Add a Comment
- Oy, veh! How much illiteracy can be packed into four words.
Canon: A music form, as in the Pachelbel Canon in G. The artillery piece is a cannon
Fauder: Ain't no such word. Unless to count "cannin fauder" which the Urban dictionary (a dictionary of words and phrases used by street punks who failed 3rd grade) describes as "Panties or other items of intimate clothing as stuffed into a vagina by an erect ***** during intercourse/coitus"
The word you want is "fodder".
Or maybe you really meant cannin fauder. Hmmm.
Oh, a BTW: His name is Eugene Debs. With one "b".
Ignoramus. (Look it up.) - Reply to this comment
- Yes, there's a good reason that no military is a democracy - because if they were, they wouldn't be able to get the poor to sacrifice their lives for the interests of the rich. I suspect that in workers' revolutions such as the Bolsheviks or the force led by Fidel Castro, soldiers served of their own free will, rather than because they would be jailed or executed if they did not.
Just because you do not agree with me does not mean I have no understanding of these topics. We obviously have vastly different perspectives. Yours happens to be the perspective of the establishment. You seem to believe that because something has always been done a certain way, that is the only way it can or should be done. This has nothing to do with what "I want" for myself - it is what is right and just, what I and the rest of the human race deserve because they are our human rights, and no capitalist, politician or general has the right to take them away from us. Justice obviously has no bearing on your views or those of the rest of the right wing. So just go read some more Ayn Rand and keep on rationalizing - it's what the ego does best. - Reply to this comment
- OK, well according to the oath as you quoted it, obeying orders is not paramount: defending the Constitution is listed first before obeying orders, which I take to mean that defending the Constitution is paramount, while obeying orders is secondary. Also, while I can't imagine any possible exceptions to the duty of defending the Constitution, we all know that there are at least some exceptions to the duty to follow orders and regulations, as demonstrated at the Nuremburg trials and other war crimes trials.
He may have broken military law, but he did not violate any civil law - if he did, I would like to know which one. As has been mentioned elsewhere, Daniel Ellsberg was tried under the Espionage Act for releasing classified documents and was acquitted, and the U.S. has no Official Secrets Act for the specific purpose of protecting whistleblowers.
I am sure that according to military regulations, no one has the authority to declassify documents other than the people who can classify them in the first place. Nonetheless, since the duty to defend the Constitution supersedes the duty to obey orders and regulations, if any member of the military was convinced that the secrecy of a particular document was damaging to the principles of the Constitution, such as democracy or human rights, he would be obligated legally, but more importantly morally, to release those documents. It should be obvious that there have been occasions in history when classified documents needed to be leaked to protect the integrity of the Constitution and for the general well-being of the populace. Leaking these documents is always against the rules no matter who does it, but obviously someone needs to make that decision or government wrongdoing would remain secret, in defiance of the Constitution. Since it was the government trying to keep the secret, one can be fairly certain that the full force of government and the ruling powers would be brought down upon him for doing so. That is why it takes great courage and moral integrity to be a whistleblower - much more of both than it takes to blindly follow orders. There will always be disagreements over whether or not particular leaks were called for, and obviously those in power will always say it was treasonous, since they are the ones who stand to lose something.
As far as releasing the documents "willy-nilly," what was he supposed to do, go through tens of thousands of pages one by one and decide whether each one should or should not be released? That is not practical. He knew that many, if not most, of the documents contained important information that the public has the right to see. He sent the documents to responsible parties, and those parties, before releasing the documents, contacted the U.S. government to ask for assistance in determining what out of the documents should be redacted because of legitimate security concerns. The U.S. government refused to offer any assistance or advice, so Wikileaks had to publish all of the documents uncensored. If there was anything in there that legitimately needed to be kept secret, the government had ample opportunity to make sure it was removed, but they declined to do so; therefore the responsibility for any security breaches lies with them.
