If I were running a company dealing exclusively in secrets, I wouldn't trust anyone who came forward to donate their time toward handling said information to not be a mole.
Regardless, no mater how much time gets donated, they would still need at least some capital.
I read it as homosexuality being folly and heterosexuality being the perfect union. This doesn't, though, mean that homosexuality is wrong any more than it is wrong to do any other non-optimal thing. And as a society we ought to encourage the optimal things, surely, but that doesn't mean we prohibit the other choices, per se.
Agreed, but as I said this verse is not meant to, taken alone, be used to show homosexuality is wrong. Rather, it corroborates with the other verses which seem to say that homosexuality is wrong/incorrect/a sin.
Likewise, taken alone I think it makes sense to interpret Romans 1:26-27 as relevent only to those he was speaking to (the homosexuality was a result of previous sin, but not a sin itself). However, when every other mention of proper sexuality is man and wife and every mention of homosexuality is improper, that interpretation seems less likely.
The passage might not say homosexuality is a sin, but I'm unaware of anywhere that says it isn't a sin.
That passage might not say eating twinkies is a sin, but I am unaware of anywhere that says it isn't a sin. They must be the devils food. Funny logic.
Not at all. I simply say that God approves of (and explicitly creates) heterosexuality, and I am certain of that. I use this to attempt to understand the intent of later verses. When I read something that could have two interpretations like Lev 18:22-23 (is it part of the Law of cleanliness which was abolished, or is it a sin) or Rom 1:26-27 (a sin, or simply a reaction against following common Roman practices), I know that the answer must agree with the rest of the Bible. I think it makes more sense that if God says 'heterosexuality is good' and it applies for all time, that when he says 'homosexuality is bad' it probably applies on the same time-frame as the first.
Relating to twinkies, if I felt there was an applicable verse saying 'don't eat food that doesn't rot', then I would agree it was the devil's food. Instead I see "But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." in 1 Corinthians 8, and as such twinkies (in-and-of themselves) are not sinful, even though junk-food itself is never called out specifically. I fail to see this as somehow intellectually dishonest.
The passage is a straight answer on a question if it's OK to divorce, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the sinfulness of same sex relations.
Look where Jesus was quoting; Genesis 1 and 2.
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
I picked this passage because you mentioned the 4 canonical gospels. The blessing of heterosexuality takes place in Genesis (above), Jesus simply reaffirms it at the same time as expanding upon it (no divorce).
That's a fairly odd interpretation of those words.
The interpretation I provided comes from here and elsewhere. I can give more references if needed.
Are you part of "all who believe" aka do you have the correct belief including all relevant details and do you actually believe it or do you just parrot the words? How would you quantify and verify that? After all get it wrong and you suffer for eternity, after all if there is a one chance in a in a googolplex that you are wrong your making a really bad bet etc.
Paul already answered that one too: Romans 8:8-10
But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
I think that trims up the 'all relevent details' quite well.
Going from what was said, to what was written, to a translation of that, to an interpretation of that, to a car analogy is a little much don't you think? Could that just be your Ego talking?
I never implied the car analogy to be what you (or anyone) should follow, just a tool to explain. Jesus used parables frequently for the same purpose, and a parable is just an extended analogy.
I'm all for getting the State out of marriage. That should be a religious proposition, rather than a civil one. Benefits, taxes and the like should simply not take into account people's marital status, and instead should treat each adult as an independent entity. If you want to create a default "we share everything" contract, that allows for things like making decisions about childcare, powers of attorney and the like automatic, and that any set of people can go down to the justice of the peace and obtain for a nominal fee, I see no problem with that. It would provide the benefits marriage now provides, without the State getting involved in people's relationships.
I agree, mostly. The state should not be involved in marriages, but in civil unions alone. That's what a marriage is already, for the most part, the only time any judgment is placed on a couple is divorce hearings (in MD, for example, you can't get divorced until you haven't had sexual contact for a full year).
The benefits are there for both sides. The state can no longer harm the sanctity of marriage (since they don't officially recognize it), and non-secular definitions of proper marriage no longer get legislated into our secular legal code. It also provides a way to provide powers of attourney and other benefits for live-in caretakers and other legal commitments.
There are issues (like rewriting most of our legal code to ignore the 'marriage' aspects of a civil union), but in the long run it seems to be best.
When I said "selective reading" I meant that they do not follow all the other laws laid down in the old testament.
