US Army charges Wikileaks suspect with capital offense plus 21 others

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="superfluidity"]

The point is, the information being released by Wikileaks is not merely or even mostly human rights abuses. It exposes all sorts of secret information regarding morally ambiguous subjects and primarily harms U.S. interests.

Adrianstalker

Of course it primarily harms US interest of lying and being a hypocrite. Just a couple of things Wikileaks has uncovered which I posted in a thread before, I'm sure there are many more.

Yeah because ......

It is funny how no one quoted and responded to this

Here's a response: PFC Manning could have gave that information to several government agencies that had the clearance to see that information and he wouldn't have faced any punishment. It happens all of the time, there are whistleblower organizations in the government to report misconduct. Manning instead decided to leak it to a foreign webpage that didn't have the clearance to see that stuff and that's why he's facing life in prison if convicted.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, but none of us here are military attorneys or judges, so I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion. :P

The questions of "Did Manning break the law?" and "According to the law, is Manning to be punished?" are worlds apart from "Philosophically, did Manning do something worthy of punishment?"

topsemag55

It's relevant due to the fact that he broke military law, a different animal altogether. Philosophically, yes, he did do something worthy of punishment, as he broke a sacred oath of service, and that is legally punishable (oral and signed contract). You violate the UCMJ, you have violated your oath, and that oath is personal as well as legal.

No, it's not relevant, because nobody has argued that the law does not say what he did should be punished. Pointing out what the law says is only relevant if what the law says is in dispute, which it is not.

He did the right thing. If only more americans were willing to stand up to the goverment....

htekemerald

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Laws can be made by anyone. Gaddafi made up laws, Hitler made up laws, etc. Laws are useful for a working society but by no means should people obey or accept them blindly.ad1x2

Since you're determined to proclaim PFC Manning as a hero for what he did, I'll put it to you this way: Manning is a Soldier. He volunteered to join the military by signing one of these and reciting the paragraph noted on number 15 (on page 3). He read (or should have read, he's an idiot if he didn't) the contents of page two of that document to understand that he doesn't have the same rights as you have as a civilian after enlisting. Nobody put a gun to his head to enlist and he wasn't drafted. As a result, he is responsible for the stupid decision he made by violating the UCMJ. According to the UCMJ, servicemembers can go to jail for cheating on their spouse while you as a civilian can cheat all you want without any penalty outside of what happens in divorce court, for example. I already said multiple times that he had a chain of command and a inspector general he could have gave the stuff to if he really thought it was so bad. But instead, he gave it to WikiLeaks. Whether or not you think he had a moral right to leak the stuff (which I doubt he had full knowledge of as a private), the way he leaked it was stupid.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, but none of us here are military attorneys or judges, so I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion. :P

The questions of "Did Manning break the law?" and "According to the law, is Manning to be punished?" are worlds apart from "Philosophically, did Manning do something worthy of punishment?"

GabuEx

It's relevant due to the fact that he broke military law, a different animal altogether. Philosophically, yes, he did do something worthy of punishment, as he broke a sacred oath of service, and that is legally punishable (oral and signed contract). You violate the UCMJ, you have violated your oath, and that oath is personal as well as legal.

No, it's not relevant, because nobody has argued that the law does not say what he did should be punished. Pointing out what the law says is only relevant if what the law says is in dispute, which it is not.

"Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." He became a domestic enemy, and willingly supplied a foreign individual with secret information.

He has betrayed a sacred trust we swear to defend with our blood and our life if necessary. No philosophical argument can defeat this charge.

[QUOTE="Adrianstalker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Of course it primarily harms US interest of lying and being a hypocrite. Just a couple of things Wikileaks has uncovered which I posted in a thread before, I'm sure there are many more.

Yeah because ......

ad1x2

It is funny how no one quoted and responded to this

Here's a response: PFC Manning could have gave that information to several government agencies that had the clearance to see that information and he wouldn't have faced any punishment. It happens all of the time, there are whistleblower organizations in the government to report misconduct. Manning instead decided to leak it to a foreign webpage that didn't have the clearance to see that stuff and that's why he's facing life in prison if convicted.

