RE: treason?

RE: treason? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Nosathro -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 12:58:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro In my army training, I was told I following an order that is unlawful is a crime under the UCMJ. I asked the instructer what if I am told to put civilians in a pit and shoot them. The instructer stated it is military policy that you obey all order give to you. If you think it is unlawful, obey and afterwards report it. Clearly you and I were in different branches of the military. I was in the US Army

Politesub53 -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 3:28:54 AM)
What exactly, did Manning leak that put lives in danger. I suspect the myriad of books written for profit by ex military/political types give away more operational detail than Manning ever did.

Politesub53 -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 3:30:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wittynamehere "Anyone who doesn't believe what Pvt Manning did rises to the level of treason is themselves guilty of treason." Wow, somebody actually said that, and wasn't kidding? Yikes. Didnt you listen to George ???? "If you`re not for us, you`re against us." [;)]

JeffBC -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 5:38:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I do seem to recall - though I may be mistaken - that there were people around to alert the US public to the lies and very slanted "intelligence", but that their voices were drowned by many more who pushed that disinformation. These days news and truths are made according to order. yes, there were. In point of fact there were people warning the president... pretty much everyone in fact. Those people were replaced until he found a group of analysts who would come up with the answer he wanted. Insofar as the public, yes we were warned also. In fact we were warned by some of those same people before they were silenced. WMD was a lie from beginning to end and everyone knew it -- or should have known it. I'm guessing that if the sum total of one's news was from Fox "news" then you might not have known it.

thompsonx -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 6:03:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Here is something to consider as well Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified with "Tokyo Rose" convicted 1949. Subsequently pardoned by President Gerald Ford. Perhaps that is because we now know that she was a spy for the allies. Where did you get that idea? Google can be your friend...whadyagotolos?

Nosathro -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 8:02:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Here is something to consider as well Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified with "Tokyo Rose" convicted 1949. Subsequently pardoned by President Gerald Ford. Perhaps that is because we now know that she was a spy for the allies. Where did you get that idea? Google can be your friend...whadyagotolos? How about showing the link to all this. All I found was that she was accused of being a spy against the US

Nosathro -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 8:05:50 AM)
By the way in the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) the punitive articles 77 to 134 none have a charge of treason.

kdsub -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 8:50:20 AM)
quote: What exactly, did Manning leak that put lives in danger The problem with this self proclaimed savior is he was privy to information without knowledge of its meaning or use. He had no idea how the information he had access to was going to be used. I do think the man was sincere if naive in his beliefs but that is no excuse for what he did. We are all responsible for our actions no matter the motivation. He should have thought his actions through and found a way to protest without betraying his country and fellow soldiers who are just as patriotic as he. The man released diplomatic cables…videos…and reports that were used to recruit more radicals to kill Americans...this is common sense. Can numbers be produced…can actual deaths be directly attributed…no but what do you think? Butch

JeffBC -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 9:17:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub The man released diplomatic cables…videos…and reports that were used to recruit more radicals... "Radicals" like me who read some of that shit and said to himself, "Dear God! Look at what my government is doing!" I'd just prefer to see if there's some solution short of "killing Americans".

kdsub -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 9:23:55 AM)
quote: Dear God! Look at what my government is doing That’s my point...you don't know what they were doing. You...and I...and the self designated savior of America...had and have no idea how the information was to be acted on. Butch

JeffBC -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 9:35:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub That’s my point...you don't know what they were doing. You...and I...and the self designated savior of America...had and have no idea how the information was to be acted on. Fundamentally Butch, I think the difference between us is that you blindly trust the US government. You think it is a force for good. I see it quite the opposite. So clearly, to me, "states secrets" are a bad thing. To you, it is "protecting our national interests".

kdsub -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 9:39:18 AM)
Below is what I was taught in the Marine Corps covering what is an unlawful order. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. Butch

kdsub -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 9:44:19 AM)
quote: Fundamentally Butch, I think the difference between us is that you blindly trust the US government. You think it is a force for good. I see it quite the opposite Yes it is a big difference...I do trust the people of this nation...our motivations, moral direction and our government. Not blindly however…we must be watchful for abuse of our Constitution. As I’ve stated above it is not his motivation did but how he did it and for that he deserves punishment. Butch

