Deer and cattle typically have difficulty hopping electrified razorwire-topped fences. Do you think this is going to be some sort of Little House On the Prairie farmstead, where the scientists just tell the cows, "Okay, now don't go past this river or that hilltop. We trust you!"?
They study dozens of highly infectious, highly lethal diseases at the CDC facilities in Atlanta. Right in the middle of millions of people, who are certainly good hosts for hemorrhagic fevers, smallpox, and the like. Yet we don't read about constant outbreaks of those diseases killing thousands of people.
It is possible to research such diseases safely, even in the midst of a large number of natural hosts for that disease. We do it today, and we do it successfully. There is an obvious need to take precautions, but the argument that "they won't be able to contain things here" flies in the face of the experience of actual labs operating successfully for years.
I think even that is a pretty significant stretch with nothing but speculation to support it. The disease was already known before Plum island was even a twinkle in Uncle Sam's eye. The most likely explanation for the incidence of Lyme disease would be that the tick and its parasites came across the Atlantic with colonists from Europe (where the disease was fairly well known), established a foothold, and has been present and spreading since.
The fact that a cluster of cases in 1975 around Lyme, Connecticut happened to be near Plum Island is far from conclusive proof that Plum Island was the source of that (or subsequent, or any) outbreaks. It is statistically possible that ticks being studied at Plum Island somehow escaped and made their way to Lyme... but the ticks and their parasites were already present in Lyme (and elsewhere), and there's no suggestion that the cluster in Lyme was some sort of "genetically engineered superbug" - it was just a normal outbreak of a disease which has been emerging in clusters around the US for decades.
And were these magical, space-time traveling deer, as well? Able to go back hundreds of years in time, and reappear on an island off the coast of Scotland?
Perhaps the first detailed description of what is now known as Lyme disease appeared in the writings of Reverend Dr John Walker after a visit to the Island of Jura (Deer Island) off the west coast of Scotland in 1764. He gives a good description both of the symptoms of Lyme disease (with "exquisite pain [in] the interior parts of the limbs") and of the tick vector itself, which he describes as a "worm" with a body which is "of a reddish colour and of a compressed shape with a row of feet on each side" that "penetrates the skin". Many people from this area of Great Britain immigrated to North America between 1717 and the end of the 18th century. The examination of preserved museum specimens has found Borrelia DNA in an infected Ixodes ricinus tick from Germany that dates back to 1884, and from an infected mouse from Cape Cod that died in 1894. The 2010 autopsy of Ötzi the Iceman, a 5,300 year old mummy, revealed the presence of the DNA sequence of Borrelia burgdorferi making him the earliest known human with Lyme disease.
I guess you're right - this is just more evidence of conspiracy! Who else but the US government would have the resources to genetically engineer time traveling deer and send them back in time to Scotland? It's probably a neocon plot - adding up each of the digits in '1764' gives you '18.' Add up those digits, and you get '9' - as in 9-11!? And you think this is coincidence, people?
Surprisingly, most doctors recommend that you don't try to actually touch your baby before it's born. Or change their dirty diapers, or clean their muddy faces, or give them crayons. All of these things are tremendously difficult in the cramped quarters of the uterus, after all.
Nobody's suggested that these babies would be brought to term in a sterile clean room, and then dumped into a blank white room with no human contact for their first 18 years.
OK, I was reading your response and taking you seriously, until this:
Translation: "After reading your response, I realize that what I said was ridiculous, and rather than admit that, I'll try to save face through the clever ruse of distraction and misdirection to make it look like you're just being rude, and therefore all your points are invalid."
When a person starts resorting to ad hominem attacks and other childishness, they have forfeited the argument.
For the record: an ad hominem fallacy is where someone attempts to discredit the arguments of another person by bringing up unrelated details about that person's personality or behavior - e.g., "Of course Mitt Romney's tax proposals are ridiculous - after all, he's a Mormon!" (In case you're confused - Mitt Romney's Mormonism has no bearing on whether or not his tax proposals were ridiculous or not, they're completely unrelated points. THIS is an "ad hominem" fallacy.)
When I called you a dimwit, that's known as an "insult," not a logical fallacy. I never remotely implied that your dimwitted nature was the *reason* your points were invalid, I claimed you were a dimwit *because* you were willfully wrong on several points, and carefully ignoring the other very clear points I made. Your post only made sense if I was willing to pretend that the things I had JUST written in the post you responded to had never been said.
Incidentally, your response is a borderline ad hominem itself: "Americano was rude, therefore all of his points are invalid, and he forfeits the argument." Nowhere have you addressed a *single point* I have made using any rational, logical argument. Since you apparently can't do that, the only thing left to you is to claim that I'm a big meanie, and therefore I'm wrong. It's an interesting tactic, but it fails on so many levels that the mind boggles.
