When I was in the Service, it was was my job to protect classified data

[MrScorpio]

I had a Top Secret-SCI security clearance and access to classified systems and restricted locations.

It was a duty that I took quite seriously.

At the same time, Bush was pushing the nation towards an illegal war against Iraq.

However...

Not once, ever, did I feel that it was the right thing to do to steal classified information and reveal it, because I had a moral objection to Bush's warmongering.

Not once, ever, did I feel that it was the right thing to do to break my oath to uphold the Constitution and to disobey my superiors, because I felt that invading Iraq was illegal.

Not once, ever, did I feel that it was the right thing to do to expose the nation's secrets to unauthorized persons to make a point, just as Dick Cheney did.


Yes, I hated the war and I was even a member of DU at the time. But betraying the nation's secrets was something that I never considered and I still think is beyond the pale.

The service member who stole the information that he was not entitled to steal and sent it to people who were not entitled to receive it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


Now, I'll say this: While he was in the service and was a witness to wrong doings by our government, there are proper channels that he could have reported those wrong doings. There is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do them.

What he did was completely wrong.

[FSogol]

1. Yup, gotta agree. n/t

[leftstreet]

2. So you knew this whole time about Gaddafi's mistress & didn't tell us?

:cry:

[HipChick]

3. +100

[PeaceNikki]

4. Thank you for explaining that so very well.

And for taking your job seriously. :patriot:

[KansasVoter]

5. They love the "obey orders" types.

[Incitatus]

34. Yeah, just imagine what Hitler would have been able to do without them. nt

[stray cat]

61. I agree with you that dick Cheney is a hero for his similar act of patriotism outing secrets

[NuclearDem]

73. False equivalency...horribly false

Disclosing classifying information about the wars which got nobody killed is nowhere near the same as outing a CIA operative to punish her husband for dissent against the war and getting her informants killed.

[jeff47]

133. You do realize

That the cables effectively "out" several spy organizations, right?

[BeFree]

6. wow

You could have saved the lives of untold numbers of people.

I understand why you didn't, but still, what could have been.

[MrScorpio]

9. Your attempt at laying that kind of guilt trip on me is not appreciated.

Thank you.

[BeFree]

13. No guilt

I understand why you did what you did. No argument or wanting you to act differently.

But I also understand why Manning did what he did.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Why do you think Manning did it?

I do not believe it was ethics.

[BeFree]

38. I don't

But if it were me, if I thought it would save innocent lives, I'd'a done it.

[BeFree]

97. Why? Good question

Don't know why actually. Guess Manning will someday have that info declassified?

Have heard he did it to expose wrong doing. I believe that is why, and what my arguments are based on, but could be wrong, eh?

[NuclearDem]

98. Whether he did it with the intention of exposing human rights violations or save lives

Makes no matter to me. Fact is, it DID expose human rights violations, and it very well may save more innocent Iraqis from being thrown into the torture chambers we turned a blind eye to.

[BeFree]

102. True

And that footage of the helicopter blasting humans on the ground was an eye opener for the blinded.

[BeFree]

113. Pretty sure

Manning decided that he was not going to be the one to decide which info made it out and what would not. Just decided to put it all out there. Very Egalitarian.

[jeff47]

134. Unless, of course, you actually read what was reported when he was arrested

He spent a lot of time bragging about his access to secrets and how much he knew. Leaking information made him feel powerful.

The 'positive' justifications only occurred after he was arrested.

[K8-EEE]

19. +1 right on Mr. Scorpio

The OP was very well thought out and you expressed your point of view well, lots of food for thought. It's too bad so many people are intent on knee jerk reactions. I for one very much appreciated your post and totally understand your point.

[Monique1]

64. Great job Mr. Scorpio

My friend did almost the same thing - he said could have let out secrets but chose not to do that. One does not know what is important to keep our country and those who serve safe. I congratulate you.

[kickysnana]

87. You made your choice you live with the consequences and they are dire n/t

[DFab420]

17. Yes because the release of these documents

have done so much to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What could have been is what is happening now.

MrScorpio. It's nice to see people who understand the differences between whistle-blowing, and releasing state secrets to a foreign based media agency.

[BeFree]

36. Yeah

Probably nothing Scorpio could have done would have made any difference.

But this, what this Patriot Manning has done, might. It sure has scared them.
I hope it does make a difference. Something needs to happen, eh?

You have any ideas as to what could be done?

[lillypaddle]

7. Thank you for your service

seriously. Thanks.

[kayakjohnny]

8. But he did do it.

And that's what we're dealing with now.

We passed right and wrong a while ago.

[Skittles]

10. I agree

[Luminous Animal]

11. I just checked and I see nothing in the Constitution about disobeying superiors.

Of course, a person could be charged and tried for treason in a court of law, but that would be the chance that an ethical person might take.

[Toucano]

25. That's a bit tea party-ish, really.

"I don't see the words 'separation of church and state' in the constitution!"

"I don't see affirmative action in the constitution!"

"The constitution says nothing about net neutrality!"

[Bluenorthwest]

39. So where in the Constitution would you find baiss for

'obey your superiors'? You hurl Tea Party at a fellow DUer, tell us how you disagree.

[MrScorpio]

43. I was referring to my Oath of Enlistment

Those of us who have served know what I was talking about.

[NuclearDem]

55. I know exactly what you mean

But part of that oath was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

When the promise our Constitution gave to the world is being disgraced by our superiors in the field by allowing torture or other illegal practices, our loyalty lies first and foremost to the Constitution--not to them.

[larkrake]

68. yes, enlistment says you will turn a blind eye to obvious crimes

and if you do report anything wonky, you get disappeared. Only the brave go to truthful media at any cost.

