitably public-interest non-profit group were overseeing them and signing off on the work.
(The actual *usefulness* to the public of the performed service is subjective and therefore irrelevant. People doing community service are routinely made to do things that don't really accomplish anything meaningful or necessary. When we have people in to do community service at the public library, for example, we never EVER give them anything important to do, because if it mattered we wouldn't trust them to do it. We generally just assign them meaningless busywork, like "straightening" the books on the shelves in the non-fiction section. It counts as community service because we serve the public and they're doing what we asked of them.)
Note that cruel punishments have always been permissible as long as they're not unusual. Many people consider prison to be cruel, for example (heck, practically any punishment can be considered cruel just by virtue of the fact that it's a punishment -- just ask the person being punished), but it has always been considered legally acceptable, because it's a normal, standard punishment, not something unusual. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure community service has become sufficiently well established to fall in the same legal category.
Of course, if you want to be really nasty, you'd forget about the SW Holiday Special and instead make him produce a documentary on the history of the Buddy's Carpet advertising campaign.
Re:SW Holiday Special (Score:2)
Episode 1.
Life in Prison (Score:2)
Here is the list of charges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bradley_Manning#Listing_of_charges:_First_set [wikipedia.org]
He won't spend another day as a free man.
agreed (Score:4, Insightful)
you are probably right. military law is generally very harsh. I don't know what that guy was thinking, as a civilian you can get away with a lot more.
I think the vote was on what we think he deserves, not what he will actually get as punishment.
Re:agreed (Score:2)
And then - look at what some of the people did that was revealed - what were they thinking.
Consider the amount of stupidity involved and money wasted on outing Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Re:agreed (Score:4, Insightful)
People are more interested in how we're going to punish wikileaks than the US's little wars. Feel free to scream your protest against the Iraq war from the roof tops, I don't think anyone really gives a crap anymore.
"Military law" -a bit of an oxymoron? (Score:2)
It would seem that "military" or "police" are people called to use "force" - which is when law, diplomacy, deal-making, arm-twisting, etc are no longer options, for whatever reason, by whatever side. As such, once everyone has gone down that path, applying "law" as a rule for choosing courses of action is, well, after the moment for that has passed.
Although there are "laws" in almost every activity - even among some criminal goups.
Re:agreed (Score:4, Interesting)
Presumably he was thinking his principles and moral compass meant doing what's right meant more to him than any personal losses he may suffer as a result. It's a shame there aren't more people like him, war would be a thing of the past if soldiers had the guts to follow their own moral compass.
Re:agreed (Score:2)
Hear! Hear! I wish I had modpoints.
Re:Life in Prison (Score:2)
He won't spend another day as a free man.
Most of those are article 134, "General Article", which could mean anything. I suppose most of the people found guilty under that suffer nothing more than a dishonorable discharge. Except for one charge of aiding the enemy, the others are failure to obey orders, which also normally do not have such a hard punishment.
Re:One option missing: Whatever the laws say (Score:4, Insightful)
But as citizens in a democracy, we can express our opinions on what our laws should stipulate.
Re:One option missing: Whatever the laws say (Score:2)
in fact, the Constitution specifically allows the president to issue pardons except in cases of impeachment.
Re:One option missing: Whatever the laws say (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps Obama should imitate Bush and commute the sentence. It's basically the same crime as the one Libby did.
Huge difference:
Libby committed his crimes to further the political goals of the administration that was in power at the time.
Manning, (if guilty) committed his crimes to expose the truth and reveal hypocrisy in the government.
I don't think he can expect any executive mercy.
Re:One option missing: Whatever the laws say (Score:2)
I don't think he can expect any executive mercy.
Yet he deserves it more. Libby's commuted sentence was nepotism or corruption. Commuting Manning's sentence would send a signal that the US still cares about truth and freedom, instead of merely power and control.
Re:One option missing: Whatever the laws say (Score:2)
Still cares? Still?! I don't think that they ever did.