In closing - if you behave like a dimwit, don't be surprised when somebody says, "Hey, you're acting like a dimwit," ace. That's not an ad hominem fallacy, that's just an insult, and in this case, it appears to be both well-earned, AND verifiably true.
We routinely expect 18 year old college dropouts to behave as "upstanding, moral" people, and make "correct" moral choices (and generally speaking, they do it quite successfully.)
Manning was 22 or 23 when the leaks happened. He had finished high school, had taken some college classes, and had specifically received instruction during Basic Training and AIT about what procedures he should take if he saw / found evidence of illegal, immoral, unethical, etc. behavior from fellow soldiers. This material *is* covered during a soldier's training.
I'm really at a loss to see how it's "understandable" that he would decide to not follow any of his training and make the choice he did. He wasn't ignorant of the laws, he wasn't ignorant of the official procedures, and he was certainly old enough and mature enough to seek counseling and advice from a trusted advisor, even if he wasn't exactly sure what way to proceed. He did none of these things, and I simply can't see how anything about his age or education are ameliorating factors here.
So the end result is someone writing [citation needed] at every turn and patting themselves on the back.
I'm not sure why you'd think somebody asking you to explain your reasoning and provide a source to support your statements of fact is unreasonable. Well, unless your points are inherently irrational, and have no factual sources to support them, I guess.
If you're really that concerned, you bring it to the "Internal Affairs" division for your service - for the Army - probably the CIDC - rather than to your *direct* superiors (platoon / company / battalion commanders).
They have things reported to them frequently, they conduct investigations, and I'm pretty sure that MOST of the people reporting things to them do not get told "shut up or you'll catch a bullet." I don't know where this "ooooh the army kills anyone who disagrees with it" meme comes from, but it's fucking ridiculous.
The information he's pointed out - it's mostly localized bad behavior, from a very small number of people - his leak didn't expose pernicious, institutionally-directed war crimes (feel free to correct me with specific information if you think I'm wrong on this). Is a General sitting back in Washington, or Italy, somehow "responsible" if a Sergeant or Lieutenant on the ground in Afghanistan snaps and goes on a rampage? They didn't "order" the soldier to do that, in fact the soldiers have orders specifically not to behave like that. The only real culpability for the "higher ranks" in many of these cases is if they actively cover it up and ignore the problem when it's brought to their attention.
but honestly, it is expecting a bit much to expect someone that young and that uneducated to handle it properly.
He had a high school education and a semester or two of college study. That's not THAT young, or THAT uneducated.
Why would it be too much to expect of him to do it properly, when he is trained in how to handle issues like this - specifically, unequivocally, and extensively trained in it. Basic Training & AIT are not just endless keg parties where soldiers hook up with drunk chicks and do keg stands.
Even if he forgot the absolute specifics of who to call or what to do, he could have *easily* pulled up relevant regulations online or from training materials, and referred to it there. He was an intel analyst. He was quite comfortable with computers. There is no excuse for him to say "I forgot," or "I couldn't think of a better way to handle this."
Yeah, because that totally happens all the time. It's a wonder there's anybody still alive in the military, given the frequency with which people reporting things to their superiors are killed for doing so.
How do you know he didn't take it up the chain of command? Because his superiors claim he didn't?
I don't know that. I do know that nowhere in all the very high profile coverage of the case has anybody suggested he did any such thing, including PFC Manning himself. If he or his lawyer would like to release information documenting his efforts to take this issue up the chain of command, I'd be happy to review it, and adjust my opinion accordingly.
As in, the same superiors who gave access to shit-tons of top secret documents to a private? Doesn't sound like a trustworthy group if you ask me.
Sorry, in what way is this an argument against the trustworthiness of his chain of command? He had a job in the Army. His job - as an intel analyst - required him to have access to secret materials. Hard to analyze intel if you can't actually read the intel, no?
Wait... I thought you were trying to argue against his releasing the info to Wikileaks, and now you're supporting it?
You have reading comprehension issues. I said his decision to go straight from "obey orders" to the 'nuclear' option of "leak everything in the database to wikileaks" was a poor decision. I never said the leak shouldn't have happened, I said it should ONLY have happened after an exhaustive pursuit of alternatives, of which there were many available to him.
Such as? Can you provide an example?
Oh, I don't know, Watergate springs to mind.
Yet you seem unable to provide a third option
The third option, you dimwit, is the *gradually increasing rank of the people you contact.* If you go outside your chain of command without first working THROUGH your chain of command, you are wrong. Unless you're really trying to suggest that EVERY OFFICER and NCO in the US military from Manning all the way to the president was complicit in some sort of conspiracy to silence him, then the "third option" is simply - follow your chain of command until you get a response, and only escalate beyond the chain of command if you DON'T get a response.
