Well, we know no one in the government will be prosecuted for (*)(*)(*)(*). If a law is neither moral or righteous, (*)(*)(*)(*) it. Bradley Manning did the American people a service. - - - Updated - - - Who cares what is and isn't classified? Nothing should be classified, frankly, it just allows for government abuse. Breaking the law is breaking the law, so MLK is no different than Manning, if you want to use that line of logic.
I wasn't thinking of my USAF TS to be candid. I was thinking more of my DoD time or even my time at CDC. But yeah - go ahead and think whatever you want. I'm not going to change your views any time soon, and candidly I really suspect you are just trolling and don't know much about any of this topic. Besides, how would I prove you wrong? You don't exactly get a certificate when you get a clearance that you can scan and post; nor would you even be allowed to. And if you were ever in the USAF you would have known that you applied for your TS before you even started BASIC depending what your AFSC was. So just as I know every date that every one of my clearances were active, I also know that your views on clearances are based on some Tom Cruise movie or something you saw on Netflix.
Trying to explain it to some of these people is like teaching a pig to fly. It cannot be done and it annoys both you and the pig.
That's what we have elected representatives for. If our government and military released every secret to the American public, this means all of our enemies would become informed too. Should we reveal to the public how to build a suitcase nuke? The details on all of our defenses against chemical or biological attack? What, if any, secrets should our government hold in order to protect "We the People of the United States"? Nothing at all?
Your assurance is in contradiction with known evidence from multiple cases which have gone to court. You are wrong. I assure you. I have demonstrated that there is NO channel you can go to to put a stop to an international espionage complex from spying on innocent Americans in a co-opted and complicit government. This was designed to do this. You need to understand this. This has been 30 years in the making, to get where we are today. Hundreds of billions of dollars to build the facilities which serve this function. The intelligence community is not elected and self governing. There is no path to correcting this without heroes like Ellsberg, Drake, Binney, Snowden, and the many other whistleblowers who sacrificed comfortable lives, to possibly face the death penalty for telling the truth. Manning... we can do without.
Sorry, you are talking about the wrong leak. He leaked that the military was manipulating kill figures to look good and claim that we were "winning". There might have been other stuff in there but I do not remember. It was talking about both Johnson's and Nixon's admins. See, you are basing it on whether you think it was a good leak or a bad leak. Crimes were committed by the leakers and they should face trial. Do you want every government personnel decide what is a good leak or a bad leak? Every secret would be in jeopardy. That is no way to protect our security. Oh, and we shouldn't base it on who you think are heroes. I think that Snowden is the worst kind of traitor because he knew that his actions were wrong and ran away to hide before they came out. I believe that he should be hung. Do you want me to make the decision? Why should I want you to make the decision or even Snowden make the decision.
We can't even do that in the large international corp that I work for. That company is so full of bureaucratic bs and Peter Principle derived management, there is no place to go with any kind of feedback, valid pr otherwise. The company is like the Third Reich. The managers are politicians that kiss everyone's asses above them and obediently jump through all the nice little politically correct hoops that are necessary to move up through the slippery chain of bullsh!t. Anything contrary, or more importantly REAL, is dismissed as a lack of cooperation or an inability to adapt to change on the part of the person offering the assessment. Management has zero tolerance for anything that smacks of criticism. You either behave like a bauble head or else you jeopardize your job by being labeled as a troublemaker. Hell, these nitwits completely dismiss constructive feedback on a daily basis if it originates from outside their pathetic, self-centered fukfest world of The Company. These yuppie dipsh!ts are little more than a bunch of worthless, lying sacks of (*)(*)(*)(*) that have wormed their way up through this ridiculous jungle they've created by tucking themselves well up inside the butt holes of some of the other worthless but higher ranking bauble heads, and/or by their favorite ploy which involves blaming everyone below them for their own stupidity and fuking them royally. The Company and the Federal government have so much in common that it's become a common joke among even middle management schmucks who find themselves caught in a netherworld of fantasy and butt licking. I can easily imagine how well anything contrary to official dogma gets received withing the MEGA-BS world of the Federal menagerie. Heh...
Are you cool with NSA stealing every drop of our personal information in direct violation of the US Constitution? Patriot Act banned Habeas Corpus - that was a violation of USC too. You OK with that? This kid Snowden told the media that NSA was violating USC. Who else could he have told and lived? Of course he boogied. Compared to sitting in Guantanamo getting water boarded to within an inch of his life and having no rights and no trial like every other alleged traitor or terrorist? 9-11 was 12 years ago and there are still folks in Cuba that aren't being tried. I bet you a dollar that they live there for the next 70 years until they die, while never getting to stand in front of a judge or jury. Did Snowden deserve that? I doubt it.