Re:One option missing: Whatever the laws say (Score:2)
>>Libby committed his crimes to further the political goals of the administration that was in power at the time.
Wait, wasn't Libby the guy that was thrown in jail after the zealous prosecutor realized the entire Valerie Plame leak didn't have to do anything at all with Cheny, but wanted blood anyway?
Re:One option missing: Whatever the laws say (Score:2)
Manning, (if guilty) committed his crimes to expose the truth and reveal hypocrisy in the government.
Manning committed his crime as retaliation for being fired over his sexual orientation. You can try to label him as some kind of martyr of freedom, but that's simply not the case, whether you agree with his actions or not.
No congressional medal of honor option? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, append a few million reward for his services to freedom to the above option.
Re:No congressional medal of honor option? (Score:3, Insightful)
You sully the Medal even with this suggestion. Better men have fought and died for less. Pissed off clerk != and will never = COH.
Re:No congressional medal of honor option? (Score:2)
Also, he would have to appear as a prosecution witness in the trials of many.
If he acted out of principle, he would want to.
Re:No congressional medal of honor option? (Score:5, Informative)
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."
The quotes are from a Pentagon spokesman.
Re:No congressional medal of honor option? (Score:2)
So do you refuse to negotiate with terrorists holding a building full of people hostage, then act surprised and horrified when they blow up the building with the hostages inside? Because that was basically the situation the government faced. They had the opportunity to mitigate the damage and did not do so. Therefore, if the damage was worse than it otherwise would have been, that additional damage is 100% the fault of the government for their inaction.
Re:No congressional medal of honor option? (Score:2)
You're right, but the analogy is off. A terrorist attack is unilaterally a bad thing, having as its objective the harm of people. Even a bloodless hostage crisis has the purpose of threatening harm to people to gain something else. Distributing this information is an act of conscience whose point is to educate and inform without harming anyone. It's not like Wikileaks said "comply with our demands, or we will publish information that could place these informants at risk." They freely offered the government to select parts for redaction; the government refused. Still their fault - doesn't make Wikileaks or Manning terrorists, though.
Re:No congressional medal of honor option? (Score:2)
Oh, no, I didn't intend to imply that in any way. I was merely arguing that a "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy is utter B.S. in the real world, and using that excuse to justify the government not helping censor the WikiLeaks info is absurd. Arguing that WiiLeaks are terrorists is equally absurd, but that's a separate argument. :-)
"Legally" Guilty (Score:2)
If he's legally guilty, then of course he should go to jail. The duration will depend on what he is found guilty of.
But, I don't know whether he has done anything wrong - or anything that SHOULD make him legally guilty. He might have only violated a law which is completely unjust (like many laws that exist). In that case, the law should be amended so that the same action in the future would not make him guilty. Then, he should get a pardon, or retroactive immunity.
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:5, Informative)
Those will always be illegal.
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:3, Insightful)
of course, it is the duty of any military person to report any and all corruption and illegal activities, it is also illegal for them to obey any and all unlawful orders, which include the obfuscation or concealment of any illegal activities. (yeah, it's right there in the U.C.M.J. if you bother to look, or were in the mandatory class on military law in basic training. It's usually mentioned in the first ten minutes of class.) (another thing hollywood always gets wrong, you don't do everything the higher ranks tell you.)
if you accept that he reported (though by an unconventional means due to corruption of chain of command) then the other two you listed are moot, and the first is a non-issue.
Of course, we don't know a lot of what really went on, we just get what the media, and wikileaks, reported. Is he guilty or innocent? I don't know since don't want to make a judgement call without all the facts. Besides that, we have this really weird idea in our laws, something about innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure you guys have heard of it, even though it seems a lot of people these days want to pretend it's not there. (Not implying Altanar is one, it seems he's just posting a clarification for the others.)