Options which, again, you appear incapable of providing.
Did you have a stroke while reading my post? I provided a different option he could have pursued RIGHT THERE. I know it challenges your foolish preconceived notions that "hurr durr military r teh darkest evulz evar," but any suggestion that I did not point out an alternative that lies between "shut up and obey orders" and "dump the entire SIPRNet database onto Wikileaks servers" is false.
As for:
Reuters did, [collateralmurder.com] and were told "the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".
The US military concluded that, and released reports explaining the reasoning under FOIA.
If your only argument is a HIGHLY edited video showing selective moments of that incident in an effort to portray the US military as bloodthirsty savages gunning down civilians in broad daylight, one which has repeatedly been show to be highly misleading (the insurgents WERE armed; the military HAD taken fire in that area earlier in the day; the children injured in the follow-on attack on the van were NOT killed; the pilots DID believe the insurgents were armed after seeing what appeared to be AK-47's and RPGs; and the pilots DID wait for a green light to open fire in the first place;), then sorry, your argument is irrelevant. You're entitled to your opinions about whether or not the military should have been in Iraq to begin with, and I'm inclined to agree with
Sorry, his only options were "obey orders," or "leak millions of classified documents to Julian Assange"? That's a curiously short list of alternatives. How about... report it to the Inspector General (essentially, "internal affairs" for the military), or up his chain of command, and failing any action from any of them, end with:
"Dear President Obama, Senators Pelosi, Reid, Speaker Boehner, and other honored Senators and Representatives of the Armed Services committee:
My name is PFC Bradley Manning. I am a soldier attached to the 101st Some Unit as an intelligence analyst. In my role as an intel analyst, I see many classified documents, some of which have led me to conclude that a number of illegal actions are being taken by our military personnel during combat patrols and other operations in the Iraq and Afghanistan areas of operation. As you no doubt understand, I cannot provide copies of the documents in this letter, but I would offer some basic descriptions of scenarios I feel are in violation of law, and can provide you with document identifiers for you to request the documents yourselves, or would be happy to meet with you or your qualified representatives and review these documents at that time.
Some example situations: On date X, location Y, Army personnel did Action Z which I believe violates our rules of engagement and may contravene Geneva Conventions. On date X, location Y, a joint Marine / Army patrol reported Action Z, which I believe to be illegal.... List Continues...
I have attempted to bring this issue to my chain of command in the following ways, and it has met with stonewalling and been ignored: -- Date X, letter to Officer Y, outlining same details. -- Date X, letter to Officer Y, outlining same details.... List Continues...
Mr. President, Senators, Representatives - my oath requires me to uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic - and I believe that some of these actions are against the law, and pose a grave threat to our Constitution. I am writing to you to expose these issues so that you can take appropriate action to correct a terrible wrong and end that threat. Sincerely,
PFC Bradley Manning."
You think a letter like that would be completely ignored, especially if he "accidentally leaked" a copy of it to a couple major news outlets, even Wikileaks? If they have Dates & locations, how hard is it for a couple journalists to start digging and saying, "whoa whoa whoa, we have some strong evidence that a bunch of Army soldiers kicked in the door, raped all the women, and then executed all the people in this house."
He wasn't stuck with a binary option - steal & release millions of classified documents to make his point, or just shut up and go along with what he considered to be war crimes. Even if his *motiviation* was correct, his actions were not. There are ways to whistleblow which would make it impossible for the government to ignore the issue, without actually copying the entire database of classified materials and releasing it unedited to Wikileaks.
Any argument that there were only 2 options available to him is completely false, and to suggest that he was right to disregard the numerous measured responses he could have pursued and go straight to the "nuclear" option is a little ridiculous.
Ah, I see - you assumed it was a rhetorical question. Thanks for your pointless pedantic input - did you have anything of substance to add? Or did you just want to make sure that we all knew you read the question differently?
Responding that people on both sides were caught doing it doesn't resolve the paradox the original poster presented.
Um. It most certainly does - it says "this paradox you're trying to argue about is non-existent - both parties did it, and both parties were caught out on it." I'm sorry I cannot respond to BOTH posts directly with a single comment, next time I'll try and hold your hand through this sort of traumatic experience.
You should probably go back and actually read what I wrote. Also maybe look up the meaning of "more egregious examples of bad behavior," since my use of that phrase was very specific and very much refutes the entirety of your argument.
I am HONESTLY saying that whitewashing bad behavior on the part of "your" guy by saying "but that OTHER guy did way worse," does not, in any way, exonerate your guy, or excuse his bad behavior. Bad behavior is bad behavior. It's not "okay because the other guy did it more."
I am HONESTLY saying that willful deception is unacceptable from EITHER candidate or their supporters.