[Luminous Animal]

96. Well, that would be a minority of the population.

And I apologize for calling you Sarge. I got you confused with another DUer.

[Toucano]

51. I didn't hurl - - I said "-ish".

You don't see a similarity between the way tea partiers object to everything from Medicare to public schools on the grounds that "it ain't in the constitution," and your objection to the chain of command and military structure on the same grounds?

"Obeying a superior officer" is constitutional because the constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws and the Uniform Code of Military Justice is one of those laws.

Don't be offended, but the right has a powerful way of influencing our thinking even if they don't get us to agree with them. It's a type of contagious thought control.

[Luminous Animal]

100. Actually, military justice predates the Constitution

and is a system outside the civil protections of the Constitution. Which, by the way, I think is bullshit and has allowed such atrocities as military tribunals for terrorist criminals.

By the way, Mr. Scorpio grants that he was imprecise and did not mean that his duty to obey his superiors was Constitutionally mandated. So, it appears I was right and not teabaggerish after all.

[Luminous Animal]

Tea party-ish, eh? A reasonable person would withhold the slur and offer up some evidence to...

support their argument. How about you find that part of the Constitution or any Supreme court ruling that requires anyone to obey their superiors? And, if you can't find any evidence of such in the historical record, perhaps you could do your own search and let me where, in your opinion, it could be interpreted, thusly

[namahage]

75. Try the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which the poster you're replying to mentioned. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

95. If that was what Sarge meant, then that is what Sarge should of said.

And Sarge, of course, is the person to whom my original post was directed. It's sweet of Toucano to step in and speak for him.

[Toucano]

109. "Sweet"?! Why, I resent that SLUR! It's condescending and unreasonable!

Especially since everyone knows I'm savory!


Do you not get how DU works? Let me illustrate for you, I'll be blue and you be orange:

****ORIGINAL POST
*******Observation or comment by other member on original post
*******Observation or comment by other member on original post
*******Observation or comment by other member on original post
**********Observation or comment by other member or original post author on new observation or comment
**********Observation or comment by other member or original post author on new observation or comment
**************Observation or comment by other member on the observation by the other member
**********Observation or comment by other member or original post author on new observation or comment
*******Observation or comment by other member on original post
*******Observation or comment by other member on original post
*******Observation or comment by other member on original post
**********Observation or comment by other member or original post author on new observation or comment
*******Observation or comment by other member on original post

Notice how the blue comment is not directed at or speaking for the author of the original post? It is actually a comment or observation related to the post immediately above it. Quite often, it may not even be about the original post. It might be only tangentially related.

The orange comment, in turn, is a comment about the content of the blue comment. And we continue thusly.

Ready to play now? Welcome aboard.

[Luminous Animal]

115. Sweet still that you feel the need to school me on internet discussion.

Thank you for taking the time.

[Toucano]

84. That's a slur? It's actually a valid observation of a faulty reasoning style

prevalent among tea party members.

Questioning the constitutionality of everything from the estate tax to water fluoridation is a hallmark of their "thought" process.

For a DUer to question the constitutionality of the 60-year old UCMJ and it's insubordination clause is, thusly, "tea party-ish".

You'll note the civility and reasonableness of my not referring to the poster as a "tea partier", but rather referring to their statement as "tea party-ish".

[Luminous Animal]

92. Again. If you can site any case law or any mention in the Federalist papers or

or any historical reference or any hint of a mention that the Constitution requires anyone to obey their superiors, please let me know.

My reasoning is clear. Now, if Sarge wants to present that it was his duty, as a Marine, to obey his superiors, I'm okay with that but false Constitutional requirements demand clarity.

[Toucano]

104. LOL! I'm not your research monkey.

If you want to prove the UCMJ is unconstitutional, it behooves you to bring a challenge and prove YOUR case.

Prepare your brief on the unconstitutionality of immunization requirements and school uniforms while you're at it.

[Luminous Animal]

106. Like I said. Mr. Scorpio admitted that he was imprecise and he meant the UCMJ

and I've no problem with that. So you are arguing for something that the OP as already conceded.

[Toucano]

112. You no longer want to challenge the constitutionality of the UCMJ?

What a disappointment!

I was looking forward to that.

[Luminous Animal]

114. Why should I? That was never my point nor did I state that in any of my posts.

In fact, I clearly said this: "Now, if Sarge wants to present that it was his duty, as a Marine, to obey his superiors, I'm okay with that..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9659531&mesg_id=9661046

[leftynyc]

143. It's part of his military oath

What part of that is too hard for your to understand. This "it's not in the constitution" argument is getting pretty freeking tired whether it comes from the teabaggers or the perpetually angry left.

[stevenleser]

144. You swear an oath to obey your superiors and the Uniform Code of Military Justice under whose

regulations you are subject when you enlist or commission. The constitutionality of the UCMJ has been addressed multiple times. It is pointless for you to try to assail it here like this.

[Capitalocracy]

156. You are not under obligation to obey illegal orders.

And if you do, you risk prosecution. That's the way it works in the real world. If he felt the Iraq war was illegal and had access to evidence to back that up, it was his responsibility to try to stop it. Otherwise, he's complicit. You know following orders isn't an excuse.

[rasputin1952]

158. It's the UCMJ as well as the Constitution we abide by. Constitutionally,

the military makes it's own rules and is authorized by Article 1, Section 8 (14th and 16th paragraphs). It is indeed a part of the Constitution when Congress authorizes the UCMJ, which is reviewed by the USSC, (although review is not required).

I held a Top Secret clearance as well, and to this day will not discuss some things w/o others, even if they have the same clearance, but not a "need to know". It's part of the military that almost everyone in the service understands and complies with.