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the situation is that you have no obligation to obey an unlawful order. It's not illegal in and of itself to obey an unlawful order. This was established through the Nuremberg trials that "I was following orders" is not an acceptable answer for why someone commits an illegal act, but failing to refuse an unlawful order is not itself a crime. This principle is however not written into the UCMJ, it's simply accepted that one has a moral duty to refuse to follow orders to commit an illegal act.
Now for the wonderful exception stuff. If you're in a combat situation and a superior commissioned officer orders you to commit an illegal act, you're not obligated to obey it. Yet, he can hold a field court martial, and sentence you to death, and carry out said sentence. Is the act he's ordering you to commit really unlawful? Does it really matter, because he's going to kill you, anyways. So, even though it's an unlawful order, he's holding the proverbial gun to your head, but not necessarily just proverbial anymore.
If you had actually attended a decent military law class in basic training (or were actually paying attention); you would know that they didn't give any such clear cut answer as "you are not to obey unlawful orders". You have to be sure it wasn't a lawful order, you may face a court martial despite the order being unlawful, and worst of all, in combat, all that might not matter, because of natural law (if the officer kills you, it doesn't matter if you're right or not.)
The guidance that we received was: follow orders, if you're sure that it's an unlawful order, ask the officer to repeat the order, if you're still pretty sure it's an unlawful order, then restate the order in a clear way that indicates that you believe it to be an unlawful order. If the officer still makes it clear that he intends to give you an unlawful order, make your own moral choice... because you can potentially face a court martial either way.
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:2)
Sending anything to WikiLeaks, which provides information to anyone, is a pretty clear cut case of:
* That he knowingly gave intelligence (indirectly) to the enemy.
* That he was aware that his action would cause the intel to be published.
* That he was aware that the enemy would have access to it.
I believe that there were reports of improperly cleaned information which allowed the Taliban et al. to find informants, which means you can show this to be true as well:
* That said intelligence aided the enemy.
Now, I'm pretty sure that at some point in one's military career, you are told not to disclose sensitive information to the enemy. Maybe someone can contradict me on this, but being ordered not to do so, yet still doing it, means:
* That he received the order in question.
* That the order (in the form in which he received it) was lawful.
* That he didn't obey the order.
I am also not a lawyer, but this doesn't seem very complicated. Maybe I'm wrong though, because I have seen lawyers take common sense and turn it into an incredible convoluted mess.
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:2)
Well for one thing, there were no deaths as a result of the leak. So whether or not he did it there were no fatalities as a result. You can be sure that it's the case because the American government was willing to risk the entire cache being leaked without redactions rather than telling Wikileaks what to redact.
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:2)
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
There sure seem to be a lot of ACs claiming this every time Manning is mentioned, yet no one ever provides evidence of this. In fact, I seem to recall the Pentagon stating that no one had died due to Manning's leak.
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:2)
I don't really care about the morality behind his actions. I care about the legality.
Ah, a true American patriot right there!
he should be honored (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:he should be honored (Score:2)
You mean endangering the lives of others, including those in other countries? Yeah. Lots of bravery there.
pretty much anyone who has received a bravery award was endangering other lives (normally by shooting at them) to do "what is right". most of the time it's killing others to save fallen comrades.
Or is shooting people is ok, but telling people why you are shooting them is not?
Re:he should be honored (Score:2)
Re:he should be honored (Score:2)
Rogerborg, great quote! Never seen that, TY for it!
Still, he knew his duty, and he disobeyed direct orders. And not through any sort of justice, but because he was angry.
Re:he should be honored (Score:2)
Manning's actions endangered American and allied military personel.
No, hes actions didn't. they _could_ have, but all sources say they didn't. unless you think that because saddam _could_ have had weapons of mass destruction that justifies invading his country. (imagine if China invades America under the same premise.)
We're supposed to be different (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who do wrong always want secrecy. When governments do wrong, they hide behind classified documents.
Dictators say "Trust me, I know what's best." A democracy can only thrive when citizens are able to see what officials are doing.
