nanook 1 #176 December 29, 2011 Quote they see wrong happening and no one is doing anything about it How do you know this? What sources are you relying on? The Media? And if you do, do you trust the media to portray anything right or without spin? Quote Well it's not really. A BP insider is hailed as a hero because they spoke up and exposed the wrong-doing. Manning is prosecuted because he spoke up about the wrong-doing. The difference is there is no crime when a BP or other whistle-blower exposes corporate secrets. It's against Military law to expose any classified information without permission. Manning is being charged with a crime. Even in the Military courts, motive does not need to be established. There is no idealism prosecution on him except in the forums everywhere on the internet and media._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #177 December 29, 2011 Hence my reply. That is not a slippery slope that could ever be logically compared. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #178 December 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteSimple question: If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not caused a wreck or run anyone off the road, who has he harmed? Well? i refer you to the answer i gave billvon...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #179 December 29, 2011 double speak isn't an answer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #180 December 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteSimple question: If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not caused a wreck or run anyone off the road, who has he harmed? i refer you to the answer i gave billvon... You didn't give an answer. You started adding nonsense conditions. Plain english, do you think it should be illegal to drive drunk, yes or no? If yes, why? What harm have they done? Should it be illegal to drive faster than the posted speed limit? Should it be illegal to run a red light? Should it be illegal to carry a concealed weapon? What harm have they done?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #181 December 29, 2011 Quote>no-one Ah, so you support drunk driving then? (as long as no one gets hurt of course) my answer...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #182 December 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm going to leave aside that you pretty much just proved Bill's point about you. Simple question: If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not caused a wreck or run anyone off the road, who has he harmed? and i answered in the next post. still waiting for his answer though... Except you didn't. Your "answers" were evasions, not responsive answers to the question posed. As usual for you. Whatever, man; you're a known quantity here. Some are willing to play your game; others are not. That's all anyone is going to get out of him. He's kinda' like a 'horse-fly'... just buzzes around and aggrivates the shit out of you. He argues like a third grader and averyone falls for it. I don't understand. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #183 December 29, 2011 could we just ignore the dunce and stick to the more interesting topic here - state secrets? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #184 December 29, 2011 Quote i made myself very clear in other threads in other posts as to what I think about government secrecy. It's a bad thing. especially if you believe in government transparency and government accountability. out here in the real world, full transparency isn't a great thing. How muddled would our diplomacy be if every involved person's opinion were openly stated? It's no different in corporate or social settings - you hash out decisions in private, and then you release the final decision. Not the process for making the sausage. You remind me of RMS and his notion that all knowledge should be open and free. Nice fantasy world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #185 December 29, 2011 and after manning of course they'll have to go for assange...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #186 December 29, 2011 Quoteand after manning of course they'll have to go for assange... seems like the Eurotrash are already doing this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #187 December 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteand after manning of course they'll have to go for assange... seems like the Eurotrash are already doing this. as a favour to the us...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #188 December 29, 2011 You sound like a broken record. If, there's a problem with Assange... they'll go after him. rest easy. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #189 December 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteand after manning of course they'll have to go for assange... seems like the Eurotrash are already doing this. as a favour to the us... Sure, why not! We do enough 'favors' to the rest of the world. Fair return is no robbery. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #190 December 29, 2011 QuoteQuote i made myself very clear in other threads in other posts as to what I think about government secrecy. It's a bad thing. especially if you believe in government transparency and government accountability. out here in the real world, full transparency isn't a great thing. How muddled would our diplomacy be if every involved person's opinion were openly stated? It's no different in corporate or social settings - you hash out decisions in private, and then you release the final decision. Not the process for making the sausage. You remind me of RMS and his notion that all knowledge should be open and free. Nice fantasy world. Exactly! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #191 December 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteand after manning of course they'll have to go for assange... seems like the Eurotrash are already doing this. as a favour to the us... You're pretending that the Europeans, esp the British, didn't have their own reasons for disliking him and Wikipedia. But freedom of the press is a funny thing in Europe. Here he's a journalist. There - he's a guy who had bad sex which somehow equals rape. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #192 December 29, 2011 QuoteYou remind me of RMS and his notion that all knowledge should be open and free. Nice fantasy world. you have a line a so do I, they just rest at different locations. Obviously all secrecy cannot be abandoned, I already gave examples. If your brother disappeared after a protest where the police arrested and perhaps opened fire on crowds of protesters in which he was openly participating, I expect you would be advocating for some 'open government' If the law said that the police could detain and open fire on protesters, then i guess that is/would be the law and therefore there would be nothing illegal, and they could keep their 'secrets' and you would have no recourse. But it would still be wrong for them to do that and your only recourse might actually be an insider willing to do the right thing. But it would be the law, so again, you would have no recourse and anyone reporting the disappearance of your brother would be a treasonist and a traitor. So from me to anyone reading. FUCK THE MILITARY LAW insofar as it allows the military to classify murder, rape, mass killings, and executions as 'classified information' just to cover their own asses. Obviously if all I have to do is 'classify' something to make it illegal for Manning to distribute it, well then i guess I would be classifying pretty much everything I do wouldn't I? fuck that noise.... I vote for open government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #193 December 30, 2011 >>Ah, so you support drunk driving then? (as long as no one gets hurt of course) >my answer... Thanks for the answer. I disagree. Drunk driving is dangerous enough that it should be illegal even if no one gets hurt - because a drunk driver is inherently incapable of operating a car safely, especially if he's called on to avoid (say) a kid in the road. This is another case of a very clear benefit to the public by outlawing an activity that is inherently dangerous to everyone on the road. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #194 December 30, 2011 QuoteSo from me to anyone reading. FUCK THE MILITARY LAW insofar as it allows the military to classify murder, rape, mass killings, and executions as 'classified information' just to cover their own asses. So, if they classified all that, then just *why* did they prosecute on the Haditha murders? Why did they prosecute Abu Ghraib? Etc, etc, etc. Your argument appears to be based on fantasies of what you *think* is being kept secret instead of fact.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #195 December 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSimple question: If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not caused a wreck or run anyone off the road, who has he harmed? i refer you to the answer i gave billvon... You didn't give an answer. You started adding nonsense conditions. Plain english, do you think it should be illegal to drive drunk, yes or no? If yes, why? What harm have they done? Should it be illegal to drive faster than the posted speed limit? Should it be illegal to run a red light? Should it be illegal to carry a concealed weapon? What harm have they done? I get the impression from what he has hinted at is, 'anything goes... as long as noone gets hurt and you don't get caught!? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #196 December 30, 2011 no one was prosecuted for opening fire on children from a helicopter. No one was even reprimanded. or maybe they were - or is that a secret too? yes a lot is prosecuted that needed to be. Which raises concerns from citizens like me about all the shit they got away with because it is 'secret'. get it? No secrets. I expect we would fight fewer wars. I like that. especially fewer wars that contribute to killing tens of thousands of people for no reason (Iraq, Vietnam) and helping to bankrupt the country. Perhaps it might lead to the impeachment of a president or even a war crimes prosecution. get it? no secrets. no wars. I like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #197 December 30, 2011 Quote>>Ah, so you support drunk driving then? (as long as no one gets hurt of course) >my answer... Thanks for the answer. I disagree. Drunk driving is dangerous enough that it should be illegal even if no one gets hurt - because a drunk driver is inherently incapable of operating a car safely, especially if he's called on to avoid (say) a kid in the road. This is another case of a very clear benefit to the public by outlawing an activity that is inherently dangerous to everyone on the road. and now if the guy/gal is a medic/intelligence officer who has been called to an emergency where dozens are about to lose their lives - do the police arrest the 'drunk' or escort them to the scene of the emergency... horses for courses...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #198 December 30, 2011 QuoteQuote>>Ah, so you support drunk driving then? (as long as no one gets hurt of course) >my answer... Thanks for the answer. I disagree. Drunk driving is dangerous enough that it should be illegal even if no one gets hurt - because a drunk driver is inherently incapable of operating a car safely, especially if he's called on to avoid (say) a kid in the road. This is another case of a very clear benefit to the public by outlawing an activity that is inherently dangerous to everyone on the road. and now if the guy/gal is a medic/intelligence officer who has been called to an emergency where dozens are about to lose their lives - do the police arrest the 'drunk' or escort them to the scene of the emergency... horses for courses... Arrest him The same incapabilites exist at an acident site too"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #199 December 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>>Ah, so you support drunk driving then? (as long as no one gets hurt of course) >my answer... Thanks for the answer. I disagree. Drunk driving is dangerous enough that it should be illegal even if no one gets hurt - because a drunk driver is inherently incapable of operating a car safely, especially if he's called on to avoid (say) a kid in the road. This is another case of a very clear benefit to the public by outlawing an activity that is inherently dangerous to everyone on the road. and now if the guy/gal is a medic/intelligence officer who has been called to an emergency where dozens are about to lose their lives - do the police arrest the 'drunk' or escort them to the scene of the emergency... horses for courses... Arrest him The same incapabilites exist at an acident site too The 'medic' knew they had been drinking and should not respond to a call. I don't care if it's one beer! They show-up at an accident scene smelling of booze, treat them like anyone else. Chuck Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #200 December 30, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo from me to anyone reading. FUCK THE MILITARY LAW insofar as it allows the military to classify murder, rape, mass killings, and executions as 'classified information' just to cover their own asses. So, if they classified all that, then just *why* did they prosecute on the Haditha murders? Why did they prosecute Abu Ghraib? Etc, etc, etc. Your argument appears to be based on fantasies of what you *think* is being kept secret instead of fact. +1 Nowhere in the UCMJ is a crime allowed to be classified or declared a national secret to avoid prosecution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