I can say this though, I've seen documents cross my desk that were classified incorrectly as far Ias I was concerned. A good 60 percent had little to do with security and a LOT to do with someone covering their ass. What they were, I will not disclose, but I can assure you, that's the way it is in the classification system.

[loudsue]

12. I have to disagree, Mr. Scorpio.

The U.S. is no longer the country my father fought for, nor is it the country my grandfather, great-grandfathers, and uncles fought for. This country is now a corporate owned war machine, and it's time there were some SERIOUS awakenings.

[librechik]

14. The "channels" are broken. Remember Karen Kwiatkowski?

Since Bush, it doesn't work to report wrongdoing through the proper channels. You just get a boot in the teeth. I applaud your loyalty, even in the face of Bush crimes, but I am glad there are others who have had enough, and take extra-legal action to make a point--especially if the action seems to be protected by the first amendment, (in one perspective.) I celebrate Daniel Ellsberg--and I respect Bradley Manning's act of defiance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski (did the right thing but her superiors dumped her info--so 9/11 happened)

[stevenleser]

145. I had the opposite experience in the military. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. Here's a cookie.

[slackmaster]

16. Principles

You haz dem.

[Gregorian]

18. If the system worked, bush would have been impeached.

Like it was said above, the channels are broken.

This is the reset button. This is going to put a leash on the unleashed behavior of so many in our government. This is badly needed sunlight.

I need to add that this government is for the people, not the "people" as in corporations. We are being duped in a big way. I've known this for decades. It's way overdue for this to happen.

As far as I'm concerned they can reveal everything. Everything. Start over.

[leftstreet]

26. +1

[Toucano]

20. The part that bothers me is the "shotgun" way it was turned over.

If the official story is correct, and 250-some-odd thousand cables were turned over by one person, I seriously doubt he had more than a vague notion of the contents.

That's a little unsettling, and probably treasonous.

Evidence of possible criminal activity was handed over freely. Okay, that's a whistleblower. But other things were handed over, too. That's spying, I think.

[NuclearDem]

21. The proper channels wouldn't have done anything

The way the proper channels didn't do anything about us handing Iraqis over to be tortured by other Iraqis.

I don't like that classified documents had to be leaked, but there's simply no other option anymore. Our republic has been so badly corrupted that something drastic had to happen.

Oh, and from a former servicemember to another: thanks for your service! :hi:

[struggle4progress]

22. Thank you for your service and your integrity

I will add: I think there are some circumstances under which a person might take a stance different than yours, but I do not consider such circumstances routine, and I hope they are uncommon

[enough]

23. What does this mean, that we have to go along with whatever the government does,

even if we can see very clearly that what is being done is wrong and destructive?

It seems to me that the case of a person in the military is different from the person who is not. The rest of us have not taken an oath to follow orders not matter how morally or rationally repugnant. I think the rest of us have a different kind of duty.

[niyad]

24. did you happen to listen to daniel ellsberg yesterday on DN?

[MrScorpio]

33. No, I didn't

But Ellsberg did not give the Pentagon Papers to a foreign news agency, did he?

He didn't brag about betraying the country either, I don't think.

I consider Ellsberg a whistleblower, not a traitor.

At least he understood the implications of his actions, not like this other guy.

[tavalon]

141. Whether Manning understood what he did or not,

it was whistleblowing. If he didn't understand, then I wonder if he would have chosen a different action had he understood the possible consequences. That he may not have understood the implications doesn't make it inherently right or wrong.

Often the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is which side wins. Same with whistleblower versus traitor.

[niyad]

157. ummm, you do know that assange is NOT an american citizen, right?

how did he betray a country that isn't his country of origin or even residence?

and how do you know whether or not assange understands the implications of his acts? seriously, are you inside this guy's head?

you really should listen to ellsberg's comments on DN the other day.

[JVS]

27. "But mine worked dammit!" - Mr Burns

[DTMJ]

28. Daniel Ellsberg

Swore to defend and protect the constitution, too but he saw it as his duty to inform we the people.

I think we are fortunate to have these brave and honorable souls among us, unfortunately they are uncommon, whereas your actions are common.

Greg Mitchell and Daniel Ellsberg on the WikiLeaks Document Dump

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156709/greg-mitchell-and-daniel-ellsberg-wikileaks-document-dump

[rollin74]

29. I agree

[Individualist]

30. I applaud Manning and Ellsberg.

[Incitatus]

31. The invasion was illegal and if you knew about it and had access to documents that could prove it

you should have done something about it.

[MrScorpio]

40. You don't understand

All the information that proved that the invasion was illegal and unwarranted was already available in the press.

Congresspeople who opposed the war had already said everything about this had already put this info into the Congressional record.

And, no matter what, the war was going to happen anyway.

I couldn't have stopped it or even slowed it down.

The fact that it was an unnecessary war already public knowledge.

And I opposed it nonetheless... Even on Yahoo message boards and an anti-war march on Washington just before I retired.


I did my duty in the service, I don't regret it one bit.

[Tansy_Gold]

42. I was having coffee this morning with friends, and one said Assange should be shot

I said, "Why? For getting the truth out in the open?"

He said, "He's getting our guys killed over there."

I said, "No he's not. He didn't send them there. He didn't start two (or more) wars on the basis of lies. It's Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, Perle and Kristol and all the other chickenhawk warmongers, along with Obama and Petraeus and Gates who are getting people killed over there."

He sputtered, "But but but...."

And I said, "Julian Assange only put the documents out there. Someone else wrote them, someone else said them, someone else started the wars and sent the soldiers to fight."

He shut up.




Tansy Gold

[JVS]

45. You tell those screwheads!

[rug]

35. Too bad they played you.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. So you would keep any secrect for any authority if those were

the rules? No limits? And this is a thing of which you are proud?