Yes, there is a legitimate place for secrecy. But secrecy must be strictly limited, or corruption will certainly take root.
Re:We're supposed to be different (Score:2)
Careful with that reasoning. A person/group wanting secrecy proves nothing about the moral fibre of said person/group. I thought we agreed here that the "If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide" inference was a fallacy?
Re:We're supposed to be different (Score:2)
Strictly playing devil's advocate here, but if someone said that "secrecy (read: privacy) must be strictly limited, or corruption (read: criminal activity) will certainly take root", where would be the fault in his reasoning?
Chinese Water Torture! (Score:2)
I'd say "Star Wars Holiday Special", but I'm not a monster!
Time served (Score:2)
Shindlers List (Score:5, Interesting)
Both have committed similar crimes (within the context of the authority of the day), yet on the other hand saw what they thought to be a great moral wrong, and dealt with it within their own personal means.
"A repentant opportunist saw the light and rebelled against the sadism and vile criminality all around him. "
Re:Shindlers List (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shindlers List (Score:5, Insightful)
The war in Iraq cost between 150,000 and 600,000 innocent lives, and it's still going on.
If his disclosures result in saving lives, as they well might, then the comparison to Schindler is appropriate.
Re:Shindlers List (Score:2, Insightful)
Without a doubt this is most ignorant statement I've read on Slashdot in a while. If you can't see the difference between defying the Nazis at the cost of your own life, and giving a bunch of electronic documents to some guy in a cheap suit so you can make a name for yourself, you need your head checked. This ignorance of history comparing Nazis to the American government not interesting or true.
Manning will in all likelihood get life in prison. Good riddance.
Re:Shindlers List (Score:5, Insightful)
I regard Manning as a modern day Oskar_Schindler
I see him as more of a Mordechai Vanunu [wikipedia.org]. Both were given legitimate access to secret information about their country's military and then leaked that information. Both acted out of conscience - Manning believed that what he saw were war crimes being covered up - Vanunu believed that the people of the world had a right to know that Israel was secretly building weapons of mass destruction. Neither was motivated by money or a desire to betray their country - the motivation was in observing acts that they believed to be morally wrong, and the crime was in seeking to inform the general public about those acts. Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, with more than 11 in solitary confinement... we will have to wait and see what happens to Manning.
Re:Shindlers List (Score:5, Informative)
What great moral wrong did he see? He leaked diplomacy cables.
He didn't just leak diplomatic cables. This Wired article [wired.com] states that Manning leaked documents because of his moral concerns and wanting to "do the right thing". Quotes:
He claimed to have been rummaging through classified military and government networks for more than a year and said that the networks contained “incredible things, awful things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC.”
“He wanted to do the right thing,” says 20-year-old Tyler Watkins. “That was something I think he was struggling with.”
“He would message me, Are people talking about it? Are the media saying anything?” Watkins said. “That was one of his major concerns, that once he had done this, was it really going to make a difference? He didn’t want to do this just to cause a stir. He wanted people held accountable and wanted to see this didn’t happen again.”
The second video he claimed to have leaked shows a May 2009 air strike near Garani village in Afghanistan that the local government says killed nearly 100 civilians, most of them children. The Pentagon released a report about the incident last year, but backed down from a plan to show video of the attack to reporters.
Disinformation (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymous as modded. It is very noticeable in this discussion how many ACs there are saying Manning caused people's deaths or generally calling for the death penalty. Yet to see a single citation on damage done. Just whispers and rumours, dark voices from the shadows that wikileaks shone a light into. Scum.
Death penalty, really? (Score:2)
Re:Death penalty, really? (Score:2)
Don't get it (Score:2)
To be honest I don't really get the question. I sympathise with Manning. I think he did the right thing, but at the same time the law and penalties are probably about right, and anyway, what I think will have no impact on the number of years he gets.