How would you know he wouldn't have faced any punishment? :| That was also ****fied information accroding to the military.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The questions of "Did Manning break the law?" and "According to the law, is Manning to be punished?" are worlds apart from "Philosophically, did Manning do something worthy of punishment?"

topsemag55

It's relevant due to the fact that he broke military law, a different animal altogether. Philosophically, yes, he did do something worthy of punishment, as he broke a sacred oath of service, and that is legally punishable (oral and signed contract). You violate the UCMJ, you have violated your oath, and that oath is personal as well as legal.

Does it make me intellectually dishonest if I see problems in a person's argument, but don't point them out because that person has, along with myself, been attacking a third party's statements that I find obnoxious? Hmmm...

That a person broke an oath does not necessarily mean he behaved unethically. There's more to it than that. At a very basic level, promises (oaths) can be poorly deliberated upon, misunderstood, or coerced. That's probably not the case here, but I'm just pointing out that I'm not sure breaking an oath is worthy of punishment.

EDIT: ...is always worthy of punishment.

Not sure of the details, but if he leaked it for the right reasons then more power to him. Right reasons being footage of friendly fire or footage of indiscriminate firing on civilians etc.

I also disagree with the whole military court system. Why should a military be held to different legal standards? Just my thoughts on the issue.

Oh of course he's responsible for what he did that's what makes him so worthy of admiration in my view. He stood up for his own ethical convictions rather than just following what letters on a piece of paper say, knowing perfectly well what his actions meant and would lead to. I think that's what true heroes are made of.kuraimen

Then you and I just need to agree to disagree then. I already mentioned how he could have legally gotten that information out if he thought it was so bad and I'm not going to repeat it. All I'll say is that it wasn't through WikiLeaks.

I will say that I'm looking forward to hearing his excuse, I mean explanation, when the first post-court martial media interview is granted.

I also disagree with the whole military court system. Why should a military be held to different legal standards? Just my thoughts on the issue.

Leejjohno

Tradition and necessity. It is simply not practical to apply civilian legal procedings to soldiers (and especially sailors). Military personnel are placed in situations where they are completely removed from the organs of due process that protect civilians. Absent these, and with it's own priorities, the military cannot be expected to emulate civilian criminal law. Of if that's a little too theoretical: You can't have cops and detective units following around soldiers on patrol in case they're needed. If a soldier in war commits a crime, is it better to have a military system on hand that can deal with it, or place him under arrest (illegally) for potentially years until you can ship him home to the cops?

Oh please, find where I use this strawman argument. Post up a quote block of it.

Palantas

Sure. Here you go.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

When your government exposes a public cover of freedom, truth and democracy and they act the opposite yeah I think transparecy is a virtue and a right the common people should have.Palantas

Are you arguing for total governmental transparency? Your comments to this point have been offensive enough to get half the thread taking shots at you, so please, please tell me you're proposing complete transparency.

False claim, poisoning the well, strawman.

I also disagree with the whole military court system. Why should a military be held to different legal standards? Just my thoughts on the issue.

Leejjohno

Civilians don't have to worry about going to the battlefield during a war unless US soil is directly invaded. How effective would the military be if a servicemember can refuse orders to fight and would have no worse punishment than a McDonald's cook who refused to flip burgers one day? The military has higher standards so it can be an effective force, that's why it's estimated that only one in four people between the age of 17 and 24 are even qualified to enlist today. Granted, there are some dirtbags in the military (PFC Manning being one of them) but they slipped through the cracks.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The questions of "Did Manning break the law?" and "According to the law, is Manning to be punished?" are worlds apart from "Philosophically, did Manning do something worthy of punishment?"

Palantas

It's relevant due to the fact that he broke military law, a different animal altogether. Philosophically, yes, he did do something worthy of punishment, as he broke a sacred oath of service, and that is legally punishable (oral and signed contract). You violate the UCMJ, you have violated your oath, and that oath is personal as well as legal.

Does it make me intellectually dishonest if I see problems in a person's argument, but don't point them out because that person has, along with myself, been attacking a third party's statements that I find obnoxious? Hmmm...

That a person broke an oath does not necessarily mean he behaved unethically. There's more to it than that. At a very basic level, promises (oaths) can be poorly deliberated upon, misunderstood, or coerced. That's probably not the case here, but I'm just pointing out that I'm not sure breaking an oath is worthy of punishment.