Now of those passages New Testament none are from the 4 canonical gospels. They are from the pauline epistels which are letters by the first century church leader Paul to his churches.
Here's one, straight from Jesus' mouth: Mark 10:6-9
But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
Taken alone, this doesn't prove homosexuality is wrong, but it does show that the 'opinion we held previously' seems to be God's opinion as well. I find it disingenuous to ignore this inherent blessing upon heterosexuality (and heterosexuality alone) when reading passages that may or may not apply to homosexuality. The passage might not say homosexuality is a sin, but I'm unaware of anywhere that says it isn't a sin. Personally, I give the benefit of the doubt toward Genesis' account that the suitable helper for Adam was neither animal nor another man, but woman.
And don't say that "love" doesn't mean what we all know it means, or that he might be talking about women - men are neighbors too (and whenever the Bible talks about other people, they're assumed to be men unless otherwise specified.)
The Greek have 4 words that we translate as 'love' in English. The word used in this verse is agapao, a conjugation of agape which is spiritual unconditional love. He does not use eros, which is the intimate (and oftentimes sexual) love you are referring to.
So yes, 'love' doesn't mean what you think it means in this context.
Either these people don't really believe, or they believe but they think their god is lying about the whole eternity bit, or their own ego is so great that they just think god'll forgive them all their transgressions, but somewhere along the way something just doesn't add up, here.
Or, you know, our scripture says it's so. Romans 3:21-28:
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
I don't see where you feel ego enters into it, since this viewpoint requires an admission of powerlessness. I know you don't agree, but this isn't some topic that has been swept under the rug and ignored. It's been confronted pretty much head on, and is the basis of the faith.
Car analogy time: it's like your dad telling you he will pay any traffic ticket or bail for troubles you get into, because he loves you. That's a guarantee that can't be taken away, regardless of what you do. Out of your love for your dad, you should try not to get in trouble and depend upon your dad's money.
Any copyright system that maintained monopolies on works up to the break even point would only result in even more widespread use of these tactics.
And there's no good way to determine that point for independents or freelancers. What living expenses should an independent artist consider for his break-even point? Only those while he was actively writing? How does he make money if the best he can hope for is to break even?
Sure, that may be a case for copyleft, but it would simply encourage more artists to belong to these huge multi-national corporations. We've already established that they're bad, so this idea is a no-go.
It's possible that early detection will make treatment less expensive.
That said, if you want to take that gamble, be my guest. This screening has been available for a while (my dentist performs it during yearly exams), so this change doesn't really change much.
It's a screening, and a visual inspection tool. It lets the doctor see abnormal tissue. It's therefor more likely to have a false positive (like nearly all screenings are intended to have).
Fortunately, with oral lesions, a biopsy is simple and relatively safe (particularly compared to breast or testicular tissue), so the only downside of an unnecessary biopsy is cost.
Some people like a 'nanny' curating their applications. Others like to decide for themselves if an application is crap or not.
That said, a Microsoft-run digital software store isn't even an iTunes-like store, since it wouldn't prevent the user from installing other software. It's more like an iTunes store where the content is curated, on top of the Android marketplace where the user can install unsigned applications, or use a 3rd-party store.
Though, I mean, the question of Malicious intent does bring up some good points. If I fire a weapon to shoot an Apple off someones head and I miss and end up murdering them, despite how un-malicious my intent is, do I still have to pay for the crime?
Depends on how the statute is written. Murder requires 'malice aforethought', which is missing in an accident. Manslaughter generally doesn't depend on malice (or aforethought), although negligence is often taken into account.
I think this is like trespassing: it only matters if you intended to be there (or were unreasonably negligent), not if you intended to cause harm. Intending to cause harm would simply be an additional charge, yet the trespassing charge would still stick regardless of malice.
That's actually half-accurate. Microsoft was first to market with a lot of the techniques that will lock users into a platform. Namely, XBox Live. You can put up with a lot, as long as it's more of a hassle to go somewhere else.
Do you have to be a masochist to own a 360 or something? I mean I usually hate all the fanboy one-upping and such, but in all seriousness, why would you even put up with that kind of shit?
"The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for."
— Bob Marley
This is the grovelling dickheads viewpoint - 'Please protect me from my own stupidity!"
Governments should not - and do not have the right - to keep secrets from their people.
Not at all. They are keeping secrets from OTHER people who would use such information against us. Unfortunately, the only effective way to do that involves keeping it from most of us blabbermouths.