Freedom is the price you pay (Score:3)
What I think Manning did was marvellous, heroic, of great benefit to society and noble. I voted life, as I don't believe in the death penalty. He was military personnel, he knew what he was getting into. Anything less than life for treason would be idiotic in a military court. If he were civillian, it would be a different story. I'm still proud of what he did, but he won't be free. I should add I think he's being held inhumanely, and perhaps should be freed on those grounds.
Re:Freedom is the price you pay (Score:3)
Yes, I'm saying military service carries with it an obedience to the state as the ultimate contract, and if that contract is broken the harshest penalties must apply. Anything else would create a weak and ineffectual military force, and there would be no more state. What he did to break that contract was moral in one respect yet immoral in his service to the state. Nobody forced him into that contract, but once it's taken and oaths are sworn you must uphold those oaths or face the consequence. There is no other way that I can concieve to retain a strong self-sustaining atate.
Time served (Score:2)
In general IMO the man did the right thing, but there should still be a small penalty involved so just anyone doesn't think about releasing all the stuff that passes through their control; if you're willing to be a hero, you should be willing to face the music if you really think it's worth it.
What is this even asking? (Score:2)
Is the poll about what punishment he should get, or what punishment he is likely to get?
I can't even answer without knowing that so I voted for Star Wars Holiday Special at Cowboy Neil's place.
Date with Cowboy Neal (Score:2)
Oh the humanity!
...laura
Whatever (Score:2)
Dunno. What's the law say? Whatever that says is probably what he should get. Since ya know, that's how we work.
Better than voting in an on-line poll ... (Score:4, Informative)
Rule of law (Score:2)
It should be whatever the penalty is determined by the law.
Hippy will tell you what the real crime is (Score:2)
Ambiguity (Score:2)
If WikiLeaks Suspect Manning Is Legally Guilty, What Punishment..
Is it what punishment should he receive, or what punishment will he receive? Are complete sentences really too much to ask for?
Whistleblower Standard (Score:2)
First, as others have mentioned, the question of aid to the enemy or compromising the security of American soldiers is handily summarized by the Pentagon:
> In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."
Which leaves us with his actions as a whistleblower. To me, the standard that should be observed is simple: Is it reasonable to believe that he had a good faith belief that he was exposing information which is justly in the public interest?
Though, of course, that question is one of whether he is guilty, not one of whether he should be punished if guilty. And I don't think it is the standard we apply to military whistleblowers -- just saying I think it should be.
missing option (Score:2)
Re:Treason (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Treason (Score:2)
That only means that the death penalty is an option, in case of a treason conviction (think: plotting to assassinate the president on behalf of a foreign power). John Walker Lind got 20 years for actually joining the Taliban. Manning will likely get a similar sentence. In both cases, pretty harsh sentences for actions that didn't cause more harm than some embarrassment, but it's the thought that counts.
Re:Treason (Score:2)
Re:Treason (Score:2)
Sure, but on the other hand, the information he released wasn't all that sensitive. Sure, it was classified, but of a category that hundreds of thousands of only lightly screened people were apparently cleared for. I don't think he'll hang this boy for it, but he probably won't be a boy anymore when he gets out of jail.
I wonder why he bothered to risk his life and freedom to release this dump, that turned out to contain hardly anything interesting. Proof of torture, war crimes, betrayal of allies, things like that might have been worth it, but there wasn't anything like that in there. Mostly just gossip, minor embarrassments etc. The only really shocking thing was that video of an Apache helicopter crew playing CoD4 on a group of journalists in Iraq.
Re:Treason (Score:2)
In both cases, pretty harsh sentences for actions that didn't cause more harm than some embarrassment, but it's the thought that counts.
I'm very confused how you see joining Al-Qaeda, attending lectures by Osama Bin Laden, a wanted terrorist, continuing to fight for a force that was trying to kill American soldiers in a combat theater, and then being captured and remaining silent about a prison uprising that would kill American personnel is "[less] harm then embarrassment". Seems to me 20 years is getting off pretty light for that.