EDIT: ...is always worthy of punishment.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

Here's a response: PFC Manning could have gave that information to several government agencies that had the clearance to see that information...

kuraimen

How would you know he wouldn't have faced any punishment? :| That was also ****fied information accroding to the military.

Do you have selective reading or something? Read the part I bolded there. I was actually thinking about Manning's situation earlier today, and what I would have done if I'd encountered something morally objectionable in my deployments. Depends what it was, but my first thought was contacting my Congressman. There were other, reasonable steps to take prior to sending everything to Wikileaks. Did Manning attempt any of these? I dunno. I'm sure someone here can answer that.

Also, here's this again:

So, I'll ask you again: How did you determine that "truth and transparency" is a universal American value, and therefore subject to hypocrisy when not endorsed?

I

I can imagine you would like to put those last few pages behind you.

Speaking of unanswered questions...

EDIT: Content redudant; typo.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Yeah I'm of the firm believe that morality and ethics are above the law in cases like this.kuraimen

Morality and ethics are a thing that can change from one person to the next.. The law does not.

No it is not the law is not just based ethics.. If this weren't the case capitalism.. A practice in which we materialize people would be banned... Things like charging interest were seen as unethical by the church, but finally allowed the law due to convience and benefit. Laws are not there to do whats right.. They are there ot keep society stable.. When we send a murderer to prison its because that person is deemed a threat by society and hence to keep the society stable must be secured seperate from them... Murder is specifically outlawed because if we lived in a land where murder wasn't against the law.. No one would be safe, people would be fearful of their neighbors.. These things have HARDLY anything to do with morality, but basic premise to keep things working.

[QUOTE="I"]

Are you arguing for total governmental transparency? Your comments to this point have been offensive enough to get half the thread taking shots at you, so please, please tell me you're proposing complete transparency.

SUD123456

False claim, poisoning the well, strawman.

He never responded to this, and I never pursued it. Explain to me how asking someone a f***ing question constitutes a strawman argument.

Wow, you really showed me up.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

I also disagree with the whole military court system. Why should a military be held to different legal standards? Just my thoughts on the issue.

Palantas

Tradition and necessity. It is simply not practical to apply civilian legal procedings to soldiers (and especially sailors). Military personnel are placed in situations where they are completely removed from the organs of due process that protect civilians. Absent these, and with it's own priorities, the military cannot be expected to emulate civilian criminal law. Of if that's a little too theoretical: You can't have cops and detective units following around soldiers on patrol in case they're needed. If a soldier in war commits a crime, is it better to have a military system on hand that can deal with it, or place him under arrest (illegally) for potentially years until you can ship him home to the cops?

Tradition is a terrible reason to keep a legal system in place. I can't point to a definitive reason why in any of what you just said. All in all it's pretty stupid for any organisation to be in charge of regulating it's self in a legal capacity.

If you punch somebody with a uniform on, how is that assault any different from one while off duty?

And that is the whole point... There shouldn't be a distinct difference in moral standards just because you aren't a civillian. As far as I can imagine, there aren't many civillian laws that cannot be applied to military life.

BTW soldiers have been arrested before. It depends on jurisdiction.

If you punch somebody with a uniform on, how is that assault any different from one while off duty?

Leejjohno

If I'm at war, and I punch someone, who arrests me?

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

False claim, poisoning the well, strawman.

Palantas

He never responded to this, and I never pursued it. Explain to me how asking someone a f***ing question constitutes a strawman argument.

Wow, you really showed me up.

In the same post, you wrote:

So why make a big deal of PFC Manning? Anytime somebody steals secrets from the US and criticized or punished for it, then there's hypocrisy afoot. Tell me, does this only apply to governments, or anybody who steals secrets? Like when some hackers break into your college's firewall and steal 15,000 social security numbers too, and then are arrested by the FBI, is that more hypocrisy?

Palantas

Strawman Concept: Complete Transparency

Evidence against: Obvious transgression of a principle with no competing principle at play

Strawman Conclusion: Complete Transparency is unworkable (and how dare anyone propose such a thing)

Reality: No one proposed Complete Transparency

Also, your poisoning the well of the posters comments, combined with the tone of your response to me, do not contribute to the merits of your argument.