You can't reasonably believe that information such as weapon designs, launch codes, information that can be used to counter our weapons, our troop movements and numbers, reports prepared for diplomats entering negotiations (as showing our hand would let them take advantage of us), or details of defensive preperations shouldn't be protected from foreign nations.
I agree that doesn't allow the gov't to mis-classify embarrasing information purely to keep us from holding them accountable. However, I think there's still a compelling case that national security can still justify state secrets, in at least some (or many) cases, in the same way corporate proprietary information is protected.
They are our servants and representatives... not our nannies... remember?
And part of how they serve us is militarily, and part of how they represent us is diplomatically. For them to do so effectively can require secrecy from other nations.
Domestically, I agree entirely. All Senate dealings relating to purely domestic issues (for example) should be public record.
Speech doesn't have to be political to be guaranteed. Only in very strict situations related to imminent military action, IIRC, has a court allowed a temporary censorship. Others (like the Pentagon Papers) were reversed as improper.
Speech is not guaranteed, in an unlimited sense. It's limited in the case of a clear and present danger, which could probably apply in the case of private, frank state-department discussions. It was used to apply to speech against the draft during war-time, it could probably apply here due to the potential damage to diplomatic relations. It's also likely that the US could attempt a prior restraint case (against wikileaks), though I'm not sure what the outcome would be. Again, Manning is up poop creek without a paddle (such is the risk of civil disobedience), but wikileaks might be scot-free.
All agreements were null and void when the government ordered Manning to commit war crimes.
By ordering Manning to fake evidence against innocents they essentially required this, by international law and near-universal moral consensus.
When did this happen? My understanding is that Manning had no legitimate reason to access the video at all, only stumbling across it while looking for interesting classified info (a felony in itself).
That said, what was there to fake? Where was the difference in the leaked classified video and the officially released Army report? The specific text that was faked. It might be there, but I haven't seen it.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever heard the phrase, "Love the sinner, hate the sin."?
You mean the quote from Mahatma Gandhi? It doesn't apply, here.
If I were running a company dealing exclusively in secrets, I wouldn't trust anyone who came forward to donate their time toward handling said information to not be a mole.
Regardless, no mater how much time gets donated, they would still need at least some capital.
I read it as homosexuality being folly and heterosexuality being the perfect union. This doesn't, though, mean that homosexuality is wrong any more than it is wrong to do any other non-optimal thing. And as a society we ought to encourage the optimal things, surely, but that doesn't mean we prohibit the other choices, per se.
Agreed, but as I said this verse is not meant to, taken alone, be used to show homosexuality is wrong. Rather, it corroborates with the other verses which seem to say that homosexuality is wrong/incorrect/a sin.
Likewise, taken alone I think it makes sense to interpret Romans 1:26-27 as relevent only to those he was speaking to (the homosexuality was a result of previous sin, but not a sin itself). However, when every other mention of proper sexuality is man and wife and every mention of homosexuality is improper, that interpretation seems less likely.
The passage might not say homosexuality is a sin, but I'm unaware of anywhere that says it isn't a sin.
That passage might not say eating twinkies is a sin, but I am unaware of anywhere that says it isn't a sin. They must be the devils food. Funny logic.
Not at all. I simply say that God approves of (and explicitly creates) heterosexuality, and I am certain of that. I use this to attempt to understand the intent of later verses. When I read something that could have two interpretations like Lev 18:22-23 (is it part of the Law of cleanliness which was abolished, or is it a sin) or Rom 1:26-27 (a sin, or simply a reaction against following common Roman practices), I know that the answer must agree with the rest of the Bible. I think it makes more sense that if God says 'heterosexuality is good' and it applies for all time, that when he says 'homosexuality is bad' it probably applies on the same time-frame as the first.
Relating to twinkies, if I felt there was an applicable verse saying 'don't eat food that doesn't rot', then I would agree it was the devil's food. Instead I see "But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." in 1 Corinthians 8, and as such twinkies (in-and-of themselves) are not sinful, even though junk-food itself is never called out specifically. I fail to see this as somehow intellectually dishonest.
The passage is a straight answer on a question if it's OK to divorce, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the sinfulness of same sex relations.
Look where Jesus was quoting; Genesis 1 and 2.
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
I picked this passage because you mentioned the 4 canonical gospels. The blessing of heterosexuality takes place in Genesis (above), Jesus simply reaffirms it at the same time as expanding upon it (no divorce).