[cbdo2007]

41. Agree MrScorpio - thank you for this

The people here at DU don't really understand what's happening here and that this could be putting all of our lives in danger.

[kayakjohnny]

49. Could?

Our lives are in danger anyway. Around the clock. Wherever we go.

Since birth.

And until we die.

The food you eat is probably more dangerous than what is happening with these leaks.

Think about it.

It is a game of numerical odds.

Really. Please think about that.

[Gregorian]

50. Our military has put us in danger.

Even Bin Laden said that he planned the attacks due to the American missiles he watched exploding over his part of the world.

I trusted Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. I didn't trust the misrepresentation at the UN.

Our military isn't doing what it should. Read the speech War is a Racket by Smedley Butler.

[EFerrari]

59. You keep repeating that as if repeating it makes it true.

lol

[Hissyspit]

103. I damn well understand what's going on here.

[MineralMan]

44. Same with me during the Vietnam War.

I was involved with a lot of Top Secret codeword stuff. None of it had to do with Vietnam, and I followed the laws under the UCMJ with regard to security issues. I would not have dreamed of disclosing any of it. I still would not, even though over 40 years has passed. None of it's relevant today, and much of it has already been revealed, but I would not reveal any of it.

It was the law. I agreed to protect the information I encountered. I swore to to that. So did the young man who passed this information to Assange. He's looking at decades in prison, and I have little sympathy for him, I'm afraid.

[Barack_America]

46. Assange is not American. He has no obligation to protect our secrets.

One could argue the rest of the world stands to benefit from our secrets being revealed.

As for the service member who revealed the secrets, yes, he should be prosecuted. I've no doubt he was aware of that possibility and determined it was worth revealing the information.

ETA: I mean, Jesus, our own Vice President outed a CIA agent after all.

[JVS]

56. OP is really not about Assange, it's about Manning.

I don't see why Assange should be in any more trouble than the newspapers that decided to run the stories.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. K&R

It's a matter of trust and keeping your word.
Thank you for sharing this.

:hi:

[laughingliberal]

48. I'm so glad Julian isn't you.

:)

[zigzagzed]

52. You're not alone

I was in a similar set of circumstances and faced the same ethical dilemmas. It is not any easy choice to remain silent upon seeing something that may be relevant to public dialogue. The system for addressing improperly classified information exists for a reason, and it works more often than not.

Many people are unaware that much of what is classified is protected not because of the information itself but because of how it was obtained. Classified facts themselves may seem trivial and unsurprising, especially if we see it repeated on the evening news. However, knowing what we know is a major indicator of how we know it (or, in professional parlance, the intelligence sources and methods). A fact may be classified not to protect the fact itself but to protect a source. An adversary can take countermeasures if it knows how we collect intelligence.

The most important reason for protecting classified information is to preserve the lives of our confidential sources.

I agree with you. What PFC Bradley Manning did was wrong, and it is right that he should be tried before a court martial for it. Everyone who handles classified data has a duty to report improper classifications, but they also have a duty to safeguard the lives of our sources.

[ngant17]

53. we live in a national security state, not a real democracy

nonetheless I can't accept that diplomacy must be operated within a netherworld, something that only a chosen select few can be allowed to access.

It is far too easy for the government to classify something as secret, in order to hide itself from criminal behavior.

War crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan have been condoned and committed by our own government, and they are continuing to do this, and that is only the tip of the iceberg of what we know at the moment. No one with any sense of morality can be a party to it. No one in the government has done anything to seriously address the vast number of war crimes which have been committed under the guise of the war on terrorism..

You do not ask the fox to guard the hen house. You can not expect the national security state to police itself from its own criminal activities.

The national security state is a vampire, and Assange is the brave hero who has dared to shove a holy cross in its morbid face. So predictably this terrified creature must gasp in horror, because it can not face the shining moral truths of its own self-generated corruption. And it has to flee to live in the darkness again, for its own survival.

No one who is truly human has any business protecting this vampire.

[jeff47]

135. Actually, not so much

Criminal acts can't be classified. If Manning had only leaked criminal acts, his defense would have a very strong case.

What most people fail to understand is "stuff I think is wrong" is not the same as criminal.

And as for war crimes, nothing from Wikileaks to date has revealed a US war crime.

[ngant17]

154. The killing of Afghan civilians was in the earlier Wikileaks

and this was considered a war crime, so it is reasonable that there are more war crimes to be exposed.

Criminal acts aren't classified because they are simply covered up, they don't have to be classified if they try to hide it from the records. You have a perfectly circular argument here.

The entire Iraq war was rife with criminal acts.

[NutmegYankee]

54. Thank You!

It nice to hear from someone with integrity. A true patriot does not do damage to his nation's national security to satisfy a political agenda.

[sudopod]

57. Proper channels?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

also, lol

[Individualist]

58. +1000

[EFerrari]

60. You may not have noticed but reporting the Pentagon's wrongdoing

to the Pentagon hasn't worked for many years.

[Soylent Brice]

62. you would think that would be obvious, but alas...

[jpgray]

63. Manning allegedly went to his superiors, and was ignored

What would the proper channels be at that point? He could go the Ellsberg route and give to the press direct, but wouldn't the end effect be the same? I respect your post completely, but I'm curious what you see as the proper course.

[riderinthestorm]

88. Kick for an answer to your question. nt

[jeanpalmer]

65. Stealing usually involves an unlawful taking

He didn't unlawfully take anything -- they gave it to him. He was in lawful possession of the information. So it's not right to accuse him of stealing.