Last, your argument does have some merit; however, you seemingly refuse to acknowledge any merit whatsoever in the opposing view. This is what drew me to remark on this topic in the first place. The world is rarely completely black and white.

. As far as I can imagine, there aren't many civillian laws that cannot be applied to military life.

BTW soldiers have been arrested before. It depends on jurisdiction.

Leejjohno

I can't think of any civilian law that says you can't tell your boss to F off and walk out if you don't want to do something he tells you to do. On the other hand, do that in the military and they got you for disrespect and disobeying a lawful order (assuming your boss didn't tell you to rape a POW, that would be an illegal order you have the right to refuse).

That's just one example. Troops are required to have a higher standard than civilians, otherwise they might as well be civilians. This higher standard could be the difference between life and death on the battlefield. If you don't know what I'm saying take some time and look here, you will see several military laws in there that you won't find a comparable civilian law.

I also disagree with the whole military court system. Why should a military be held to different legal standards? Just my thoughts on the issue.

Leejjohno

The U.S. Congress legislated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as they saw the need for a separate set of statutes to cover situations that a civilian would never be in.

We still have all of the rights a civilian does, but the laws are more strictly defined, as military members do have duties to perform that a regular citizen does not.

For example, if you hated your job, you could tell your boss off, quit your job, and walk off. If a military person did that, they would be charged with insubordination, AWOL (or desertion), and more.

There's even more on the books: a person inuniform can be charged with adultery (very rare, but it's on the books). You can get up to 2 years in prison for that.

[QUOTE="I"]

Like when some hackers break into your college's firewall and steal 15,000 social security numbers too, and then are arrested by the FBI, is that more hypocrisy?

SUD123456

Strawman Concept: Complete Transparency

(et cetera)

What part of "Explain to me how asking f***ing questions constitutes a strawman argument" don't you understand? You just posted another question I asked him. He was free to respond to my questions as he saw fit. It'd been delightful if he had answered my questions in the affirmative, that our government should be completely transparent, but unfortunately he did not. So there's no strawman. Sorry. Got any other quote blocks you want to try?

Also, your poisoning the well of the posters comments, combined with the tone of your response to me, do not contribute to the merits of your argument.

SUD123456

Ad hominem. My tone's my business. What matters are my statements...of which you have yet to post any.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Morality and ethics are a thing that can change from one person to the next.. The law does not.

sSubZerOo

No it is not the law is not just based ethics.. If this weren't the case capitalism.. A practice in which we materialize people would be banned... Things like charging interest were seen as unethical by the church, but finally allowed the law due to convience and benefit. Laws are not there to do whats right.. They are there ot keep society stable.. When we send a murderer to prison its because that person is deemed a threat by society and hence to keep the society stable must be secured seperate from them... Murder is specifically outlawed because if we lived in a land where murder wasn't against the law.. No one would be safe, people would be fearful of their neighbors.. These things have HARDLY anything to do with morality, but basic premise to keep things working.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

If you punch somebody with a uniform on, how is that assault any different from one while off duty?

Palantas

If I'm at war, and I punch someone, who arrests me?

It depends, local (though stable) police forces in foreign countries have been known to. Where are you going with this? Are you saying it's not practical, that it cannot be dealt with in some other appropriate manner? Or are you saying that there actually isn't anybody to arrest you? Being arrested is a technicality, and not the problem I perceive with the system. Even still I don't see why you can't just have a low key "extradition" and then be placed into police custody; it can't be that hard if the american government likes to extradite people who haven't even set foot over there then why not do it to soldiers serving away?

The issue is that I don't see any reason why they can't ship you home and deal with it in a standard courtroom to begin with.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="I"]

Like when some hackers break into your college's firewall and steal 15,000 social security numbers too, and then are arrested by the FBI, is that more hypocrisy?

Palantas

Strawman Concept: Complete Transparency

(et cetera)

What part of "Explain to me how asking f***ing questions constitutes a strawman argument" don't you understand? You just posted another question I asked him. He was free to respond to my questions as he saw fit. It'd been delightful if he had answered my questions in the affirmative, that our government should be completely transparent, but unfortunately he did not. So there's no strawman. Sorry. Got any other quote blocks you want to try?

Also, your poisoning the well of the posters comments, combined with the tone of your response to me, do not contribute to the merits of your argument.