Regardless of how much you hate the government, what Manning did was incredibly reckless. He had no clue what was in those documents. I don't even think he thought he'd be caught, but his internet hacking buddy couldn't even grasp the amount of information was leaking and he ratted on him. I think Manning is just dumb, Snowden is by far more devious in his actions. It was a planned and coordinate assault on the US government. Most likely from reading too many Ron Paul blogs.
This isn't the movies. The government doesn't just kill off anyone who has information or brings up violations. And what does our spying operations overseas have to do with the Constitution? Snowden wanted to hurt the government based on a personal vendetta, it has nothing to do with the Constitution or helping American citizens out. He wanted to gather any intelligence possible that would damage the united states government worldwide. He is the worst kind of traitor there is, even worse than Manning.
There is a difference between being a whistle blower and compromising a military. I think Manning could have approached exposing war crimes differently then just drunkenly leaking it to the internet. He HAD to know that Taliban and Al-Qaeda members could get their hands on those documents. And unless you hate the military, I think it can be agreed upon that even if war crimes are being committed we still don't want to endanger our boys in uniform. My point: I think Manning is a criminal, a fool, and should serve time. If you want to be a whistle blower, approach it intelligently instead of just screaming at the top of your lungs.
One thing to point out, this so-called democrat ran for governor of Montana with a Republican running mate. I never consider the racist "Southern Democrats" as democrats either.
Had Drake been given the absolute valid & legal route to bring up the issues of the NSA, Snowden wouldn't even be a valid discussion point. Thus, Drake wasn't able to give all of the information, by going the route that folks claim should've been used by everyone else, so Snowden leaked it. Again, I neither support nor oppose this methodology. All I'm getting at is there needs to be valid avenue for them.
Exactly how do you propose talking about leaking important information in the "public eye"? Theories are great for discussion but you have to put more work into it before proposing it.
I'm not supporting what these individuals have done. All I'm saying is, in life, you have to make a moral decision. Drake chose his moral decision by going the legal route. Of which, everyone who supports our legal system should support him as he respected his oath & defended the security of the information he wanted the public to know about. Of which, the crux of the NSA project wasn't released to the public and it has come under high scrutiny. Thus, it's an important issue that the American public should've known. As such, Snowden took the only measure that was left, break the law, and release the information. Again, I don't support this type of methodology at all. What I do support is providing them with a means to get the information out into the public. If you say there are, Drake is the example that it doesn't work. That's the main issue that needs to be discussed here. Call these folks traitors, call them whatever you want. The real traitors are those that suppress individuals, like Drake, in bringing valid information to the public eye. If they can't effectively do what they're given their right to do, the Espionage Act of 1917 is a fraud and should be re-worked.
Third time stating this, hopefully it's the 'charm', build an agency that is separate from the governmental bureaucracy, call it 'The Espionage Protection Agency (EPA)'. This is the agency that will be given clearance and legal authority for individuals to bring valid concerns to someone. This agency has 0 ties to anything partisan and will be scrutinized by the public by making it 100% transparent. Might not be perfect, might not be the best, but it's at least a start for those type of individuals.
Drake tried all of that and got backlash because of it. It's a bully tactic that has proven to be either 'shut up or go to jail'. It's not right and it's something that should be in the forefront of these issues.
Are you cool with lying to try and make a point? There has been no violation of the Constitution and they do not have my personal information. They may have yours but that could be an entirely different circumstance. And SCOTUS struck in down in 2008. The GOP gave him more power than Obama wanted in NDAA 2012 and his signing statement points that out.
The problem I have with this approach is your assuming what the government is doing is a violation and needs to be told to the public. Even if there is a route someone can go to bring it up to a court or some kind of committee, they still might be told that the programs have been approved and you lose your case. In that case you should just quit your job. No one person is given the ability to determine what this country can or can't do and what programs our intelligence agencies can use.
Not the third time but who is counting. Good insult though. So you want an "independent" agency. Yeah, that won't work. Let's try the IGs first and JAGS for the military. Exactly how do you propose talking about leaking important information in the "public eye"?
you didn't already know our government does things we like to think only other people's governments do?
Should we Judge deviance by the act or the result? The information Manning gave to the public: Was a catalyst for pro-democracy movements in the Arab world. Exposed the unjust detainment of innocent people at Guantanamo Bay Shown us the true human cost of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Changed journalism forever. Caused a quicker withdraw from Iraq, saving Iraqi and American lives. There is little to no evidence that anyone was harmed by the leak. Manning complied with his legal duty to obey lawful orders but also his legal duty to disobey unlawful orders. Did Bush harm American interest when he lied about WMD? Many of our elected leaders are not following the law, including our current and former presidents but they walk free and Manning goes to jail. I think history will look back on Manning differently than how many of you currently see him. Too often this is the case.