[MrScorpio]

83. Just because it was in his possession, that didn't give him carte blanche to mishandle it

When he gleaned that information to send it to an unauthorized entity, his possession ceased being "lawful".

[jeff47]

136. Ok...

So when I check a book out of a library, I can go sell it? Most people would recognize it was not my book to sell.

Manning was given access based on his agreement to obey certain executive orders. He literally had to sign paperwork waving his constitutional rights (1st amendment) in order to get access to the information.

[SargeUNN]

66. He betrayed his oath and should be charged

I know some think they know more about the military structure than I do in spite of the fact that I served in not one, but two branches, however I really don't put stock in their opinions since most never did latrine duty. However like Burton, they think they are some kind of military brain. That said, when I was in and got a secret clearance that was upgraded later to top secret, I was informed and aware that it was my duty to remember the information was not my decision on being passed on, but those of my superiors. I know some would say that I should be willing to make a decision to reveal it IF I thought it was not legal, but they are full of crap. I was my duty if I felt so, to report it to my superior and not to the press. So yeah the one who did this was wrong and should be charged and put in prison. He violated his oath and he damn well knew it.

[EFerrari]

70. Whelp, now we know how the Pentagon gets away with "losing" billions of dollars. n/t

[Monique1]

78. EFerrari did you see in the service?

If you did, did you serve in the area of top secret area? I think it is easy to say I would do this or that but if you are not not directly involved - words are easy to put out.

[EFerrari]

82. Blind obedience is not a virtue, it's an abdication of responsibility.

And no, I was not in the military and yes, I did classified work. I was a translator and learned very precisely the value of the right word.

[NuclearDem]

71. And if your superiors did nothing about it?

Your duty is to the Constitution of the United States, not to your superiors. You should go to your superiors first, but if they just flat out ignore it, then your duty to the Constitution takes precedence.

Unlawful orders to cover up atrocities and keep them hidden through classification are no orders at all.

[bluedigger]

67. There are many actions you can take if you feel you are being given an illegal order.

Betraying your oath is not an honorable one and should be punished.

[NuclearDem]

72. If it's the Oath versus the truth about crimes being committed...

I'll take the truth. You don't need to swear by an Oath to have honor.

[bluedigger]

93. They aren't mutually exclusive.

He had choices, and chose poorly and indiscriminately.

[NuclearDem]

107. See my other posts

When the chain of command interferes with your duty to the Constitution, that "obey the orders of the President and of the officers appointed over me" forces you to violate the other clause about "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[bluedigger]

108. I don't disagree with your contention, just with his choice of method.

[NuclearDem]

110. And I wholeheartedly agree that his methods were wrong

Like I said in #94, he should've petitioned all the way up the chain of command first, then gone to his Inspector General (or whatever it is the Army; I know it's IG in the Air Force), then to his Congressmen, and then to the ICRC or Amnesty or some other NGO, then the press. Leaking the documents just because he could was dishonorable. I can't argue with some of the results, but his methods were dishonorable.

[bluedigger]

116. Holy Crap!

I think we have reached agreement! Let it be known on this day that two DU'ers found common cause. Let the healing begin!:rofl: (It is IG in the Army, too - the AF is a stepchild, remember.:9 )

[Skip Intro]

69. K&R #5

[Texasgal]

74. wow. I am shocked at some du'ers

attitude toward you...

No. wait. No I am not sadly.

Thank you for your service Mr. Scorpio.

[NuclearDem]

77. Just because we're debating a legitimate point doesn't mean we're taking an attitude towards him

Or am I wrong?

:shrug:

[Texasgal]

85. Well, if you look at this thread

I have seen him being personally blamed for deaths and other things that have occured in this war.

Screw that.

[Marr]

76. edit

went off on a tangent

[Monique1]

81. Wow! this is getting degrading

It is not a democrat or republic issue - it is about the safeguard of our country and our people who serve this country. It is about the integrity of their position. Not taking any guilt for what I believe. I would never think of revealing anything that might hurt both our country and service people for what might be juicy news. Plus give the information to a foreign so called writer - now that is treason. Why didn't this person go to their congress person or senator first?

[MilesColtrane]

79. I'm down.

[alfredo]

80. I agree 100%. I served from 65 to 69 in the

Army Security Agency. I had a Top Secret Crypto clearance. My experience was the same.

Many things have been declassified but I don't speak about them, except for the USS Liberty murders. Only then it is about obtaining justice for those murdered by the Israeli military.

[LostInAnomie]

86. The responses in this thread are shameful.

There are a lot of DUers that owe you an apology, MrScorpio.

A lot of keyboard radicals on this board have no fucking clue what it means to take an oath and honor it. They are much more comfortable talking out of their ass about honor from the safety of their computer chairs. They are no different than their keyboard commando counterparts.

Your service should be honored, and you should be proud.

[Texasgal]

89. Agreed.

I am rarely disgusted...but tonight I am. TRULY.

[Monique1]

91. I so agree with Mr. Scorpio

[Luminous Animal]

105. I've taken an oath, several times in my life, to not abandon my sisters and brothers

when engaged in civil disobedience. I've taken an oath to not shirk when charged at, or beaten, or injured in any way, to stay the course when confronted with violence, and to be prepared to give up my liberty.

I am proud to say that, not once, have I backed down.

[NuclearDem]

120. Yeah, the Oath of Enlistment is the only oath anyone can take

And no one who has, say, sworn to take someone as their lawfully-wedded wife or husband would know what it means to take and honor an oath. Or any DUers who work in the medical profession. :eyes:

[Union Scribe]

122. An oath to abet criminals is not worth honoring, for what it's worth.

[Roon]

90. Damn,scorpio!

I didn't know about that about you! Pretty wild, hats off to you.

