rehmwa 2 #51 June 3, 2013 normissHe was not given a direct order, therefore there is no "lawful order" as you say. He had a security clearance to protect information and violated that. He in the gallows yet with his bread and water? Loss of all rank? Withholding pay? Dishonorable Discharge? Loss of ALL veteran rights??? I don't know those, but I hear he is applying for tax exempt status.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #52 June 3, 2013 Quote Is he a whistle blower or traitor? Traitors are enemies of the people. Whistleblowers are enemies of the state. Not all Set A are necessarily Set B. Not all Set B are necessarily Set A. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #53 June 4, 2013 Andy9o8Quote Is he a whistle blower or traitor? Traitors are enemies of the people. Whistleblowers are enemies of the state. Not all Set A are necessarily Set B. Not all Set B are necessarily Set A. I disagree. While I agree that not all enemies of the people are enemies of the state and vice versa, I disagree with your defining traitors and whistleblowers as one or the other.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
normiss 800 #54 June 4, 2013 I agree with the disagreement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #55 June 4, 2013 QuoteHe also ignored all legitimate means of redress for any perceived wrongs. There are actually anonymous ways for people in government and military to report problems. He ignored those. Can you provide evidence that this protocol has actually help any situation, ever? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #56 June 4, 2013 QuoteNot so stupid as to make a "two wrongs do make a right" argument as you seem to be attempting. No, one wrong (corrupted military) makes the right (reporting wrongdoings to ones superior) impossible. QuoteHow we go into the second Iraq war is not relevant to the topic. And for that matter, neither is the contents of the helicopter assault video, when there are hundreds of thousands of other documents involved. The hundreds of thousands of documents are dirt for the savvy to work with to bring the criminal dictators to justice. The oligarchs are dead scared, and there is plenty of dirt on them, but the foolish masses decide to put corruption in the too hard basket (that's just tin foil hat conspiracy stuff, the government are for the people... etc.). He posted that information to expose the corruption, no other reason! Do you think wiki-leaks is purely an 'attention seeking'program? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #57 June 4, 2013 ayevee8toryear He posted that information to expose the corruption, no other reason! Do you think wiki-leaks is purely an 'attention seeking'program? IMO: Manning leaked the data because he is a whiney little twit upset with the way he was treated at Ft Huachuca AZ. Assange is a rebellious jerk upset with his childhood in Australia. They made bad choices and now will pay the consequences. Manning deserves the harshest sentence of the two.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #58 June 4, 2013 Quote IMO: In my opinion anyone that believes in talking snakes has no right judging others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #59 June 4, 2013 ayevee8toryear Quote IMO: In my opinion anyone that believes in talking snakes has no right judging others. Nice try. I never heard a snake talk. I can judge anyone's behavior. I think metaphor is the concept you are searching to understand. The other concept is judge the sin not the sinner.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #60 June 4, 2013 That is one of many examples of the poor judgement of Christians. You can try to palm it off as metaphor all you like. The bible is all bull crap and if one believes it, one is an idiot, In my opinion that is... Nice fables but complete bullshit. One should judge ones self, before one judges their peers. Being honest with yourself would be a good start. LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #61 June 4, 2013 ayevee8toryearQuoteHe also ignored all legitimate means of redress for any perceived wrongs. There are actually anonymous ways for people in government and military to report problems. He ignored those. Can you provide evidence that this protocol has actually help any situation, ever? Lots! The first one that jumps to mind involves LTG Patrick O'Reilly. An anonymous complaint to the Inspector General's office resulted in an investigation (mandatory), headlines in Army publications, and his removal from service. All because he was a horse's rear-end. Please google the name. If you were closer to the military, you would know that anonymous calls to the Inspector General or Criminal Investigations Division regularly result in prosecutions, relief from duty, and other punishments...especially for senior personnel.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #62 June 4, 2013 QuoteIf you were closer to the military, you would know that anonymous calls to the Inspector General or Criminal Investigations Division regularly result in prosecutions, relief from duty, and other punishments...especially for senior personnel. So nobody has suggested the invasions we are engaged in are illegal to the Inspector General? War requires congressional approval and a declaration of war. There has not been one of those this century has there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,312 #63 June 4, 2013 Andy9o8 Quote Is he a whistle blower or traitor? Traitors are enemies of the people. Whistleblowers are enemies of the state. Not all Set A are necessarily Set B. Not all Set B are necessarily Set A. But, then you step on the Biconditional Introduction of A=B Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #64 June 4, 2013 You posted a question in your OP that required a judgment from the responders. Now you are upset because you did not get the support you wanted. Most of your responders do not agree with you. Accept it; life is not fair, SC is not fair, God is not fair. Manning is going to get a fair Courts Martial. I hope he gets a fair life sentence in federal prison.