[QUOTE=Khaos-23;26732860]Too many people in this thread are saying that Manning should have just mindlessly followed the orders of the military like a robot, rather than do the morally right thing and releasing the truth.
And now he is being tortured, without being charged or having a trial. For telling the [b]truth[/b].[/QUOTE]
I at least have never said that.
You guys are trying to fight the definition of treason which is completely unreasonable.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26732816]That's not the point I was arguing, killuah was saying he disagrees with the definition of treason.[/QUOTE]
No. The definition is a fact. i can't argue a definition.
But I still think that he didn't do anything BAD for the country but rather something GOOD by revealing those things.
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;26732826]he is obviously guilty of [i]something[/i], it might just take a little bit of time to work out what exactly that something is, that's all[/QUOTE]
He wasn't charged with anything, so according to the law, he isn't guilty of anything.
[QUOTE=Killuah;26732879]No. The definition is a fact. i can't argue a definition.
But I still think that he didn't do anything BAD for the country but rather something GOOD by revealing those things.[/QUOTE]
I agree but the guys up top disagree with you.
[editline]16th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;26732826]he is obviously guilty of [i]something[/i], it might just take a little bit of time to work out what exactly that something is, that's all[/QUOTE]
No he's probably just a scapegoat.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26732857]I disagree with X law that Y organization made, so that makes it okay to commit Z act prohibited by X law.
Is basically what he is saying.[/QUOTE]
Yes. I am.
It is ok in my eyes. It's something good. And if many more people think my way, maybe something will change.
[QUOTE=Khaos-23;26732860]Too many people in this thread are saying that Manning should have just mindlessly followed the orders of the military like a robot, rather than do the morally right thing and releasing the truth.[/QUOTE]
when you are in the military, you are supposed to follow orders, even if they are not to release the truth
your country's well-being is entirely reliant on you following orders, therefore if you don't follow them you put your country and its people in danger
He shouldn't be "tortured", But he has to be detained from the public.
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;26732850]Internal leaks have to be addressed.[/QUOTE]
This way to the concrete box of confinement. That's how we address internal leaks in america, by punishing nonconformist soldiers with no social contact, no excersise or motivation for seven months-- because of a leaked document showing how the military fucked up.
You see, you're fighting from the law's angle, and I just don't give a fuck about the laws youre arguing for, because the consequences for breaching these laws are unethical in my mind. I'm from a moral standpoint, and I seriously do not care about the 'POTENTIAL HAZARD" of his leaks being placed. I don't see how those leaks are hazardous. It's only a leak if the information was made classified, and it's only classified if it's trying to be hidden, and it's trying to be hidden because its showing how the military fucked up.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;26732545]Okay. So what? Who gives a shit if he violated the law? Obviously there's some exceptions and changes that clearly need to be made. Lets keep that fucker on lockdown, just in case he wants to do a bicep curl and keep his body in shape, seeing as that is the only thing he can look at anyways, besides his concrete fucking box.
If they want to imprison him for being charged (Which is, in my mind, bullshit.. I've been charged before, its pretty much just an accusation that allows authority to piss all over you.) they should atleast allow him some basic necessities for a functional life.. Some sheets, perhaps a mattress, a telephone to speak with his [b]family[/b], the people who brought him into this world.
You don't have to be 'angsty' and 'edgy' to want to shout out and beat the living shit out of someone sometimes.
You're right. Fuck authority.[/QUOTE]
Legally, yes, detaining him is the correct course of action. Is what they are doing to him immoral? Possibly. Regardless of morality, the ends justify the means.
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;26732907]when you are in the military, you are supposed to follow orders, even if they are not to release the truth
your country's well-being is entirely reliant on you following orders, therefore if you don't follow them you put your country and its people in danger[/QUOTE]
That's not true for every order.
"The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
under that definition i don't see how it can be considered treason unless wikileaks is now considered an enemy of the USA.
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;26732907]when you are in the military, you are supposed to follow orders, even if they are not to release the truth
your country's well-being is entirely reliant on you following orders, therefore if you don't follow them you put your country and its people in danger[/QUOTE]
You've subscribed to the kingdom of fear that makes you scared of the evil terrorists and their truth seeking reporters.
[QUOTE=MovingSalad;26732921]and I seriously do not care about the 'POTENTIAL HAZARD" of his leaks being placed.[/QUOTE]
Then you aren't thinking from a moral standpoint.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26732945]Legally, yes, detaining him is the correct course of action. Is what they are doing to him immoral? Possibly. Regardless of morality, the ends justify the means.[/QUOTE]
The ends do not always justify the means.