[NuclearDem]

94. Alright, I just want to be clear here

I'm not questioning or degrading MrScorpio's honorable service. Anyone who is should be ashamed of themselves.

But I also took that Oath. And I also was given a Top Secret-SCI clearance. And I know that while I swore to obey the orders of the President and of the officers appointed over me, those orders don't always fall in line with the other part I swore: to defend the Constitution of the United States.

We're taught as servicemen to disobey illegal orders and to address it through our chain of command. But when nobody in the chain of command does anything about it(as was done with the torture chambers in Iraq that we allowed to go on under Iraqi charge and were in fact ordered to turn a blind eye to), our duty falls to the Constitution and the promise it gave to the world. The promise that we would be different, that we would be the champion of human rights and liberty around the world. Not just the new oppressors.

Admittedly, Manning had so many other options he could have made use of before simply releasing that information to Wikileaks: addressing his Congressmen, petitioning all the way up the chain of command to the President, or reporting abuses to NGOs like Amnesty.

But when all else fails, when the chain of command fails to address war crimes happening within his own ranks, it becomes the serviceman's duty to uphold the Constitution above all else. I'm not saying that's why Manning did what he did; from what I can tell, he did what he did just to prove he could, which is completely dishonorable.

You can't simply hide behind "it was my job to protect classified information" when it comes to concealing torture chambers. "Just doing my job" wasn't a defense at Nuremberg, and it isn't one now. The Geneva Conventions say so. The US military says so (I know; I've sat through dozens of briefings on that very topic).

I enlisted because, above all, I believe in America and the Constitution. When the President or any member of the chain of command orders torture or to have torture concealed, they become one of the domestic enemies I swore to defend the Constitution against.

But again, MrScorpio, I respect and honor your service. Very few people have the ability to do what we do. :hi:

[steve2470]

99. I agree with you

Even though our government has serious problems, it's still a huge stretch to compare it to Stalinist USSR or Nazi Germany.

If everyone, on a whim or their notion of ethics, decided to break their oaths and violate the confidentiality laws, there would be no diplomacy whatsoever. Wars would become much more common as well as sporadic violence.

When and if our government truly becomes comparable to Stalin's USSR or Hitler's Germany, then and only then should members of the military and diplomatic corps routinely consider breaking the laws. We are not there yet.

I'm not intimately familiar with the case of Daniel Ellsberg, but history has shown him to be a real hero. I'm not sure what laws, if any, he violated, but he surely paid the price for his civil disobedience. For me to risk imprisonment in federal prison, a secret would have to be of overriding importance to pay that possible price.

[NuclearDem]

101. Being ordered to cover up the torture of innocent people seems reason enough for me

Not all confidentiality is a good thing. Covering up war crimes and then hiding behind "it was classified information" is no excuse.

And to an extent, we have become as bad as those countries. We've converted a US military base into a gulag and we're letting torture happen under our noses, and our servicemen are being told to cover it up. If we don't do something to stop it here and now we're very soon going to become EXACTLY like the USSR.

[NuclearDem]

111. "Honor, code, loyalty"

I wonder where we've heard that before?

[MrScorpio]

117. I should make a few things clear...

None of the information that I had had anything to do with criminal torture by troops, or any other crimes per se.

None of the "juicy" stuff that all of us love to harp on around here, I had no access to it..

I found out about those crimes just like everyone else... In the press.

I started my duty in the Intel Squadron during Clinton's last term. At the time we were responsible for patrolling the Iraqi No Fly zones with (unarmed) Predator drones, looking for activity by the Iraqis that violated the UN sanctions that were in effect at the time. The USAF pretty much destroyed unauthorized anti-aircraft radar sites and just observed the goings on in those areas. It was not our responsibility to find (or create phony) evidence of WMDs.

If you remember around that time, the stuff that was going on in Iraq was pretty much out of the news, as they were properly classified as NOT A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.

That changed once Bush came into office, as we all know. In spite of the crap that they had created as "proof", we were kept out of the loop.

As I mentioned before, all the information that anyone needed to prove that the Bushies were lying was already in the news.

No information that I had custody of would have made one bit of difference in stopping the attack on Iraq. Not ONE IOTA. I had no access to those sensitive compartments, only that information that pertained to USAF operations.

The Bushies were hell bent on war, and no one short of Congress, could have stopped them... And this, in spite of quite a few voices in Congress who spoke out against the war with the facts. We all saw how that worked out.

They didn't need me to get the truth out... They already had it.

The point being is that any of you who feel that you have to blame me for doing my duty and that duty culminated in Bush and Cheney's illegal war, have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

The war was going to happen and I didn't have the power to stop it.

[NuclearDem]

119. I'm not blaming you for doing your job

Like you said, you didn't have evidence of war crimes being committed by US forces that you were forced to conceal.

That's the only point I was making.

[treestar]

118. K&R

Absolutely. Only in the rarest circumstances would there even be a question.

[Union Scribe]

121. I'm not going to slam you for that, but

don't criticize others who made a different decision, perhaps in order to assuage your own conscience. Some people are able to rationalize their place in the pecking order, and some see travesties and cannot abide them. You did what you thought was right, and so did the whistleblowers. All I know is, I wish some more people had spoken up and brought the death machine to a halt before it got rolling.

[Joe Fields]

123. I like you, Scorpio, but you are wrong.

If you were sworn to uphold the constitution, then it was your sworn duty to expose illegal acts. Sadly, going through the proper channels doesn't work, in the real world, as EVERYONE, including you knows. It takes a real act of courage to do what that soldier did.

[MrScorpio]

124. I believe that he had no right to steal classified data...

And then give it to Assange, who had no right to have have it in the first place.