SUD123456

Ad hominem. My tone's my business. What matters are my statements...of which you have yet to post any.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

I also disagree with the whole military court system. Why should a military be held to different legal standards? Just my thoughts on the issue.

topsemag55

The U.S. Congress legislated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as they saw the need for a separate set of statutes to cover situations that a civilian would never be in.

We still have all of the rights a civilian does, but the laws are more strictly defined, as military members do have duties to perform that a regular citizen does not.

For example, if you hated your job, you could tell your boss off, quit your job, and walk off. If a military person did that, they would be charged with insubordination, AWOL (or desertion), and more.

There's even more on the books: a person inuniform can be charged with adultery (very rare, but it's on the books). You can get up to 2 years in prison for that.

Maybe I am getting off track here but wtf would anybody waste court time with that?

The issue is that I don't see any reason why they can't ship you home and deal with it in a standard courtroom to begin with.

Leejjohno

It depends upon what law has been broken and jurisdiction. Say you are a soldier, your home is in St. Louis, and you are in Iraq. You punch a Captain in the face because you don't like what he told you to do.

A St. Louis court would have no jurisdiction, the crime of striking an officer did not occur within the city limits. Likewise, if the same thing happened on a U.S. military installation, the city would have no jurisdiction.

Real heroes are often considered traitors in their day. Just look at the founding fathers of this country.

It depends, local (though stable) police forces in foreign countries have been known to. Where are you going with this? Are you saying it's not practical, that it cannot be dealt with in some other appropriate manner? Or are you saying that there actually isn't anybody to arrest you?

Leejjohno

I was just wondering what your plan is for arresting soldiers at war who commit crimes. Your plan: Have the constabulary...of the country we are at war with...arrest our soldiers. Come up with a better plan.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

The issue is that I don't see any reason why they can't ship you home and deal with it in a standard courtroom to begin with.

topsemag55

It depends upon what law has been broken and jurisdiction. Say you are a soldier, your home is in St. Louis, and you are in Iraq. You punch a Captain in the face because you don't like what he told you to do.

A St. Louis court would have no jurisdiction, the crime of striking an officer did not occur within the city limits. Likewise, if the same thing happened on a U.S. military installation, the city would have no jurisdiction.

This is true, but why in a military courtroom. What soil the crime happens on is again just a technicality. If I hack into government files from here in England they wont say "but it happened in another country, we need a court room specifically for foreign brit hackers!" They will try to drag me over there without a second thought depending on the damage I cause and my intent.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

The issue is that I don't see any reason why they can't ship you home and deal with it in a standard courtroom to begin with.

Leejjohno

It depends upon what law has been broken and jurisdiction. Say you are a soldier, your home is in St. Louis, and you are in Iraq. You punch a Captain in the face because you don't like what he told you to do.

A St. Louis court would have no jurisdiction, the crime of striking an officer did not occur within the city limits. Likewise, if the same thing happened on a U.S. military installation, the city would have no jurisdiction.

This is true, but why in a military courtroom. What soil the crime happens on is again just a technicality. If I hack into government files from here in England they wont say "but it happened in another country, we need a court room specifically for foreign brit hackers!" They will try to drag me over there without a second thought depending on the damage I cause and my intent.

You're now starting to argue over strawman arguments and semantics which is exactly why I refuse to answer your question the way you want it to. That way an argument becomes moot, the important points are completely ignored over the definition and level of a concept like "transparency" and the conversation becomes lame and dumb.kuraimen

If you'd actually read (or understood) the above exchange, you'd see that there was no strawman, and in reality, SUD just f***ed up. And where did you and I argue over the level and definition of transparency? When did this happen? I asked you about it, and that was it, I thought. Am I mistaken?

This is also an answer to your question if you haven't noticed it and I have given you several answers in fact, that there are not the answers you want is not my problem I won't waste my time with stupid little games, I want to argue over more important and relevant things so if you want to participate ina meaningful way be my guest.kuraimen

I'm asking you about the reasoning behind your claims. You're telling me now that you answered my question. I'm sorry; it's been a busy thread, and I must have missed it. Can you point me to the quote block where you answer this:

So, I'll ask you again: How did you determine that "truth and transparency" is a universal American value, and therefore subject to hypocrisy when not endorsed?