Re:Treason (Score:2)
Personally, I think he should be executed as he put his fellow soldiers at risk, in addition to others Americans.
Yeah. I feel so much more at risk now. We, as Americans, have no enemies abroad. Our own government has been our only real enemy for a very long time now.
Re:Treason (Score:2)
> Personally, I think he should be executed as he put
> his fellow soldiers at risk, in addition to others Americans.
If putting soldiers at risk is the standard, George W. Bush should be executed too. And Obama and Clinton and Bush Sr and Reagan and Carter and ...
Re:Treason (Score:2)
Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces", seems particularly relevant. Perhaps that legally outweighs some other Constitutional clauses in military situations.
Indeed, the UCMJ has been enacted like other Federal law, simply with limits upon its jurisdiction.
Re:Treason (Score:5, Informative)
To prove treason, the government would also have to prove Manning was either levying war against the US or adhering to the enemies of the US.
It is also worth noting Manning has not been charged with treason.
Re:Treason (Score:2)
I thought that too, but after looking through the charges and doing some research, he is charged with violating article 104 of the UCMJ, Aiding the Enemy, which carries a maximum possible punishment of death.
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like in China when dissidents disappear, they should just man up and accept the consequences, they knew what was coming. We shouldn't complain or wish it were some other way, lest it happen to us too.
Re:Treason (Score:2)
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have any actual evidence of that? At any rate, wouldn't that be the responsibility of the US Federal government for refusing to ask for redactions?
I take it that you've forgotten that Wikileaks asked the US for guidance on what redactions to make and that the American government refused to cooperate with that, insisting that it was all or nothing.
Re:Treason (Score:2)
Re:Treason (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Treason (Score:2)
If Afghanistan law were applicable in the US, you'd be right.
Re:Well in my imaginary world... (Score:5, Insightful)
... he didn't unearth some kind of evil conspiracy...
The killing, and subsequent cover up, of the Reuters reporters. That does it for me!
The US armed forces should hang their heads in shame for that alone, and for exposing that he should be released, and though technically he may be 'guilty' the time and atrocious treatment served so far should be enough (actually, too much!).
Accidents happen, but the way reasonable humans behave afterwards is to 'fess up to the accident to allow everyone to learn by your mistakes so it is hopefully less likely to happen again. You DON'T deny it happened. You don't say there's no footage of the incident when Reuters comes asking about it. You don't try and suppress the information like a bunch of cowards! ... I said it ... bloody cowards!
Yes
You're 'brave' enough to shoot the crap out of a bunch of people from your fucking heavily armed helicopter gunship whilst laughing about it, but don't have the balls to stand up for what is right and insist that ALL the wounded are medevac'd to the US medical facilities immediately. No, you cravenly slink off with your tail between your legs and leave the wounded to be picked up however much later by the local police and taken to some local hell-hole hospital. Honestly, you disgust me! YOU should have contacted Reuters and told them you just killed two of their reporters!
If you're not accountable for your actions then you are the worst kind of school bully. Always the biggest kid in the playground, but yellow to the core!
Apologies to all those brave men and women in the forces to whom this doesn't apply (and I believe, I hope, that is the majority), but YOU should be as appalled by this as I am. This is your armed forces. This is YOUR country. Do you honestly want your government doing things like this? If you do then you're no better than they are ... and karma be damned!
Re:That's war. We Americans are no better. (Score:3)
The guy shouting "Death to America" right in front of a military convoy deserved that broken nose.
One of the great things about America is that you have the right to say whatever you want about the government without fear that a soldier will punch you in the face. It's a shame that people like you don't see the good in that, and would deny citizens of other countries the same right.
Re:That's war. We Americans are no better. (Score:2)
No problem with the GP... He is just one of those people bringing Democracy to the Middle East.
Re:That's war. We Americans are no better. (Score:2)
Nope. I was against the U.S. entering Afghanistan, and even more strongly against the U.S. going into Iraq.