In my eyes, it's no different than giving our classified data to the Chinese, or the Russians, or the Israelis.

I can't call a publicity seeking fool, as Manning is, a "hero". The man disregarded his obligations and went about his "activism" in a wrong and dangerous fashion.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[NuclearDem]

125. I've said it before and I'll say it again

Manning went about it the completely wrong way, his motives were dishonorable, and he had plenty of other avenues left to address his concerns before he went to the press, but the dump exposed war crimes going on inside Iraq, crimes that the US military was carrying out or letting the Iraqis carry out.

If getting public outrage about the secret Iraqi torture prisons we were establishing and allowing to operate has to be done through disclosing classified information, then so be it. The sooner those get shut down and fewer innocent Iraqis are subjected to them, the better. Just because you never had to deal with war crimes being concealed doesn't mean others don't. And when the trials against these war criminals start, every single person who authorized them, turned a blind eye to them, or refused to bring them to light because "it was their job to protect classified data" or "they had no right to steal classified information" will be tried and held accountable. Those are no longer excuses.

[jeff47]

137. Wikileaks hasn't revealed any US war crimes

Torture was revealed by the NY Times.

[Joe Fields]

131. Well, we are at odds on this one, my friend.

I cannot claim to know the motives of the soldier, or Assange, but the information was too important and too damning to be kept hidden from the public. This issue, I'm sure you realize can be argued both ways.

Bottom line, is that I don't believe that, without this soldier, we would ever have known this information.

Maybe you view that as a good thing. IDK. But I, for one, feel that the truth should see the light of day.

[JackRiddler]

126. Your oath to the Constitution?

Can you show me the article and paragraph in that document that says you must keep the secrets for an unelected regime that is lying to the people so that it can conduct an extraconstitutional war of aggression?

Or just tell me which part of the Constitution you mean.

[NuclearDem]

127. Anyone who thinks they're supporting the Constitution by concealing war crimes

is hopelessly brainwashed and frankly is a disgrace to our country. They're all going to be held accountable one day...

[JackRiddler]

128. What about those of your fellow soldiers who refused to go to Iraq?

Is what they did also completely wrong?

[fujiyama]

129. Manning will and should be prosecuted accordingly

I've been fascinated like many others by the info found in the leaks and I agree with others though that info that reveals crimes and torture should come to light. Also believe that the government has, especially since the Bush administration, and on through the current one, classified information that really doesn't need it. The government also has a tendency to classify things for way too long.

But I am not particularly impressed by the way the leaks have come about. It has been released carte blanche, with no real intention of just shedding light on crimes that have taken place. I get the impression that much of it was leaked with a simple intention of attempting to embarrass the US for petty purposes. I also do not like that many informants' names/descriptions, etc were not blacked out. Sure, there is no evidence thus far of anyone being harmed by the leaks, but still I see no purpose in making some of this info public.

I also have a bad feeling that this will actually have a counterproductive result. Communication security everywhere will be beefed up and the reaction will ultimately be to restrict as much data as possible. Hopefully I'm wrong but I expect even more secrecy and paranoia by governments worldwide.

[MrScorpio]

130. You're one of the few people who speak of how counterproductive the leaks actually are

I feel that this incident will be used as ammo to punish real whistle blowers in the future.

[EFerrari]

132. I don't think it's counterproductive to reveal the contempt

these people have for their own people, for the law and for each other.

I think it's a very good thing that is out in the open.

And since they have relied on obedience for decades, they are not prepared to clamp down on anything except Julian although, if they arrest him, they'll have to arrest the crew at the New York Times as well.

[jeff47]

138. Yeah, not so much.

The result will be that information is simply not shared as widely. Information will be classified at a higher level than necessary to restrict access, and the various entities within the government will reduce how much they share with each other.

That, btw, was what the official investigation blamed 9/11 on. Which is why the information was there for Manning to steal.

So how, specifically, is it to our benefit to reveal that the US things Medvedev is a useless figurehead?

[EFerrari]

147. Yes, that's what it was blamed on. Good way to put it.

And I'll ask you, why would it benefit a free people to find out their leadership has contempt for them, for democracy, for the law and for each other?

I don't know about you but it puts me on a different, maybe less pleasant but at least more realistic footing.

[jeff47]

148. I'll be interested in answering your question when you actually answer mine.

Our diplomats reported the president of Russia is a figurehead. This was necessary, so the rest of our diplomats know what's going on when they deal with Russia. Now that that's public, it's pissed of the president of Russia and Putin. Not to mention probably irritated any rank-and-file Russians.

How's that help?

[EFerrari]

149. You're taking the smallest bit of the whole picture

and forming it into a straw man. Try to look at he bigger picture.

(And I did answer your question, btw.)

People are pissed off all over the world. Bolivia will likely bring suit against us for spying and for supporting a violent opposition group. Mel Zelaya is heading back to the UN with one of those cables in his hand. Spain is furious that their government would cooperate with the United States to kill the investigation of the killing of one of their citizens.

Russia will have to deal with their people having a similar awakening to the one I'm suggesting to you. What they do with it, I have no idea. But Putin and the people who hold him up are murderous corrupt thugs. Any knock they take is a good thing.

The sunshine is good for peoples all over the world and there's much more where it came from. It's hard to see how anyone misses that.

[jeff47]

151. No, I didn't

I'm trying to understand the people from the "Everything that was leaked was fantastic!!!!" side of the argument. Because that position makes no sense to me.

The stuff Manning leaked has fallen into three categories:
-Stuff we already new from traditional news sources
-Inconsequential information
-Stuff that harms diplomatic relations, where publicity doesn't do any good.