I

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

Back to topic, Manning broke the UCMJ. Soldiers are required to obey rules that civilians would laugh at if told to do so. Comparing Manning, a US Soldier, to a Chinese civilian doesn't apply.

GabuEx

I don't know why people keep bringing up this argument - nobody is contesting whether Manning did something that the law says is worthy of punishment; the question is whether, on a philosophical level, he should be punished.

Releasing hundreds of thousands of documents containing potentially highly volatile information (also information which could have endangered the lives of U.S. soldiers) which he in no way could know what the documents consisted of, let alone have been able to consider the consequences of releasing them or vet them, all after voluntarily agreeing to not disclose that information? Yes, most definitely. People start wars this way.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

It's relevant due to the fact that he broke military law, a different animal altogether. Philosophically, yes, he did do something worthy of punishment, as he broke a sacred oath of service, and that is legally punishable (oral and signed contract). You violate the UCMJ, you have violated your oath, and that oath is personal as well as legal.

topsemag55

No, it's not relevant, because nobody has argued that the law does not say what he did should be punished. Pointing out what the law says is only relevant if what the law says is in dispute, which it is not.

"Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." He became a domestic enemy, and willingly supplied a foreign individual with secret information.

He has betrayed a sacred trust we swear to defend with our blood and our life if necessary. No philosophical argument can defeat this charge.

See, now this is a perfectly valid response. Saying "the effects of his actions were X, and that's bad" is a perfectly valid response to a statement about whether someone is philosophically deserving of punishment. Saying "he broke the law" is not. One deals with the implied philosophical impetus behind the law, and the other simply states the legal reality of the situation without justification for why it should be that way. That is exactly the distinction I was alluding to.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

It depends, local (though stable) police forces in foreign countries have been known to. Where are you going with this? Are you saying it's not practical, that it cannot be dealt with in some other appropriate manner? Or are you saying that there actually isn't anybody to arrest you?

Palantas

I was just wondering what your plan is for arresting soldiers at war who commit crimes. Your plan: Have the constabulary...of the country we are at war with...arrest our soldiers. Come up with a better plan.

Now that is a straw man people, unless I am very much mistaken. I am not suggesting that, nor have I. You suggested it would be illegal to arrest soldiers earlier which I am stating doesn't matter because you do not dictate the law in a foreign country whether you are at war or just occupying it.

The arrest isn't the issue for the final time, it is how the courtroom and legal system differ, allowing for bias and arse covering. One courtroom and legal system allows for standardisation and ultimate fairness. You could even merge the two systems for all I care.

There is nothing stopping somebody reporting the crime to your CO and him sending you home. Don't want to go to jail, don't do something illegal, you will find people will be a little more careful knowing they face a regular courtroom with regular jurors and exosure to unsympathetic media.

As a soldier in the Army,I fully agree with the Army nailing this idiot and others involved to the wall. They risked people's lives with their actions. When I joined the Army,they have you sign so much paperwork and take classes about leaking important info,jeopardiuzing missions,etc... You can never use the excuse you didnt know what you were doing was wrong or very serious.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Of course the law does. The law of a chinese is not the same as the law of an american. Morality is a group consensus, so many people follow the same or similar morals. Ethics is a personal conviction about what's right and wrong and many people (most people around the world I believe) agree on many ethical subjects like not harming innocent people but for being truly ethical you have to analyze and learn how to think for yourself and not follow the law or your group's morals blindly.kuraimen

No it is not the law is not just based ethics.. If this weren't the case capitalism.. A practice in which we materialize people would be banned... Things like charging interest were seen as unethical by the church, but finally allowed the law due to convience and benefit. Laws are not there to do whats right.. They are there ot keep society stable.. When we send a murderer to prison its because that person is deemed a threat by society and hence to keep the society stable must be secured seperate from them... Murder is specifically outlawed because if we lived in a land where murder wasn't against the law.. No one would be safe, people would be fearful of their neighbors.. These things have HARDLY anything to do with morality, but basic premise to keep things working.

Oh boy if you seriously think thats what seperates society.. Morals.. Than you perhapes read hisotry.. And no murder is not seen ethically or morally wrong through history.. We have come across numerous excuses justifications that showed just opposite.. Laws are there to keep order, ethics are a completely thing that not all law represents.. If this weren't the case, marriage court and wallstreet would be bankrupt..