I am not sure what legal definition of treason you are referring to. As I said, I'm pretty sure he did not break any civil law. And "treason of the worst kind?" - I find it hard to believe that you would consider this incident as bad as, say, selling nuclear secrets to North Korea.
People's opinions on the need for secrecy vary, but in a democratic society, openness is supposed to be the chief operating principle, and our government has long been using secrecy for personal gain, convenience, and political gain, instead of only when it is truly necessary. Democracy required that something be done about it. What defines treason is also a largely subjective matter. The ruling class and their supporters tend to think that any disagreement with the government is unpatriotic, and doing anything to undermine the government constitutes treason. The common folk are more likely to think that patriotism means not necessarily supporting the government, but supporting the founding principles of the nation even if that means opposing the government. These people would probably think that the government working against the Constitution is treason, while a person breaking an unjust law in support of the Constitution is an act of great patriotism. - Reply to this comment
- And you are a commie ninja turtle terrorist. So?
- Reply to this comment
- I was referring to Bradley Manning, who disclosed classified material in a manner that he knew would make it available to our enemies, giving them "aid and comfort", the Constitution's definition of "treason". Assange, then, is an enemy agent for passing on to the enemy (along with the rest of the world, but that does not mitigate the act) information he knows is classified and whose release would harm the victim nation's security, and that he knows was disclosed illegally. Both should be prosecuted to the max.
- Reply to this comment
- He's a traitor, not a whistleblower, jerkwad.
- Reply to this comment
- How else doesa one discover what o9ne's government is up too? Rely on those BOUGHT & PAID-FOR by "Wall Stree? National security has become a blanket to hide all of government's EMBARRASSMENTS! hOW SECURE CAN WE BE IN HOCK TO cHINA? The killed our pets, they poisoned our tooth-paste and tomorrow they will foreclose on our homes and land!
- Reply to this comment
- Sad and revealing how Steve Kroft in his interview acted as a talking head for the power behind, meaning the crypto-industrial complex, now dismantling the principles of the Founding Fathers -the power to "We the people". The famous British Labour politician Tony Benn once said: In Europe the Government is afraid of the people, in US the people are afraid of the Government.
With useful idiots like Steve Kroft in the forefront, the elite has the mainstream media in their firm hands. Therefore its fully understandable Mr Assanges reluctance to be interviewed by people like Steve Kroft.
Have earlier held CBS 60 minutes in high esteem, but with this interview they have shown they play along with the rest of the bunch, which is either owned by or feed through vast advertising budgets by the corporatocary elite in the higher
sphere. - Reply to this comment
- I usually only tune in to watch the last few minutes with Andy Rooney (who has been mysteriously absent lately) but clicked over to watch this segment, and was astounded at what a poor job Mr. Kroft did in this interview. It's been a week and a half and it still irks me!
The whole "There are people that believe. . . " device only demonstrates either Mr. Kroft's laziness to cite an actual source, or his lack of moral character to actually state his opinion (which should have no part of REAL news).
I thought I was getting old, but clearly Mr. Kroft is TOO OLD to even pretend to do a neutral interview involving anything popularized in this century.
While I also blame the 'suits' at 60 minutes and CBS for this "story," I will forever associate Steve Kroft with it.
Just in case you weren't paying attention, that's NOT a good thing.
RIP 60 minutes. - Reply to this comment
- Steve Kroft was terrible, to say the least. What has 60 minutes come to? Well, I guess you've joined the ranks of those other news stations who just repeat a well worn rant over and over. I have not watch 60 minutes as regularly as I used to but yesterday confirmed that you are derailed. I remember Mike Wallace holding microphones in the faces of those who did not wish to have their antics made public, Morley Safer, Diane Sawyer, etc. Whereas I may not agree with Wickileaks all the time, I would never ever say that the people of the world should not have their dirty laundry hung out to dry. It's the USA, Steve, not Egypt, or Iran or ........Just so so disappointing.
- Reply to this comment
