Well in that case, I have no choice but to value your arguments as well thought out!
By the way, I haven't been part of, or heard of, a mission that didn't clearly state its ROE, and that didn't have the well-being of civilians held higher than that of the mission accomplishment. You know how many people have been tried and punished by the military for harming civilians? The military gets more butthurt over collateral damage than you or Tomu do.
^Feel free to continue to use loaded terms like "re-education" and such. It really drives your subjectivity home.
edited 25th Dec '10 8:51:53 PM by Scrye
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZEPot kettle yadda yadda.
But I'll concede that re-educated is a bit loaded. Any ideas for a more neutral term?
We're looking for something that conveys "Enforcing a conformity with a certain predetermined set of values that mirror those of the organization as a whole" while not simultaneously having negative implications. Does such a term exist?
I assumed that by adding quote marks to it, it was clear that that was just a "best word available" scenario, but apparently not.
There, fixed. As much as I think this really was just a general nitpick to control the "flow" of the conversation, people using loaded buzzwords annoys the fuck out of me, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
edited 25th Dec '10 9:03:52 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Mental Conditioning. Its not quite brainwashing because you can pretty easily ignore it if you choose to. The reason it is very effective is you want to fit the mold at some point. Mr. Manning is a prime example of someone who is not brainwashed and quite capable of making his own choices of his own will.
Who watches the watchmen?IMNSHO, if I were in his position and found some top-secret information that I felt would be immoral to withhold, then I'd totally send it to Wikileaks and "loyalty to country" be damned. I only follow contracts until I feel that I must break them.
Private Manning's actions were not out of spite or malice, he was doing what he felt was right. Also, given the sheer volume of the documents released, he most likely wasn't the only hacker out there. He shouldn't be held accountable for all of the documents. Some, but not all. It's fine to keep him in jail until he faces trial, but solitary confinement is a bit harsh. It's not like he's going to eat the other inmates.
Would you kindly click my dragons?^Soooo you don't follow contracts period. That's like me saying I strictly adhere to pacifism, until I feel it's time for me to kill someone.
That and he's being treated the same as every other person in maximum custody there. Y'all act like you've never been in a room by yourself before *.
edited 25th Dec '10 9:54:50 PM by Scrye
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZEWell, I don't strictly adhere to anything, period. There are always exceptions.
Then you would never be in this situation. So I don't know what exactly you're trying to say here.
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE^^^^ If I ever had to blow the whistle on my own government as a soldier I would not go to Wikileaks. Ever.
Instead I'd head to my commanding officer first and report it to him, if that fails I would go to Congress. There's far too many people there Democrat and Republican alike who would be interested in what I would have to say on such things. And believe me it would take something quite heinous for me to blow the whistle such as abandoning restraint against civilians in a military environment or worse the President seeks to abolish constitutional protections via executive order.
Stuff like what Manning did or the cables saying Russia is run by the mafia is irrelevant and not worth blowing the whistle over. Especially when organizations like Wikileaks edits and doctors footage to present them in a specific way without the benefit of full context. (See the helicopter links I provided earlier)
Scyre, what you are describing is basically the very epitome of Lawful Stupid, and saying that because Manning isn't Lawful Stupid, he shouldn't have joined the marines in the first place.
Which, actually, may very well be the case. But it's also totally tangential to the discussion actually at hand-which is, is it "right" to release documents the one feels need to be released? You can argue as to whether or not certain documents need to be released or how-but you haven't. You haven't even attempted to do that. You've instead held the position that he "Broke the Code" and that itself is an affront to decency, but you haven't been defending the code.
That's why I compare it to religion-you hold the authority to be right by virtue of the authority. You hold that one should hold to agreements even if those agreements are detrimental to the true good. I mean, what if we signed an agreement with some terrorist for them to never bomb us, and they held up that end of the bargain-but then they just used chemical warfare. Should we keep our end to the agreement?
^I believe Black Humor already responded to that accusation in a satisfactory fashion, but by all means. But at this point, we're just arguing over whether the videos themselves should have been leaked, and if something needs to be leaked, who they should be leaked to. And that's a different argument and perhaps even a much more intelligent and important one. I'm only arguing against the mentality that "You're a marine damnit, follow your code!"
edited 26th Dec '10 6:54:35 AM by TheyCallMeTomu
^ Black Humor did not answer satisfactory. To your opinion maybe but not to the facts.
Wikileaks had and presented a chopped down 17 minute video. Who cares if they say they edited it or not? It's still edited and thus what they used initially as presentation. The controversy over it and the official investigation would not have existed in the same capacity had they just given the 38 minute video in full context of the events going on in that incident. Remember the official investigation cleared the soldiers involved of any wrongdoing. The edited video made it look like they were fucking psychpaths hosing down a housing complex filled with nothing but civilians.
Secondly, his second point is unacceptable. There's no such thing as "cannot fire against unprovoking targets". If you have a weapon and they did in the video you are a legitimate military target in war and can be fired at and killed regardless if you have even fired your weapon at all or not. That's the rules of engagement. War is not some kind of goddamn police scenario.
edited 26th Dec '10 7:19:59 AM by MajorTom
Then bring the rules up for a public debate and inform people! Don't make the Army look bad if you want to change things! People are not so closed minded to not be persuaded to change how the military works. But insult the military and make them look like babykillers or some other kind of monster as Wikileaks did in that video and you will shut people off to persuasion of that kind every single time.
This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.
Back on topic, Tomu, when you said this:
No.
This is then (partially) balanced out by my not wanting the people in charge of deciding my fate to have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.
But yeah-that's probably unavoidable, and honestly, that's true with civilians in civilian courts as well, though I'd argue that it isn't to the same extent, because jurors aren't really part of an organization that has a training regiment.
edited 26th Dec '10 11:45:48 AM by TheyCallMeTomu
@Tom:
But clearly it would have, because they did. That's exactly what I said before.
Furthermore, go look at the 17 minute video right now. It shows at the beginning EXACTLY what Wikileaks is claiming, and everything they are claiming is clearly true.
@Tuefel:
edited 26th Dec '10 1:00:48 PM by BlackHumor

And we would evaluate those jobs, organizations, and religions in terms of how cultlike they are and criticize or praise them appropriately.
Scyre's right though: No one goes into the military not knowing that there's certain "
re-educationEnforcing a conformity with a certain predetermined set of values that mirror those of the organization as a whole" elements to it.edited 25th Dec '10 9:03:10 PM by TheyCallMeTomu