It is the logic of, "doing it once is the equivalent of doing it habitually" I have issue with.
Of course. Because "your guy" "maybe" did it "just the once, just by accident, and totally felt bad about it the next day, if he did, which I'm pretty sure he probably didn't, or didn't mean to, at least."
GP said, "His campaign was the only one that got caught out on it." Parent said, "if nobody else got caught, how do you know anyone else was doing it?" I responded and said, "Plenty of others were caught doing it, and here's some examples."
What context am I missing? Both of the posts above mine were incorrect on different points - GP that "nobody got caught on it" (clearly, they were), and the obtuse "how do you know anybody else got caught" question is trivially addressed by citing examples of... people getting caught doing it from the "non-Romney" side of the aisle.
Objection sustained - brain fart on my part led me to reverse probable cause & reasonable suspicion. s/reasonable suspicion/probable cause/g in my post above.
We know because plenty of people got caught doing it on both sides. If you're not being willfully obtuse, you could have started reading here for some information on Democrat "spin": FactCheck.org
. In the mad rush to distinguish themselves and demonize the opponent
Given the tone and content of your post, I find this comment deliciously ironic.
You could have saved a lot of typing if you had just said, "I'm appalled that people are still allowed to disagree with and criticize my candidate." It would've been a lot shorter, too. It's completely disingenuous to give "your guys" a free pass for spin while blasting "those other guys" for doing it.
The problem is, enforcing the laws on the books is its fucking business.
Adams has a good point - there's 2 categories the government lumps your information into: stuff it doesn't care about, and stuff that it can find out if it has a reason. If it has a legitimate subpoena, it can get almost any information it wants to about you, and legal "fishing expeditions" are not that hard to mount.
So why not decriminalize all the stupid "victimless / harmless" crimes, get them off the books, and let the police agencies ACTUALLY go after the real criminals? They'll always going to have the power to subpoena your information if they have reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, no matter how much you stomp your feet and shout about privacy. Furthermore, it's not ALL that hard for the government to manufacture "reasonable suspicion" if they're really looking for a reason to nail you.
So instead of worrying about "privacy" (which is at the mercy of the government's lack of interest in you to begin with), limit the circumstances that would give them an excuse to start pawing through your personal information in the first place. They will always be able to violate your privacy - so limit the circumstances where they legitimately have that power.
Taxes are not tips, and taxes are not tips, and taxes are not tips. You don't tip "the government" for doing a good job. You don't tip "Wal Mart" for doing a good job. You tip *the individual providing the service* for good service, and that money is theirs, not $retailer's money.
You keep coming about tips, while simultaneously assuring us that you (commonly) pay more than a retailer asks for certain things. Can you give us some examples where you've actually said, "You want $1.99 for this shampoo, but I love it so much, I want Walgreen's to have $10 for it instead?" One that doesn't involve tipping a waiter/waitress, cab driver, doorman, bellhop, etc.?
If your only example is, "I really don't want to carry around 5 pounds in change, so throw my couple pennies of change in the penny jar," that's pretty irrelevant. I'm talking about examples where you said, "This is SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE to me than what you're asking for, I want you to have more money than you're asking for it, $retailer."
As soon as you find yourself saying "fair" and "unfair," you're into subjective evaluation. That's a non-starter where taxes and other financials are concerned. If you want $x for an item, charge $x. Don't charge 0.5 * $x and rely on people to decide that somehow the item is worth twice what you're asking for it.
I'll admit I'm baffled by the people who claim they spend more money than they need to on things, as if that's some sort of hallmark of integrity and decency - maybe I'm just not affluent enough to not really care where my money goes, but to me, it seems like abject stupidity: If you want $5 for the shampoo, ask for 5 damned dollars. Likewise, if you want 15% of a corporation's profits in taxes, ask for 15 damned percent. Don't get bent out of shape with me for "only" paying $1.99 for your shampoo when that's what you asked for it, and don't get bent out of shape with $corp for "only" paying 2% of their profits in taxes, when that's what you asked for.
You seem to be suggesting that doesn't happen. You've never considered that something is worth more than is being charged and even wanted to pay more?
Those examples you give are sort of irrelevant: a tip is generally given to someone who would make FAR less than minimum wage without the tips - their pay is structured with the assumption that they will get some money depending on the quality of the service. As far as "keep the change" - that phrase is typically heard in relation to tips - for example "the taxi ride was $7, here's $10, keep the change" -- i.e., "your tip is $3."
In the cases where you've what you consider to be "more" as a tip than was expected of you - do you call other people scumbags and tell them they lack integrity for not paying what you did? Do you pay extra on your income taxes? Surely you could afford to just write an extra check payable to the IRS (or whatever the tax agency is in your country, if not the US), and say "Hey, I'm concerned that you guys aren't getting enough money, here's an extra $500 from me to help out," couldn't you?