I do, however, believe that the U.S. is a legally U.N.-sanctioned force in both theaters, and that the U.S. soldiers therefore have a right to protect themselves from people who make potentially threatening statements in their presence.
Re:That's war. We Americans are no better. (Score:2)
And so you belive it wrong. But I was wrong too, and you aren't using the Democracy excuse for going there. Just keep in mind that it is not really for protection if they can wait until the car pass at the protester to hit him.
Re:That's war. We Americans are no better. (Score:2)
Not necessarily wrong, just incredibly unwise. Every time the U.S. has intervened in that region of the world, the result has been pretty much universally harmful, both to the stability of the region and to U.S. foreign policy interests.
Re:That's war. We Americans are no better. (Score:2)
Hah. Try walking up to a soldier in the U.S. and shouting "Death to America" or "All soldiers must die" and tell me how that works out for you. Verbal assault is verbal assault, and the person on the other end has a right to self defense once you cross that line, whether you're in the U.S. or in a foreign land.
In other words, although the government cannot stifle you for saying the things you say, that doesn't mean that they're going to go out of their way to ensure that you don't get your ass kicked if you say it in the wrong way to the wrong person at the wrong time. Similarly, they might not even go out of their way to punish the person for punishing you for being a jackass, depending on just how big a jackass you were being.
Re:That's war. We Americans are no better. (Score:2)
Verbal assault is verbal assault, and the person on the other end has a right to self defense
No. There are many words that might offend a person, but hearing those words does not give them the right to respond with physical violence. You do realise that you are arguing that Islamists, and other religious fundamentalists, are right to use violence in response to criticism of their religion? That offensive words justify violence in retaliation?
Re:That's war. We Americans are no better. (Score:2)
No, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing that if I physically walk up to a Muslim and angrily shout that all Muslims should be killed, that person is well within his rights to punch me. It's more than just "criticism" when those words advocate violence.
Further, saying that punching somebody is justified is a very, very far cry from arguing that murder is justified, that terrorist bombings are justified, etc. We'd all be a lot better off as a society if we weren't so quick to close off the avenues to angry people blowing off steam. The net effect of doing so tends to be people going postal or blowing up a plane full of people.
Re:Well in my imaginary world... (Score:2)
Re:Well in my imaginary world... (Score:2)
A government doen't need to keep secrets in my imaginary world, in fact all secrets are bad, even ones my own government keeps in order to gain an upper hand in global politics.
any government that is required to keep secret communications to other countries probably doesn't have the moral authority to assert its will into those regions. If you're not transparent about what you're doing, no one will trust you. during war time, i totally understand the requirement for secrecy, but officially America isn't in any wars.
Re:Well in my imaginary world... (Score:2)
A government doen't need to keep secrets in my imaginary world, in fact all secrets are bad, even ones my own government keeps in order to gain an upper hand in global politics.
any government that is required to keep secret communications to other countries probably doesn't have the moral authority to assert its will into those regions. If you're not transparent about what you're doing, no one will trust you. during war time, i totally understand the requirement for secrecy, but officially America isn't in any wars.
Never had a private meaningful conversation with a friend or neighbor about a serious topic that wouldn't have been as frank, open and productive if the entire neighborhood was sitting in the room listening in? When did lack of privacy equate to morality?
Re:Ambiguous question, punishment for whom? (Score:3)
"Star Wars Holiday Special, all the way through, until he can repeat every line from memory." ...but with the Boba Fett cartoon redacted and replaced with an extended Jar-Jar monlogue.
Cheney Shot First (Score:2)
Which Star Wars version is it?
True fans remember! (Score:2)
another ambiguity (Score:3)
guessing what punishment he would get, as opposed to opining on what punishment you feel he should get?
Re:hm (Score:2)
You've obviously never filed a complaint with the IG, as I have seen far too many complaints covered up by command. It's only a fantasy that the IG is independent.