"And what BM did was evil. to fight evil with evil is never going to make anything better"

No it was not evil...

Trip, your use of the indefinite pronoun "it" confuses me.

@ MK Yes it was evil

I personally think that there is a happy medium between the government keeping legitimate secrets and keeping secrets because its dirty laundry.

I hate to agree with Tolstoy at all, but this kid is going to jail. That IS the law, and he knowingly broke it. He had to know what the consequences of it (I had a clearance, both for nuclear related materials, and then for when the ship when on mission, and they were very clear that to discuss the mission was a one way ticket to Leavenworth).

He chose to do so anyhow.

But much like Abu Garib(sp?), the powers that be will throw a little guy to the wolves... but who among you really think that the behavior at that prison wasn't sanction at a very high level.... I always thought that either Rumsfeld knew about it (even as a nod and a wink), or he should of. Either he's a war criminal, or he's grossly incompetent.

Either way, formal charges should probably have been levied.

sorry bob, i can't use a smaller word for you.

"@ MK Yes it was evil "

Ok than you are a moron :-)

it = what the u.s. soldiers did

@MK

I love you!

This is why debate or argument on this forum is slightly pointless, it just descends to a 'no you are wrong, no you are wrong' stalemate and nobodies opinion ever changes, oh and a few personal insults to boot!

I like what JK is saying....

"it just descends to a 'no you are wrong, no you are wrong' stalemate and nobodies opinion ever changes, oh and a few personal insults to boot! "

Welcome to the internet!

And how serious in your ham?

I think that we can broaden the sentiment spoken by Serioussham to pretty much the entire world, not just the internet. Most of the time anyone has an argument about politics or religion, nobody changes their mind.

@Serioussham: "This is why debate or argument on this forum is slightly pointless, it just descends to a 'no you are wrong, no you are wrong' stalemate and nobodies opinion ever changes, oh and a few personal insults to boot!"

No, you are a turd!!! I mean....


But seriously, even if people don't immediately accede to arguments that cut against the core of their beliefs, I am a firm believer that (for at least vaguely rational and articulate people) repeated exposure to good arguments questioning ones most tightly held notions regarding reality will either lead to a healthy editing and strengthening of those beliefs, or sometimes, after a period of reflection, an abandonement of them in favour of more justifiable beliefs.

OK. I tend to think machine gunning a couple of unarmed crowds as more evil than beheading an individual, personally. The operative difference between the two acts is summed up by the word "crowds".

That said, I really don't know what the relevance of a couple of nutters in a cave in Pakistan or a burned out factory in an-Najaf is to the current discussion.

That is certainly how it works for me.

FS First his sloppy release of info and lack of selection shows his intention was not motivated by morals, but for some selfish reason. Killing by hand or by proxy is still killing and how many must die as result of his actions before you can say he is the equivalent of a serial killer, and it's not off mark to compare him to a serial killer. The only difference is he gets a cheering section. Names need not be released to figure out who informed and who did not. Anyone with his training would know that with enoff raw data you can use patterns to give away who did what and when. Just because someone is at risk does not justify increasing that risk. You stand there and cheer yet you know not what the details of what was released or the results, or question his real motives. No matter what his motives, it will not matter to those who will die as a result of his acts.

*nobody's

I just don't see the point in all of you arguing then, but I guess that in itself could start an argument.
serious-sham, no ham included, but if it was, it would be very serious indeed.

Geez, I go away to do some real work and *boom!* this many posts come up...

@Jack - I said 60% yaxes was robbery and admitted I was referring to robbery in a non-legal sense. I have no problem with a fair tax to support our nation, so do *not* try to put words in my mouth.

@Tolstoy, I was in the service in the 80s. Hard for a pre-teen to come home from Nam in a body bag. I said I remembered it, not that I was in it.

*taxes not yaxes

Serious: I think the people we're trying to influence aren't the people we're arguing with (their minds are already made up), but the lurkers who read but don't post on a thread because they haven't formed an opinion yet (or have formed a weak opinion but aren't certain enough of it to be willing to defend it).

That's the way I always look at it.

serious sham! I got it now. I was ignoring the extra s. And I may be hungry....

(to those reading and not posting)

PICK MY SIDE!

Draugnar: The point is, you're all for defending our governing bodies in this case, but rail against them in another. Government is evil, government is a benevolent force that deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Pick a position. I don't even care which one, but the massive doublethink you're engaging in is absurd.

Draug, that was exactly my point. If not for the actions of people like Ellsberg, the wars in Southeast Asia could've dragged on long enough that you would've been shipped over there when you did enlist in the '80s.

Or if not Southeast Asia, perhaps the lack of a PR black eye in 'Nam would've emboldened the planners at the Pentagram to be cavalier with the lives of grunts like you and start other bloody wars in the '80s. My point is the likelihood of you being alive today would have been slightly less than it was due to 'traitors' like Ellsberg.

@Tolstoy - now that *is* a good point... I'll have to think about that some.

@Jack - I was only railing against a proposed law that could be put in place (there is time to overturn it) in principal, but I still wouldn't avoid paying the taxes should my parents leave me 5 or 10 mil (not likely, only about 2.5 mil in their estate right now and they are already pushing 70). And railing against by complaining is not the same as breaking the law. I believe in changing the law from within. If you can't get within, then a civil rights type of movement is in order, but this fudgepacker could have chosen to follow the chain of command. Also, he is a man in uniform, not Joe Public. He took an oath and broke it. I actually have less of a problem with the leak in so far as the media reporting it because they didn't take that vow. To me, this is like the Plame affair. Libby went to jail for that as he rightly should and there are others who should have. this punk deserves no better. LEaking secrets is leaking secrets. I don't give a fuck what the secrets are about.

Don't most Americans at some point take the oath? surely you have broken the law at one point draugnar and hence also broken your oath?
Also because I have nothing else to do and have a good memory, remember when you were talking about how you slashed people's tires who park on your curb, well here's a quote:
"Vigilante "justice" is still a crime. If you want to worship this guy, then you clearly don't believe in following the chain of command or letting the police pursue the criminals and you would chase down a criminal with a shotgun amd blow him away expecting to be praised as a hero. Vigilantism is a crime as well.Vigilantees are criminals and traitors who don't follow the chain of command are criminals."
by your own logic you are a criminal and a traitor, damn!

I am a criminal by my own logic. I don't deny that. Slashing tires was vigilanteism. But traitor, no. That is a different crime of which I am not guilty.

As far as an oath, most American's have *not* taken said oath. Throughout the history of the US, less than 1% of the population has served in the armed forces during their life. We don't have to serve as it's voluntary and the only other oathes I can think of are oathes of office when you take a serious position within the government. So by what measure do you think most American's have taken an oath? If you mean wedding vows, those are hardly the same. I am referring to the oath to defend the country, specifically:

I, Draugnar, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

"I, Draugnar, do.."

hahah