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #65 June 4, 2013 Haha, I am not upset, I expect nothing less from an online forum. Life is not fair, SC is full of self righteous dickheads that would not have the gumption to be so outspoken in real life and define god? Manning will not get a fair trial. He is being used as a warning to all others that might want to blow the whistle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #66 June 4, 2013 "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #67 June 4, 2013 ayevee8toryear War requires congressional approval and a declaration of war. There has not been one of those this century has there? how big is your blind spot, exactly? The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq. Quote Manning will not get a fair trial. He's already plead guilty to 10 counts, nearly half those presented. We're merely litigating over the sentence at this point, not his obvious guilt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #68 June 4, 2013 I think your last comment clearly says it all. He just might avoid life by having plead those other charges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #69 June 4, 2013 Quotehow big is your blind spot, exactly? The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq. Oh the back door? That gave the president the authority to bypass congress and a declaration of war. There was no threat from Iraq, and in using that resolution in that case the President misused his authority and committed war crimes. It is clear to all with any sort of common sense that the threat was 'made up', this leaves us in a position where much of the people are literally 'turning a blind eye' to war crimes they are all aware of and allowing them to continue. There was still no declaration of war. Here is Ron Paul explaining how stupid it all is back in October 2002... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie13 324 #70 June 5, 2013 now you're just being facetious. trying to change the subject is not going ot do it here. it matters not one iota if the war was legal or not. when you are a soldier, you do what you are told and go where you are told. this is very necessary in order for the majority to survive. there are times when the system doesn't work, but so what? look back in history and you can find many examples of this. it all boils down to honor. i am satisfied mine is in tact. yours worries me just a tad. there are some things i feel strongly about, honor and integrity are two. fucker should be shot as an example._________________________________________ Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 June 5, 2013 ayevee8toryear Oh the back door? That gave the president the authority to bypass congress and a declaration of war. spare us the dramatics. Congress authorized the use of force. If you want to argue that the President acted on his own, good luck. It's nearly as lame arguing there was no declaration. The people, in the post 9/11 fury, were wildly in support of it as well. And as lame as the WMD dog and pony show was, the people in the intelligence committees in Congress knew the score. If you're going to suggest they were duped, then you're basically saying that all of the Democrats in Congress are certifiable morons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #72 June 5, 2013 Quotenow you're just being facetious. trying to change the subject is not going ot do it here. it matters not one iota if the war was legal or not. when you are a soldier, you do what you are told and go where you are told. That is not the case, and if you follow an order that you know is unconstitutional then you are also breaking he law. "I was just following orders", does not hold up in court. Here is some good information on this subject. http://constitution.org/mil/mil_attn.htm QuoteThe UCMJ on illegal orders The Uniform Code of Military Justice is more concerned about failure of military personnel to obey legitimate orders than it is about refusal to obey illegitimate orders, but it does address the subject. In Section 16c(1)(c) it provides: Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. And in Section 14c(2)(a)(i): Inference of lawfulness. A order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. These provisions allow for the disobedience of illegal orders, but such orders may themselves constitute a crime, or be part of a criminal conspiracy, either under military or civilian law. Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens, either military or civilian. The UCMJ also defines an Article 134 offense: Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official. This could apply to a military officer who impersonates a civilian official in an action against civilians. This includes actions taken under martial law. In RCM 202(a): The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 2(a)(11) in peacetime has been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Article 2(a)(10) has also been limited. In RCM 302(b) Who may apprehend. The following officials may apprehend any person subject to trial by court-martial: (1) Military law enforcement officials. (2) Commissioned, warrant, petty, and noncommissioned officers. However, anyone, including the lower enlisted grades, may apprehend for violation of civilian laws, provided it is done as an independent act of a citizen and not under orders. Also be aware of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids members of the Army and Air Force to be used for domestic law enforcement. The key point is this: You not only have the right to disobey an illegal order, but you may also have the duty to apprehend the parties issuing such an order if such issuance is part of the commission of a crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ayevee8toryear 0 #73 June 5, 2013 Quote"If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?" A difficult question to answer, I cannot answer that question without being in the situation. I would have access for a reason, that reason would determine my actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #74 June 5, 2013 QuoteThat is not the case, and if you follow an order that you know is unconstitutional then you are also breaking he law. "I was just following orders", does not hold up in court. Here is some good information on this subject. http://constitution.org/mil/mil_attn.htm News flash: an order to protect classified information is not an illegal order. As we've pointed out, there are legal ways to being illegal activities to light. Your whiny little hit of a hero chose none of them. He broke the law, he was wrong, and he knows it; hence the guilty plea.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
ayevee8toryear 0 #75 June 5, 2013 QuoteAs we've pointed out, there are legal ways to being illegal activities to light. Your whiny little hit of a hero chose none of them. He broke the law, he was wrong, and he knows it; hence the guilty plea. There is not question whether he broke the law, the question is whether it was necessary or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