Eh, just find him guilty and disappear him to some black site. Much simpler.

Lotus-Edge

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

It depends upon what law has been broken and jurisdiction. Say you are a soldier, your home is in St. Louis, and you are in Iraq. You punch a Captain in the face because you don't like what he told you to do.

A St. Louis court would have no jurisdiction, the crime of striking an officer did not occur within the city limits. Likewise, if the same thing happened on a U.S. military installation, the city would have no jurisdiction.

topsemag55

This is true, but why in a military courtroom. What soil the crime happens on is again just a technicality. If I hack into government files from here in England they wont say "but it happened in another country, we need a court room specifically for foreign brit hackers!" They will try to drag me over there without a second thought depending on the damage I cause and my intent.

Given that the country in question has a stable court system, like ours. But if I was American to begin with I don't see any reason why the request would be denied. I guess that's what I am getting at.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No, it's not relevant, because nobody has argued that the law does not say what he did should be punished. Pointing out what the law says is only relevant if what the law says is in dispute, which it is not.

GabuEx

"Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." He became a domestic enemy, and willingly supplied a foreign individual with secret information.

He has betrayed a sacred trust we swear to defend with our blood and our life if necessary. No philosophical argument can defeat this charge.

See, now this is a perfectly valid response. Saying "the effects of his actions were X, and that's bad" is a perfectly valid response to a statement about whether someone is philosophically deserving of punishment. Saying "he broke the law" is not. One deals with the implied philosophical impetus behind the law, and the other simply states the legal reality of the situation without justification for why it should be that way. That is exactly the distinction I was alluding to.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Strawman Concept: Complete Transparency

(et cetera)

kuraimen

What part of "Explain to me how asking f***ing questions constitutes a strawman argument" don't you understand? You just posted another question I asked him. He was free to respond to my questions as he saw fit. It'd been delightful if he had answered my questions in the affirmative, that our government should be completely transparent, but unfortunately he did not. So there's no strawman. Sorry. Got any other quote blocks you want to try?

Also, your poisoning the well of the posters comments, combined with the tone of your response to me, do not contribute to the merits of your argument.

SUD123456

Ad hominem. My tone's my business. What matters are my statements...of which you have yet to post any.

Yeah, like generalizing the belief systems of entire countries, and equivocating all actions provided that they are "illegal." That's substantive.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

This is true, but why in a military courtroom. What soil the crime happens on is again just a technicality. If I hack into government files from here in England they wont say "but it happened in another country, we need a court room specifically for foreign brit hackers!" They will try to drag me over there without a second thought depending on the damage I cause and my intent.

Leejjohno

Given that the country in question has a stable court system, like ours. But if I was American to begin with I don't see any reason why the request would be denied. I guess that's what I am getting at.

A civilian who did what Manning did would be tried in a federal court, not a military one. The military's interest would be covered by a federal prosecutor.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="I"]

Like when some hackers break into your college's firewall and steal 15,000 social security numbers too, and then are arrested by the FBI, is that more hypocrisy?

Palantas

Strawman Concept: Complete Transparency

(et cetera)

What part of "Explain to me how asking f***ing questions constitutes a strawman argument" don't you understand? You just posted another question I asked him. He was free to respond to my questions as he saw fit. It'd been delightful if he had answered my questions in the affirmative, that our government should be completely transparent, but unfortunately he did not. So there's no strawman. Sorry. Got any other quote blocks you want to try?

Also, your poisoning the well of the posters comments, combined with the tone of your response to me, do not contribute to the merits of your argument.

SUD123456

Ad hominem. My tone's my business. What matters are my statements...of which you have yet to post any.

Other Poster: I am ok with releasing this info in the name of transparency.

You: So you would be ok with releasing other information (or all information) in another situation (or all situations) also in the name of transparency? (strawman)

You: Example having nothing to do with the original position (strawman)

You: (Directed to Other Poster) Your argument already offended half the people on this thread, so tell me you support complete transparency.

Seems straightforward that you are misrepresenting the original position and using an absurd example as a means of doing so, thereby setting up and defeating a strawman. Just because you articulated your statements in the form of questions does not change the effect.