The case of Medvedev is the latter. We need Russia's assistance to avoid nuclear proliferation if we want to avoid solutions that involve high explosives. Publicly calling Medvedev a puppet obviously harms that goal. I'm trying to understand why, specifically, it's OK to let more countries get 'the bomb' just so we can confirm news stories from 2007 or that Castro likes cigars. I want to understand what in your head feels a significantly greater risk of Israeli bombs falling on Iran is worth it.

In addition, I want to talk about what Manning actually leaked. Not flail our hands about talking about war crimes, or illegal activities that were not revealed by Manning. I want to understand how you specifically feel about the consequences of what was actually leaked instead of waving your hands about "sunshine is always good!!!". Because the leaks have provided no worthwhile sunshine.

That means picking out "the smallest bit". Because the whole picture is built on those bits. Manning didn't leak a document saying "the US is EVIL!!!". He leaked hundreds of thousands of small bits.

And no, you didn't answer my question. Which is why I keep having to write these lengthy posts.

[EFerrari]

152. You're looking at the Medvedev material from the point of view

of the political elite in this country. Try putting yourself in the shoes of the Russian people. I promise you, you have much more in common with them than with any State Department flak.

And I did talk about what was revealed in this release. The statements I made about Bolivia, Honduras and Spain are entirely grounded in cables that were released. And what I pointed to were direct consequences of those cables.

Yes, I've thoroughly answered your question. You just don't like the answer.

You might try to disentangle yourself from what this means to the people at the State Department who hold you in contempt so profound, they think you won't bother to read the material and that they can make this better by smearing Assange. You might try to figure out what it means for you.

[Better Believe It]

139. I'm sorry to hear that the military brass successfully indoctrinated you to actually believe that.

If you came across "classified" Bush government documents that would have made it more difficult for the Bush government to sell their lying pro-war invasion propaganda to the people you should have gotten it out to the media. You might have saved some lives of both GI's and Iraqi civilians.

Unless you think that George W. Bush is "the nation" you would not have betrayed the "nation's secrets" by exposing government lies.

To not reveal those kinds of Bush government secrets would have constituted a real betrayal of the people in this nation.

Did you actually see such documents?

[tavalon]

140. I can see you feel passionately about this

I disagree with you just as passionately. I worked at Wilford Hall in Tricare long enough to see how "the proper channels" were the silencers. Many situations in which people choose to whistleblow are the ones in which working through the proper channels has not or would not work. And every whistleblower knows that despite the rhetoric of safety for said whistleblower that if it is possible, the whistleblower will be hurt in some way. As a person who chose that path twice, each time I knew I would face consequences and I quit one job and was fired from the other. In both circumstances, I didn't take on whistleblowing lightly. I knew the high cost.

What Bradley Manning did was illegal but it was not, IMO, immoral. And I'm fairly sure he knew full well he would go to jail if caught. At least I hope he did. He is a hero to me. And I wish such a hero could actually receive protection for whistleblowing, but he won't and that is as it is.

That you would not see it as the right thing to do doesn't make you immoral. I know you're not. But I do think it's naive of you to believe that Bradley Manning would have gotten the information out to the public as it needed to be by following correct military channels. It never would have seen the light of day and it needed to.

Have you ever chosen the path of the whistleblower? Don't feel bad if you haven't. Few do.

[jeff47]

150. Your timing is a little off

Manning never talked about any positive reason for leaking the information until _after_ he got caught.

Before he got caught, his comments to various 'hackers' were along the lines of "look how cool I am! I know secretz!".

Claiming he was a whistle-blower is an after-the-fact justification for what he did. And indeed if he actually was concerned about some specific wrongdoing, he'd have only leaked information about that wrongdoing. Instead, he leaked that we know Castro's favorite brand of cigars.

As for "the information out to the public as it needed to be": What, specifically, was revealed by anything he's leaked so far? Everything I've seen was already reported by the traditional press before Wikileaks or as inconsequential as Gaddafi's nurse.

[tavalon]

155. Transparancy about these two illegal wars needs to get out

If anything fluffy like "so and so swears like a sailor" comes out with it, then I'm left to wonder why the fuck it was classified in the first place? I'm not an absolutest. I recognize that there are actually things a government would need to keep secret for national security but I believe that's a slippery slope and we're currently floundering in the mud at the bottom. Dumbass Dubya and Darth Cheney took secrecy to mean "hide anything, anywhere, anytime, because we can". This administration has followed along. Not even marginally okay in a supposed Democracy (and I'm taking liberties here - I know that we are supposedly a Representative Republic and are likely actually closer to a Corporatocracy. Funny, I seem to be blanking on what the term is for the merger of government with corporations.). The amount of stuff that this country deems secret would make sense in a Totalitarian government, but we don't have that, do we?

My grandmother, God rest her soul, use to tell me that if I was doing something that I would be ashamed to have God see, don't do it. I think the same should be followed by Governments. No, I don't want church and state merging, for any of you out there who don't parse nuance.

The Rumsfeld* Doctrine states that it isn't the act that is illegal, it's the recording of the act that's illegal. I don't support that point of view at all. In that case, I counter with, shine the light on all illegal acts perpetrated by our government, since they can't seem to follow my grandmother's edict.





*No link for this term because it's a term I coined, along with the definition, in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib atrocities.

[conspirator]

142. -1000. Totally disagree. What is a nation when it's in the hands of a few?

It would have been wrong for a german official to betray Hitler?

[leftynyc]

146. Thank you for serving MrScorpio

And for taking your oath seriously. Some of the responders to your post can go fuck themselves. Manning should be tried for treason.

[Better Believe It]

153. And who do you think the military is serving? Us? Nope. I hope you don't actually believe that.

Mere cannon fodder for Wall Street and corporate America.

Read "War Is A Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html