There's a huge difference between giving somebody a couple extra bucks for a tip - jobs that work for tips wouldn't be making much money if they DIDN'T receive a tip - and giving Random Retailer, Inc. $50 for $2.99 worth of purchases. If Random Retailer WANTS $50 for the items I'm purchasing, then Random Retailer should ASK $50 for them, not leave it up to people to randomly determine that the value of what they're buying is much higher than what's being asked.
This all, of course, sidesteps the fact that publicly traded corporations have a legal obligation to operate in the best interests of the corporation and their stockholders, as well - handing out large chunks of money that they're not obligated to for ill- or un-defined purposes ("we felt that we owed more in taxes, for some reason") tends to work counter to that.
Slashdot Mirror
Deer and cattle typically have difficulty hopping electrified razorwire-topped fences. Do you think this is going to be some sort of Little House On the Prairie farmstead, where the scientists just tell the cows, "Okay, now don't go past this river or that hilltop. We trust you!"?
They study dozens of highly infectious, highly lethal diseases at the CDC facilities in Atlanta. Right in the middle of millions of people, who are certainly good hosts for hemorrhagic fevers, smallpox, and the like. Yet we don't read about constant outbreaks of those diseases killing thousands of people.
It is possible to research such diseases safely, even in the midst of a large number of natural hosts for that disease. We do it today, and we do it successfully. There is an obvious need to take precautions, but the argument that "they won't be able to contain things here" flies in the face of the experience of actual labs operating successfully for years.
I think even that is a pretty significant stretch with nothing but speculation to support it. The disease was already known before Plum island was even a twinkle in Uncle Sam's eye. The most likely explanation for the incidence of Lyme disease would be that the tick and its parasites came across the Atlantic with colonists from Europe (where the disease was fairly well known), established a foothold, and has been present and spreading since.
The fact that a cluster of cases in 1975 around Lyme, Connecticut happened to be near Plum Island is far from conclusive proof that Plum Island was the source of that (or subsequent, or any) outbreaks. It is statistically possible that ticks being studied at Plum Island somehow escaped and made their way to Lyme... but the ticks and their parasites were already present in Lyme (and elsewhere), and there's no suggestion that the cluster in Lyme was some sort of "genetically engineered superbug" - it was just a normal outbreak of a disease which has been emerging in clusters around the US for decades.
And were these magical, space-time traveling deer, as well? Able to go back hundreds of years in time, and reappear on an island off the coast of Scotland?
I guess you're right - this is just more evidence of conspiracy! Who else but the US government would have the resources to genetically engineer time traveling deer and send them back in time to Scotland? It's probably a neocon plot - adding up each of the digits in '1764' gives you '18.' Add up those digits, and you get '9' - as in 9-11!? And you think this is coincidence, people?
Surprisingly, most doctors recommend that you don't try to actually touch your baby before it's born. Or change their dirty diapers, or clean their muddy faces, or give them crayons. All of these things are tremendously difficult in the cramped quarters of the uterus, after all.
Nobody's suggested that these babies would be brought to term in a sterile clean room, and then dumped into a blank white room with no human contact for their first 18 years.
There there.
Shhh. Don't cry.
There there.
Translation: "After reading your response, I realize that what I said was ridiculous, and rather than admit that, I'll try to save face through the clever ruse of distraction and misdirection to make it look like you're just being rude, and therefore all your points are invalid."
For the record: an ad hominem fallacy is where someone attempts to discredit the arguments of another person by bringing up unrelated details about that person's personality or behavior - e.g., "Of course Mitt Romney's tax proposals are ridiculous - after all, he's a Mormon!" (In case you're confused - Mitt Romney's Mormonism has no bearing on whether or not his tax proposals were ridiculous or not, they're completely unrelated points. THIS is an "ad hominem" fallacy.)
When I called you a dimwit, that's known as an "insult," not a logical fallacy. I never remotely implied that your dimwitted nature was the *reason* your points were invalid, I claimed you were a dimwit *because* you were willfully wrong on several points, and carefully ignoring the other very clear points I made. Your post only made sense if I was willing to pretend that the things I had JUST written in the post you responded to had never been said.
Incidentally, your response is a borderline ad hominem itself: "Americano was rude, therefore all of his points are invalid, and he forfeits the argument." Nowhere have you addressed a *single point* I have made using any rational, logical argument. Since you apparently can't do that, the only thing left to you is to claim that I'm a big meanie, and therefore I'm wrong. It's an interesting tactic, but it fails on so many levels that the mind boggles.
In closing - if you behave like a dimwit, don't be surprised when somebody says, "Hey, you're acting like a dimwit," ace. That's not an ad hominem fallacy, that's just an insult, and in this case, it appears to be both well-earned, AND verifiably true.