That's a fairly odd interpretation of those words.
The interpretation I provided comes from here and elsewhere. I can give more references if needed.
Are you part of "all who believe" aka do you have the correct belief including all relevant details and do you actually believe it or do you just parrot the words? How would you quantify and verify that? After all get it wrong and you suffer for eternity, after all if there is a one chance in a in a googolplex that you are wrong your making a really bad bet etc.
Paul already answered that one too: Romans 8:8-10
But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
I think that trims up the 'all relevent details' quite well.
Going from what was said, to what was written, to a translation of that, to an interpretation of that, to a car analogy is a little much don't you think? Could that just be your Ego talking?
I never implied the car analogy to be what you (or anyone) should follow, just a tool to explain. Jesus used parables frequently for the same purpose, and a parable is just an extended analogy.
I'm all for getting the State out of marriage. That should be a religious proposition, rather than a civil one. Benefits, taxes and the like should simply not take into account people's marital status, and instead should treat each adult as an independent entity. If you want to create a default "we share everything" contract, that allows for things like making decisions about childcare, powers of attorney and the like automatic, and that any set of people can go down to the justice of the peace and obtain for a nominal fee, I see no problem with that. It would provide the benefits marriage now provides, without the State getting involved in people's relationships.
I agree, mostly. The state should not be involved in marriages, but in civil unions alone. That's what a marriage is already, for the most part, the only time any judgment is placed on a couple is divorce hearings (in MD, for example, you can't get divorced until you haven't had sexual contact for a full year).
The benefits are there for both sides. The state can no longer harm the sanctity of marriage (since they don't officially recognize it), and non-secular definitions of proper marriage no longer get legislated into our secular legal code. It also provides a way to provide powers of attourney and other benefits for live-in caretakers and other legal commitments.
There are issues (like rewriting most of our legal code to ignore the 'marriage' aspects of a civil union), but in the long run it seems to be best.
When I said "selective reading" I meant that they do not follow all the other laws laid down in the old testament.
Now of those passages New Testament none are from the 4 canonical gospels. They are from the pauline epistels which are letters by the first century church leader Paul to his churches.
Here's one, straight from Jesus' mouth: Mark 10:6-9
But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
Taken alone, this doesn't prove homosexuality is wrong, but it does show that the 'opinion we held previously' seems to be God's opinion as well. I find it disingenuous to ignore this inherent blessing upon heterosexuality (and heterosexuality alone) when reading passages that may or may not apply to homosexuality. The passage might not say homosexuality is a sin, but I'm unaware of anywhere that says it isn't a sin. Personally, I give the benefit of the doubt toward Genesis' account that the suitable helper for Adam was neither animal nor another man, but woman.
YMMV
And don't say that "love" doesn't mean what we all know it means, or that he might be talking about women - men are neighbors too (and whenever the Bible talks about other people, they're assumed to be men unless otherwise specified.)
The Greek have 4 words that we translate as 'love' in English. The word used in this verse is agapao, a conjugation of agape which is spiritual unconditional love. He does not use eros, which is the intimate (and oftentimes sexual) love you are referring to.
So yes, 'love' doesn't mean what you think it means in this context.
Either these people don't really believe, or they believe but they think their god is lying about the whole eternity bit, or their own ego is so great that they just think god'll forgive them all their transgressions, but somewhere along the way something just doesn't add up, here.
Or, you know, our scripture says it's so. Romans 3:21-28:
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
I don't see where you feel ego enters into it, since this viewpoint requires an admission of powerlessness. I know you don't agree, but this isn't some topic that has been swept under the rug and ignored. It's been confronted pretty much head on, and is the basis of the faith.
Car analogy time: it's like your dad telling you he will pay any traffic ticket or bail for troubles you get into, because he loves you. That's a guarantee that can't be taken away, regardless of what you do. Out of your love for your dad, you should try not to get in trouble and depend upon your dad's money.
Any copyright system that maintained monopolies on works up to the break even point would only result in even more widespread use of these tactics.
And there's no good way to determine that point for independents or freelancers. What living expenses should an independent artist consider for his break-even point? Only those while he was actively writing? How does he make money if the best he can hope for is to break even?
Sure, that may be a case for copyleft, but it would simply encourage more artists to belong to these huge multi-national corporations. We've already established that they're bad, so this idea is a no-go.
One day is not really 'a few days'.
It's possible that early detection will make treatment less expensive.