Politesub53 -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 4:01:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: What exactly, did Manning leak that put lives in danger The problem with this self proclaimed savior is he was privy to information without knowledge of its meaning or use. He had no idea how the information he had access to was going to be used. I do think the man was sincere if naive in his beliefs but that is no excuse for what he did. We are all responsible for our actions no matter the motivation. He should have thought his actions through and found a way to protest without betraying his country and fellow soldiers who are just as patriotic as he. The man released diplomatic cables…videos…and reports that were used to recruit more radicals to kill Americans...this is common sense. Can numbers be produced…can actual deaths be directly attributed…no but what do you think? Butch I think Manning caused less casualties than those who sent troops into Iraq on a clear pretence. More were radicalised by allied action there, in my view. Especially by the rounding up of hundreds of innocnt civillians for questioning, let alone gitmo and the stray drone attacks. I have seen more "stuff" about how "our" people operate in biographies than anything I ever saw in Wikileaks.

Rule -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 4:48:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub The man released diplomatic cables…videos…and reports that were used to recruit more radicals to kill Americans...this is common sense. Which may have been exactly what the adroit people who appointed him wished (and hoped) for. So the questions become: who selected him for his job and who influenced him?

Owner59 -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 5:21:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I do seem to recall - though I may be mistaken - that there were people around to alert the US public to the lies and very slanted "intelligence", but that their voices were drowned by many more who pushed that disinformation. These days news and truths are made according to order. yes, there were. In point of fact there were people warning the president... pretty much everyone in fact. Those people were replaced until he found a group of analysts who would come up with the answer he wanted. Insofar as the public, yes we were warned also. In fact we were warned by some of those same people before they were silenced. WMD was a lie from beginning to end and everyone knew it -- or should have known it. I'm guessing that if the sum total of one's news was from Fox "news" then you might not have known it. For many including myself,one of the biggest insults committed by bush/dick was taking the anger,hurt,resolve and unity we felt as a nation and using it,turning it,diverting it to their own selfish personal/political ends. Coincidentally (or not)....just about every high ranking bushie signed a letter years earlier to President Clinton, begging him to do what they would years later, trick the American public into doing.....invading Iraq. I too think Manning may have had good intentions but IMHO,he should be treated just as if he had bad intentions.It`s not just about him but about preventing this happening as much as possible. Though it`s under constant attack and insult by the right ,the press is free and open enough and brave enough to be there when something really does get FUBAR,like torturing a Iraqi taxie driver to death or when a GI goes postal or when an admin. leaks confidential intel.

kdsub -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 7:07:53 PM)
quote: I think Manning caused less casualties than those who sent troops into Iraq on a clear pretence. More were radicalised by allied action there, in my view Not the same...the so called clear pretense is only so in hindsight... But I agree at the least there was incompetence on Bush's part. But even if you are right one crime does not justify another. Butch

Powergamz1 -> RE: treason? (3/5/2013 10:25:43 PM)
That's because treason is a federal crime (18 U.S.C. § 2381 ) with which anyone can be charged, civilian or military. The military can also add it under Art 106(c) or Art 134. quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro By the way in the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) the punitive articles 77 to 134 none have a charge of treason.

Nosathro -> RE: treason? (3/6/2013 1:54:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 That's because treason is a federal crime (18 U.S.C. § 2381 ) with which anyone can be charged, civilian or military. The military can also add it under Art 106(c) or Art 134. quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro By the way in the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) the punitive articles 77 to 134 none have a charge of treason. Article 106 deals with spying also we are not at War, congress has not declared it. Text. “Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the United States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death. Article 134 has no provison for teason but Manning is charge for violating the article 134 UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts. Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code: 18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute. 18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court. 793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of its language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law Again Manning is not charged with treason civil or military.

thompsonx -> RE: treason? (3/6/2013 11:24:27 AM)
quote: How about showing the link to all this. All I found was that she was accused of being a spy against the US How about you stop being so fucking lazy and educate yourself?

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875