We routinely expect 18 year old college dropouts to behave as "upstanding, moral" people, and make "correct" moral choices (and generally speaking, they do it quite successfully.)
Manning was 22 or 23 when the leaks happened. He had finished high school, had taken some college classes, and had specifically received instruction during Basic Training and AIT about what procedures he should take if he saw / found evidence of illegal, immoral, unethical, etc. behavior from fellow soldiers. This material *is* covered during a soldier's training.
I'm really at a loss to see how it's "understandable" that he would decide to not follow any of his training and make the choice he did. He wasn't ignorant of the laws, he wasn't ignorant of the official procedures, and he was certainly old enough and mature enough to seek counseling and advice from a trusted advisor, even if he wasn't exactly sure what way to proceed. He did none of these things, and I simply can't see how anything about his age or education are ameliorating factors here.
I'm not sure why you'd think somebody asking you to explain your reasoning and provide a source to support your statements of fact is unreasonable. Well, unless your points are inherently irrational, and have no factual sources to support them, I guess.
If you're really that concerned, you bring it to the "Internal Affairs" division for your service - for the Army - probably the CIDC - rather than to your *direct* superiors (platoon / company / battalion commanders).
They have things reported to them frequently, they conduct investigations, and I'm pretty sure that MOST of the people reporting things to them do not get told "shut up or you'll catch a bullet." I don't know where this "ooooh the army kills anyone who disagrees with it" meme comes from, but it's fucking ridiculous.
The information he's pointed out - it's mostly localized bad behavior, from a very small number of people - his leak didn't expose pernicious, institutionally-directed war crimes (feel free to correct me with specific information if you think I'm wrong on this). Is a General sitting back in Washington, or Italy, somehow "responsible" if a Sergeant or Lieutenant on the ground in Afghanistan snaps and goes on a rampage? They didn't "order" the soldier to do that, in fact the soldiers have orders specifically not to behave like that. The only real culpability for the "higher ranks" in many of these cases is if they actively cover it up and ignore the problem when it's brought to their attention.
He had a high school education and a semester or two of college study. That's not THAT young, or THAT uneducated.
Why would it be too much to expect of him to do it properly, when he is trained in how to handle issues like this - specifically, unequivocally, and extensively trained in it. Basic Training & AIT are not just endless keg parties where soldiers hook up with drunk chicks and do keg stands.
Even if he forgot the absolute specifics of who to call or what to do, he could have *easily* pulled up relevant regulations online or from training materials, and referred to it there. He was an intel analyst. He was quite comfortable with computers. There is no excuse for him to say "I forgot," or "I couldn't think of a better way to handle this."
Yeah, because that totally happens all the time. It's a wonder there's anybody still alive in the military, given the frequency with which people reporting things to their superiors are killed for doing so.
Oh, I guess I missed the part where he's been shot, or even threatened with being shot. Maybe you can let us know what the fuck you're talking about?
I don't know that. I do know that nowhere in all the very high profile coverage of the case has anybody suggested he did any such thing, including PFC Manning himself. If he or his lawyer would like to release information documenting his efforts to take this issue up the chain of command, I'd be happy to review it, and adjust my opinion accordingly.
Sorry, in what way is this an argument against the trustworthiness of his chain of command? He had a job in the Army. His job - as an intel analyst - required him to have access to secret materials. Hard to analyze intel if you can't actually read the intel, no?
You have reading comprehension issues. I said his decision to go straight from "obey orders" to the 'nuclear' option of "leak everything in the database to wikileaks" was a poor decision. I never said the leak shouldn't have happened, I said it should ONLY have happened after an exhaustive pursuit of alternatives, of which there were many available to him.
Oh, I don't know, Watergate springs to mind.
The third option, you dimwit, is the *gradually increasing rank of the people you contact.* If you go outside your chain of command without first working THROUGH your chain of command, you are wrong. Unless you're really trying to suggest that EVERY OFFICER and NCO in the US military from Manning all the way to the president was complicit in some sort of conspiracy to silence him, then the "third option" is simply - follow your chain of command until you get a response, and only escalate beyond the chain of command if you DON'T get a response.
Did you have a stroke while reading my post? I provided a different option he could have pursued RIGHT THERE. I know it challenges your foolish preconceived notions that "hurr durr military r teh darkest evulz evar," but any suggestion that I did not point out an alternative that lies between "shut up and obey orders" and "dump the entire SIPRNet database onto Wikileaks servers" is false.
As for:
The US military concluded that, and released reports explaining the reasoning under FOIA.