That said, if you want to take that gamble, be my guest. This screening has been available for a while (my dentist performs it during yearly exams), so this change doesn't really change much.
I think it's less of a safety issue (although that's certainly part of it), and more of an Intellectual Property and user interface thing.
And my point is that such is backwards thinking. It's like saying that gasoline engines will make electric cars noisier and produce more polution.
It's a screening, and a visual inspection tool. It lets the doctor see abnormal tissue. It's therefor more likely to have a false positive (like nearly all screenings are intended to have).
Fortunately, with oral lesions, a biopsy is simple and relatively safe (particularly compared to breast or testicular tissue), so the only downside of an unnecessary biopsy is cost.
This exact method is already used by multiple companies, and probably does cost about $10k. There is only UV light involved, so no radiology.
The point of this device, is that the same technique can be done with a few hundred dollars of equipment in developing nations.
Better than the Wild West free-for-all
Try telling that to a cowboy.
Some people like a 'nanny' curating their applications. Others like to decide for themselves if an application is crap or not.
That said, a Microsoft-run digital software store isn't even an iTunes-like store, since it wouldn't prevent the user from installing other software. It's more like an iTunes store where the content is curated, on top of the Android marketplace where the user can install unsigned applications, or use a 3rd-party store.
Though, I mean, the question of Malicious intent does bring up some good points. If I fire a weapon to shoot an Apple off someones head and I miss and end up murdering them, despite how un-malicious my intent is, do I still have to pay for the crime?
Depends on how the statute is written. Murder requires 'malice aforethought', which is missing in an accident. Manslaughter generally doesn't depend on malice (or aforethought), although negligence is often taken into account.
I think this is like trespassing: it only matters if you intended to be there (or were unreasonably negligent), not if you intended to cause harm. Intending to cause harm would simply be an additional charge, yet the trespassing charge would still stick regardless of malice.
That's actually half-accurate. Microsoft was first to market with a lot of the techniques that will lock users into a platform. Namely, XBox Live. You can put up with a lot, as long as it's more of a hassle to go somewhere else.
Do you have to be a masochist to own a 360 or something? I mean I usually hate all the fanboy one-upping and such, but in all seriousness, why would you even put up with that kind of shit?
"The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for."
— Bob Marley
I'll just send an e-mail.
I hope they called 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3.
This is the grovelling dickheads viewpoint - 'Please protect me from my own stupidity!" Governments should not - and do not have the right - to keep secrets from their people.
Not at all. They are keeping secrets from OTHER people who would use such information against us. Unfortunately, the only effective way to do that involves keeping it from most of us blabbermouths.
You can't reasonably believe that information such as weapon designs, launch codes, information that can be used to counter our weapons, our troop movements and numbers, reports prepared for diplomats entering negotiations (as showing our hand would let them take advantage of us), or details of defensive preperations shouldn't be protected from foreign nations.
I agree that doesn't allow the gov't to mis-classify embarrasing information purely to keep us from holding them accountable. However, I think there's still a compelling case that national security can still justify state secrets, in at least some (or many) cases, in the same way corporate proprietary information is protected.
They are our servants and representatives... not our nannies... remember?
And part of how they serve us is militarily, and part of how they represent us is diplomatically. For them to do so effectively can require secrecy from other nations.
Domestically, I agree entirely. All Senate dealings relating to purely domestic issues (for example) should be public record.
Speech doesn't have to be political to be guaranteed. Only in very strict situations related to imminent military action, IIRC, has a court allowed a temporary censorship. Others (like the Pentagon Papers) were reversed as improper.
Speech is not guaranteed, in an unlimited sense. It's limited in the case of a clear and present danger, which could probably apply in the case of private, frank state-department discussions. It was used to apply to speech against the draft during war-time, it could probably apply here due to the potential damage to diplomatic relations. It's also likely that the US could attempt a prior restraint case (against wikileaks), though I'm not sure what the outcome would be. Again, Manning is up poop creek without a paddle (such is the risk of civil disobedience), but wikileaks might be scot-free.
All agreements were null and void when the government ordered Manning to commit war crimes.
By ordering Manning to fake evidence against innocents they essentially required this, by international law and near-universal moral consensus.
When did this happen? My understanding is that Manning had no legitimate reason to access the video at all, only stumbling across it while looking for interesting classified info (a felony in itself).
That said, what was there to fake? Where was the difference in the leaked classified video and the officially released Army report? The specific text that was faked. It might be there, but I haven't seen it.