I just happened to read these two articles and thought the similarities were interesting:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...bama-so-afraid
http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS..._12000221.aspx
Printable View
I just happened to read these two articles and thought the similarities were interesting:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...bama-so-afraid
http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS..._12000221.aspx
So you are saying Bradley Manning was a hero?
"Insider Treat" isn't terminology about people releasing info of political wrongdoing. It's terminology used with talking about people like Ames, Hanssen, Brian Regan, Wen Ho Lee, etc.
Isn't that what Bradley Manning did?
No. Look, if you don't know what you're talking about, please don't spew this filth. Bradley Manning leaked sensitive military information without authorization. Classifying something because you claim it could threaten national security, and actual information that could threaten national security are two different things. Leaking things about the administration, and leaking things about our troops are two very different things, trust me, I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
What Manning did was leak things on the administration. I am not defending him. Though I think we keep too many secrets and we should be more open about things in gov.
I am pointing out a real world similarity to the original article that they poster posted.
Depends on who you ask. If you ask me, yes he did but his motivation for the illegal release of information was not the same as those I listed. Regardless, he is the potential new face of insider threat, and he wasn't the first to illegally release classified info to media based on a motivation of disagreeing with current political beliefs or military actions. They both have the same consequences, they put human intelligence assets and military at immensely greater risk and most result in deaths of critical assets. Three letter agencies don't publicly release information concerning assets being neutralized as a result of these releases. It compounds the risk and impact of the loss. Occasionally, some of the info gets released like in the Ames and Hanssen cases, but there is a LOT more than never reaches public consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Complete bullshit. It was military classified information and Diplomatic cables during the Iraqi war from Baghdad. He cost lives. After his conviction, he needs to be led into a tile room with a floor drain and tapped in the back of the head. Regardless of his motivation, he is a traitor to his country, his military, and his unit. He swore an oath and then pissed all over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
So how is that different from the original article?
I ask that again because its a grey zone. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
Based on the two links in the OP, there are some similarities and some differences. The similarities Sharpie is inferring is the governments of North Korea and Egypt have wide spread fear of their own people. It appears so does the current executive branch of our government. The difference is how those fears are manifesting in policy and in the population. I don't necessarily agree that the correlation is there, but I do see his point. For the executive branch to release a memo relaying serious concern about insider threat is a clear indication there are serious disagreements within the branch. Having worked under the Clinton administration while in the Military, I can tell you there was never this level of concern within the executive branch where an utter disconnect between the elected officials were concerned of agencies under is branch were going to intentionally release info. We always have one or two per administration commit espionage in this country. Believe me, it's way more prevalent in other countries. But, we rarely have systemic concern. For the most part, the US citizens identify themselves internationally through their governmental identity. If you ask the question, "What does the USA mean to the world," you get a considerably higher amount of governmental theology than any other country. This relates to a much higher standard of loyalty to the country regardless of the administration. For this executive memo to be released shows a systemic lack of confidence in proportions not seen in this country since the election of 1860 and we all know how that turned out.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
I can see how this would be confusing for you. Pick a side....Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
Well SA I personally think it is bad too.
My OP was mostly in jest. I understand they're different, but i just thought it was kinda funny that Obama and Kim Jong-un would release somewhat similar statements around the same time frame. But I'm glad it has spurred conversation.
You are so full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
I guess you have never heard or had the ability to understand that saying - which is it?
Because the British crown called the US patriots terrorists. Esp the sharp shooters taking out officers.
No, nynco...as usual, you don't have a fucking clue nor are you as smart or enlightened as you seem to think.
The difference between you and me is that I think in the context of a citizen patriot, loyal to the United States. You apparently, are a little more multi-culturally or diversity oriented than I. And I see that as a problem. As I've said before, I see people with your mindset as the enemy, regardless of your protestations to the contrary that you're not a liberal, or progressive or whatever.
As a patriot citizen of the United States I look upon someone like Bradley Manning as the enemy as well. SAFriday is right...he deserves nothing more than a bullet in the back of his head. Yes, I'd be more than happy to supply the bullet and pull the trigger. I'm sure you think that's just terribly brutal. Your nonsense about "one man's freedom fighter" is just horseshit. But I'm not surprised...it's what you do best.
There was no US when we were fighting the crown. Had we lost all the found fathers would have been hung as traitors and their forces labeled as terrorists to the loyalists.
Manning thought he was exposing a gov that had gone out of control. Which some of the stuff he released showed just that.
So we all get to just pick and choose when it's OK to violate the law and the oath we took. Got it.
Bradley Manning was probably responsible for lost lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere. He's no "freedom fighter" by any stretch of the imagination...even using your twisted logic.
That's true from a third party sense. I guess it's up to you to decide who you want to side with. Whether or not it's the right side will be determined by the winners. If it's a grey area to you then you are a dangerous person and one to be avoided. Something people continue to try to tell you and you seem to miss the point. I don't want someone by my side that is indecisive and without convictions.Quote:
I ask that again because its a grey zone. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
For example it doesn't matter what Manning thinks. He picked an adversary against whom he has no hope of winning a war against. Especially with the people he seems to be allied with.
Was Benedict Arnold a terrorist, freedom fighter, or traitor to the cause he swore an oath to uphold?
Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: "I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God." The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read "I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."
If you do not believe you can uphold the oaths you take; 1. You shouldn't take the oath. 2. You should be forthright and seek to dissolve your oath with honor and integrity.
There are times when people take oaths to support two goals. When the oaths are taken, there is no conflict. Things change and the oaths bring you to a dilemma where you must dissolve one or both of the oaths. Many federal officers faced this dilemma in 1860. The outcome of the conflict does not determine who made the right choice, as each person needs to make that choice for their self. If you believe you made the right choice, then you are willing to live with the consequences, be those good or bad.
Manning swore an oath, which he willingly broke. IMO he is no different than any spy who is recruited by a foreign power. He made his choices and he now gets to live or die by the consequences.