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;26732916]He shouldn't be "tortured", But he has to be detained from the public.[/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26732945]Legally, yes, detaining him is the correct course of action. Is what they are doing to him immoral? Possibly. Regardless of morality, the ends justify the means.[/QUOTE]
He wasn't charged or convicted with anything so, no, it is no way the correct course of action.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26732857]I disagree with X law that Y organization made, so that makes it okay to commit Z act prohibited by X law.
Is basically what he is saying.[/QUOTE]
It's not treason because he is a SUSPECT.
He has broken no yet law, learn to fucking read you strawman asshat.
[quote]Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime.[/quote]
YOU DON'T FUCKING PUT SUSPECTS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;26732907]when you are in the military, you are supposed to follow orders, even if they are not to release the truth
your country's well-being is entirely reliant on you following orders, therefore if you don't follow them you put your country and its people in danger[/QUOTE]
haha wow
lets blindly ignore war crimes and corruption because the corrupt tell us to
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;26732966]Then you aren't thinking from a moral standpoint.[/QUOTE]
Of course I am. The leak doesn't pose as a hazard to anyone but the perpetrators of the crime that it shows. And oh shit, it's people employed by the united states government, holy crap. The same people that want to hide it, "for security reasons."
That's why I dont give a fuck. It's a twisted law.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;26732995]It's not treason because he is a SUSPECT.
He has broken no yet law, learn to fucking read you strawman asshat.
YOU DON'T FUCKING PUT SUSPECTS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.[/QUOTE]
Haha good way to jump in mid-argument, get mad and make a bad post.
I was arguing about the definition of treason, not if this guy did it.
stop trying to justify the corrupt actions of our goverment.
:colbert:
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;26732907]when you are in the military, you are supposed to follow orders, even if they are not to release the truth
your country's well-being is entirely reliant on you following orders, therefore if you don't follow them you put your country and its people in danger[/QUOTE]
So you think it's better to hide the fact that your military is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and all the corruption going on in your country. He was doing the right thing by releasing this information. It allows people to see the truth, he had intentions of making the world a better place having seen the documents. It's a chance for the world to see the reality of what is truly going on.
It's not uppon us to say if this is treaon or not, there are judges and philosophers and what not for that.
However, he didn't have a trial or anything yet. The act of putting someone under solitary confinement without any supporting law however, contrary to what he did, IS an illegal act by the military or whoever put him there.
[QUOTE=Khaos-23;26733029]So you think it's better to hide the fact that your military is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and all the corruption going on in your country. He was doing the right thing by releasing this information. It allows people to see the truth, he had intentions of making the world a better place having seen the documents. It's a chance for the world to see the reality of what is truly going on.[/QUOTE]
Well naturally. If you don't go with the flow, you're endangering your peoples!
[/sarcasm]
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26733023]Good way to jump in mid-argument, get mad and make a bad post.
I was arguing about the definition of treason, not if this guy did it.[/QUOTE]
I read the whole thread.
Your claiming that the government is in his right due their definition of treason.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;26733041]I read the whole thread.
Your claiming that the government is in his right due their definition of treason.[/QUOTE]
No, I am saying they are wrong because a lot of them saying it wouldn't be considered treason if he did do it.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26732781]Nothing, which I have stated a couple times.
Just because certain people on the internet disagree with the law doesn't justify breaking the law.
Someone obviously leaked the documents, so someone obviously broke the law.[/QUOTE]
Great, someone leaked documents. Woo. No charges, no punishment.
Bad route to go down. If you start locking people up in dark rooms for "good" reasons, then you open the door to locking people up in dark rooms for bad reasons.
I understand where sloppy joes is coming from, he's not really talking about Manning's case, what manning leaked, or anything. Out of every 'devil's advocate' on this thread, he's the only one doing it without making himself look like an obsessive, law-toting gospel freaks that don't ever ask themselves if a law is fair or not, because if it's a law, it must be fair, and right, and 'just.'
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26733050]No, I am saying they are wrong because a lot of them saying it wouldn't be considered treason if he did do it.[/QUOTE]
Let's just drop this argument and admit it's treason. Now even if it was, he still did the morally right thing, and what he did is much more important than following the law. That is if he even broke the law, I would not know since I haven't seen any charges or trials, yet he has spent 7 months of torture in solitary confinement.
[editline]17th December 2010[/editline]
I believe that the torture he is going through is a way of the Government to try and scare others away from doing the same as Manning did.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.