[QUOTE="I"]

I was just wondering what your plan is for arresting soldiers at war who commit crimes. Your plan: Have the constabulary...of the country we are at war with...arrest our soldiers. Come up with a better plan.

Leejjohno

Now that is a straw man people, unless I am very much mistaken. I am not suggesting that, nor have I.

Yeah, that's a strawman. (Take notes, SUD*.) It is true you did not say that. It's also the only thing you suggested at all (though for a limited scope). So what is your plan for arresting soldiers who are at war?

You suggested it would be illegal to arrest soldiers earlier which I am stating doesn't matter because you do not dictate the law in a foreign country whether you are at war or just occupying it.

Leejjohno

I'm not following this.

The arrest isn't the issue for the final time, it is how the courtroom and legal system differ...

Leejjohno

Why isn't it an issue, or at least part of the issue? Due process is a part of the law. If you want to generate a cohesive legal system, you have to deal with this.

Don't want to go to jail, don't do something illegal, you will find people will be a little more careful knowing they face a regular courtroom with regular jurors and exosure to unsympathetic media.

Leejjohno

It sounds like you're under the impression that the military justice system is lenient? Is this the case? (Oh Christ, I hope SUD* doesn't get on my ass about this.)

*In case you're not reading the entire thread, I got into it with someone else who could not correctly identify a strawman.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No it is not the law is not just based ethics.. If this weren't the case capitalism.. A practice in which we materialize people would be banned... Things like charging interest were seen as unethical by the church, but finally allowed the law due to convience and benefit. Laws are not there to do whats right.. They are there ot keep society stable.. When we send a murderer to prison its because that person is deemed a threat by society and hence to keep the society stable must be secured seperate from them... Murder is specifically outlawed because if we lived in a land where murder wasn't against the law.. No one would be safe, people would be fearful of their neighbors.. These things have HARDLY anything to do with morality, but basic premise to keep things working.

sSubZerOo

Oh boy if you seriously think thats what seperates society.. Morals.. Than you perhapes read hisotry.. And no murder is not seen ethically or morally wrong through history.. We have come across numerous excuses justifications that showed just opposite.. Laws are there to keep order, ethics are a completely thing that not all law represents.. If this weren't the case, marriage court and wallstreet would be bankrupt..

Eh there are also places and cultures where the law says it is ok to murder people so what's your point again?

By the way I don't think you can ethically justify murdering an innocent person, if you do then you don't understand ethics very well.

Just because you articulated your statements in the form of questionsdoes notchange the effect.

SUD123456

Oh I'm sorry, yes it does. It changes it entirely, and I don't know why I have to point this out. A strawman is an attack on an incorrectly represented argument. A question is not an argument. Should I define "argument" as well? (See that? That's a question. See "That's a question"? That's a statement.)

I don't care what "effect" you think my words had. This is a forum, and I can go back and visually scan my eyeballs across the screen to see exactly what I wrote. What I wrote is not an argument. You are in error; drop it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

"Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." He became a domestic enemy, and willingly supplied a foreign individual with secret information.

He has betrayed a sacred trust we swear to defend with our blood and our life if necessary. No philosophical argument can defeat this charge.

topsemag55

See, now this is a perfectly valid response. Saying "the effects of his actions were X, and that's bad" is a perfectly valid response to a statement about whether someone is philosophically deserving of punishment. Saying "he broke the law" is not. One deals with the implied philosophical impetus behind the law, and the other simply states the legal reality of the situation without justification for why it should be that way. That is exactly the distinction I was alluding to.

I do have other things I do besides GameSpot, you know. :P

I do have other things I do besides GameSpot, you know. :P

GabuEx

Good point. I think I'm going to get something to eat, I'm becoming hungry a little.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]Actually, one of two things would occur: either an extradition request, or they would ask a British court to try you if extradition was not approved, depending upon damage and intent as you say.

topsemag55

Given that the country in question has a stable court system, like ours. But if I was American to begin with I don't see any reason why the request would be denied. I guess that's what I am getting at.

A civilian who did what Manning did would be tried in a federal court, not a military one. The military's interest would be covered by a federal prosecutor.

But why? If breach of contract and the signing of glorified ndas are areas which can be dealt with in a federal courtroom why bother with a military one?

Either way it's 03:05 and I need some sleep so I'll be back later today because I just love this debate :P.