If your only argument is a HIGHLY edited video showing selective moments of that incident in an effort to portray the US military as bloodthirsty savages gunning down civilians in broad daylight, one which has repeatedly been show to be highly misleading (the insurgents WERE armed; the military HAD taken fire in that area earlier in the day; the children injured in the follow-on attack on the van were NOT killed; the pilots DID believe the insurgents were armed after seeing what appeared to be AK-47's and RPGs; and the pilots DID wait for a green light to open fire in the first place;), then sorry, your argument is irrelevant. You're entitled to your opinions about whether or not the military should have been in Iraq to begin with, and I'm inclined to agree with
Sorry, his only options were "obey orders," or "leak millions of classified documents to Julian Assange"? That's a curiously short list of alternatives. How about... report it to the Inspector General (essentially, "internal affairs" for the military), or up his chain of command, and failing any action from any of them, end with:
"Dear President Obama, Senators Pelosi, Reid, Speaker Boehner, and other honored Senators and Representatives of the Armed Services committee:
My name is PFC Bradley Manning. I am a soldier attached to the 101st Some Unit as an intelligence analyst. In my role as an intel analyst, I see many classified documents, some of which have led me to conclude that a number of illegal actions are being taken by our military personnel during combat patrols and other operations in the Iraq and Afghanistan areas of operation. As you no doubt understand, I cannot provide copies of the documents in this letter, but I would offer some basic descriptions of scenarios I feel are in violation of law, and can provide you with document identifiers for you to request the documents yourselves, or would be happy to meet with you or your qualified representatives and review these documents at that time.
Some example situations: ... List Continues...
On date X, location Y, Army personnel did Action Z which I believe violates our rules of engagement and may contravene Geneva Conventions.
On date X, location Y, a joint Marine / Army patrol reported Action Z, which I believe to be illegal.
I have attempted to bring this issue to my chain of command in the following ways, and it has met with stonewalling and been ignored: ... List Continues ...
-- Date X, letter to Officer Y, outlining same details.
-- Date X, letter to Officer Y, outlining same details.
Mr. President, Senators, Representatives - my oath requires me to uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic - and I believe that some of these actions are against the law, and pose a grave threat to our Constitution. I am writing to you to expose these issues so that you can take appropriate action to correct a terrible wrong and end that threat.
Sincerely,
PFC Bradley Manning."
You think a letter like that would be completely ignored, especially if he "accidentally leaked" a copy of it to a couple major news outlets, even Wikileaks? If they have Dates & locations, how hard is it for a couple journalists to start digging and saying, "whoa whoa whoa, we have some strong evidence that a bunch of Army soldiers kicked in the door, raped all the women, and then executed all the people in this house."
He wasn't stuck with a binary option - steal & release millions of classified documents to make his point, or just shut up and go along with what he considered to be war crimes. Even if his *motiviation* was correct, his actions were not. There are ways to whistleblow which would make it impossible for the government to ignore the issue, without actually copying the entire database of classified materials and releasing it unedited to Wikileaks.
Any argument that there were only 2 options available to him is completely false, and to suggest that he was right to disregard the numerous measured responses he could have pursued and go straight to the "nuclear" option is a little ridiculous.
Ah, I see - you assumed it was a rhetorical question. Thanks for your pointless pedantic input - did you have anything of substance to add? Or did you just want to make sure that we all knew you read the question differently?
Um. It most certainly does - it says "this paradox you're trying to argue about is non-existent - both parties did it, and both parties were caught out on it." I'm sorry I cannot respond to BOTH posts directly with a single comment, next time I'll try and hold your hand through this sort of traumatic experience.
You should probably go back and actually read what I wrote. Also maybe look up the meaning of "more egregious examples of bad behavior," since my use of that phrase was very specific and very much refutes the entirety of your argument.
I am HONESTLY saying that whitewashing bad behavior on the part of "your" guy by saying "but that OTHER guy did way worse," does not, in any way, exonerate your guy, or excuse his bad behavior. Bad behavior is bad behavior. It's not "okay because the other guy did it more."
I am HONESTLY saying that willful deception is unacceptable from EITHER candidate or their supporters.
Of course. Because "your guy" "maybe" did it "just the once, just by accident, and totally felt bad about it the next day, if he did, which I'm pretty sure he probably didn't, or didn't mean to, at least."
A lie from either side is unacceptable. Don't try to whitewash bad behavior by citing more egregious examples of bad behavior from someone else.
"Sure, rape is bad, but look at this guy - he MURDERED people!"
GP said, "His campaign was the only one that got caught out on it."
Parent said, "if nobody else got caught, how do you know anyone else was doing it?"
I responded and said, "Plenty of others were caught doing it, and here's some examples."
What context am I missing? Both of the posts above mine were incorrect on different points - GP that "nobody got caught on it" (clearly, they were), and the obtuse "how do you know anybody else got caught" question is trivially addressed by citing examples of... people getting caught doing it from the "non-Romney" side of the aisle.
Objection sustained - brain fart on my part led me to reverse probable cause & reasonable suspicion. s/reasonable suspicion/probable cause/g in my post above.
We know because plenty of people got caught doing it on both sides. If you're not being willfully obtuse, you could have started reading here for some information on Democrat "spin": FactCheck.org
Given the tone and content of your post, I find this comment deliciously ironic.
You could have saved a lot of typing if you had just said, "I'm appalled that people are still allowed to disagree with and criticize my candidate." It would've been a lot shorter, too. It's completely disingenuous to give "your guys" a free pass for spin while blasting "those other guys" for doing it.
The problem is, enforcing the laws on the books is its fucking business.
Adams has a good point - there's 2 categories the government lumps your information into: stuff it doesn't care about, and stuff that it can find out if it has a reason. If it has a legitimate subpoena, it can get almost any information it wants to about you, and legal "fishing expeditions" are not that hard to mount.
So why not decriminalize all the stupid "victimless / harmless" crimes, get them off the books, and let the police agencies ACTUALLY go after the real criminals? They'll always going to have the power to subpoena your information if they have reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, no matter how much you stomp your feet and shout about privacy. Furthermore, it's not ALL that hard for the government to manufacture "reasonable suspicion" if they're really looking for a reason to nail you.
So instead of worrying about "privacy" (which is at the mercy of the government's lack of interest in you to begin with), limit the circumstances that would give them an excuse to start pawing through your personal information in the first place. They will always be able to violate your privacy - so limit the circumstances where they legitimately have that power.
I think it's time to explore therapeutic alternatives for your condition.
Taxes are not tips, and taxes are not tips, and taxes are not tips. You don't tip "the government" for doing a good job. You don't tip "Wal Mart" for doing a good job. You tip *the individual providing the service* for good service, and that money is theirs, not $retailer's money.
You keep coming about tips, while simultaneously assuring us that you (commonly) pay more than a retailer asks for certain things. Can you give us some examples where you've actually said, "You want $1.99 for this shampoo, but I love it so much, I want Walgreen's to have $10 for it instead?" One that doesn't involve tipping a waiter/waitress, cab driver, doorman, bellhop, etc.?
If your only example is, "I really don't want to carry around 5 pounds in change, so throw my couple pennies of change in the penny jar," that's pretty irrelevant. I'm talking about examples where you said, "This is SO MUCH MORE VALUABLE to me than what you're asking for, I want you to have more money than you're asking for it, $retailer."
As soon as you find yourself saying "fair" and "unfair," you're into subjective evaluation. That's a non-starter where taxes and other financials are concerned. If you want $x for an item, charge $x. Don't charge 0.5 * $x and rely on people to decide that somehow the item is worth twice what you're asking for it.
I'll admit I'm baffled by the people who claim they spend more money than they need to on things, as if that's some sort of hallmark of integrity and decency - maybe I'm just not affluent enough to not really care where my money goes, but to me, it seems like abject stupidity: If you want $5 for the shampoo, ask for 5 damned dollars. Likewise, if you want 15% of a corporation's profits in taxes, ask for 15 damned percent. Don't get bent out of shape with me for "only" paying $1.99 for your shampoo when that's what you asked for it, and don't get bent out of shape with $corp for "only" paying 2% of their profits in taxes, when that's what you asked for.
Those examples you give are sort of irrelevant: a tip is generally given to someone who would make FAR less than minimum wage without the tips - their pay is structured with the assumption that they will get some money depending on the quality of the service. As far as "keep the change" - that phrase is typically heard in relation to tips - for example "the taxi ride was $7, here's $10, keep the change" -- i.e., "your tip is $3."
In the cases where you've what you consider to be "more" as a tip than was expected of you - do you call other people scumbags and tell them they lack integrity for not paying what you did? Do you pay extra on your income taxes? Surely you could afford to just write an extra check payable to the IRS (or whatever the tax agency is in your country, if not the US), and say "Hey, I'm concerned that you guys aren't getting enough money, here's an extra $500 from me to help out," couldn't you?
There's a huge difference between giving somebody a couple extra bucks for a tip - jobs that work for tips wouldn't be making much money if they DIDN'T receive a tip - and giving Random Retailer, Inc. $50 for $2.99 worth of purchases. If Random Retailer WANTS $50 for the items I'm purchasing, then Random Retailer should ASK $50 for them, not leave it up to people to randomly determine that the value of what they're buying is much higher than what's being asked.
This all, of course, sidesteps the fact that publicly traded corporations have a legal obligation to operate in the best interests of the corporation and their stockholders, as well - handing out large chunks of money that they're not obligated to for ill- or un-defined purposes ("we felt that we owed more in taxes, for some reason") tends to work counter to that.