honest question for those ready to hang manning and assange

[pjjjjj]

I have an honest question here, so no bashing please, just would be interested in how people see things from different perspectives.

In another war in another time in another land, an army of men killed millions of innocent men, women and children because they were told to do so. They followed their orders.

After the fact, questions were asked as to how these human soldiers could have blindly followed their ruler's orders, believe the propaganda, and participated in the attempted extermination of an entire race of fellow humans.

If one or more of those soldiers were to have questioned or refused their orders, what would have been their personal consequence for doing so? If they would have done it alone out of principle, and they would have been punished by being assassinated themselves, would anyone know about it? If the public knew, would they scream 'traitor' and happily watch the traitor's execution?

So what happens now, in present times, if a soldier is ordered to do things he knows are just wrong, or he witnesses things being carried out by his army upon direction from their superiors, which are in opposition to what his countrymen believe is going on?

What will happen to him if he speaks up? Who does he speak up to? Will members of his country ever know what's really going on? Will they care? Should the taxpayers just keep paying for their soldiers to be at war, blindly trusting that they're supporting a worthy cause?

If the soldier feels it is unsafe to trust anyone and therefore decides to supply raw data to his safest bet so that the truth can be known, and he is subsequently punished by death.. how much have things changed really? And how different are the US soldiers than the German soldiers of yesteryear? And how can we ensure that the past doesn't repeat itself?

Just curious.

 

[layoutshooter]

We, as U.S. Soldiers , have LEGAL means to do this.

In this case it was ONE person, not larges numbers.

This person went OUTSIDE of the country.

This person MAY have placed his OWN comrades in greater danger.

There is NO genecide going on.

There is NO final solution being planned.

The U.S. does not want to stay where we are now. We will withdraw as soon as the situation is stable. Don't believe that? Ask Germany and Japan.

There is no valid comparison.

EVERY soldier is allowed to disobey illegal orders. EVERY soldier has the DUTY to do so. There is a chain of command AND other avenues for a soldier to press his grievence. It happens. Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong. It is not taken lightly.

There is a line that you do not cross. When you give aid to the enemy, it is treason and the penalty for treason is death.

 

[EnglishLady]

It is indeed an interesting question, but in the case of Manning I do not think it applies.

Manning's intentions I do not think were "honourable" more like a need to feed some deep seated need for attention.

(Manning to Lamo)

" he (Manning) felt isolated and ignored at work, and was angered by some of the classified material he had read. He said he was a "wreck": "Ive been isolated so long ... i just wanted to figure out ways to survive ... smart enough to know whats going on, but helpless to do anything ... no-one took any notice of me," he wrote. He said he had been leaking files to a "white haired aussie," Julian Assange of Wikileaks. He said: "i'm exhausted ... in desperation to get somewhere in life ... i joined the army ... and that's proven to be a disaster now ... and now i'm quite possibly on the verge of being the most notorious 'hacktivist' or whatever you want to call it ... its all a big mess i've created"

If he had kept to the memo's regarding other Countries Leaders, the alleged phone tapping in panama, and such like maybe, just maybe he had a point.

But he didn't.... He didn't just download the memo's that made him "angry", he downloaded everything.
IMO he crossed the line when he gave away secrets that could endanger lives both Military & Civilian.

All he has done is caused chaos and made the world a more dangerous place than it already was.

 

[chefdennis]

no comparison between the 2...Manning in knowingly stealing and leaking classified info deserves to pay the price for his action and whatever that price is based on the outcome of his Court Marshall.....keep in mind, his rights are not those of the average American citizen walking down the street, he decide he would play by a different set of rules when he enlisted....

 

[greg334]

Pjjj,

I think this all goes to the issue of society and how we look at things with our experiences.

Today is much different than say the 1900's or 1930's where most grew up who fought in WW1 and WW2 respectfully.

We are a soft society who has not faced any real hardships in our lives, the worst has been this last recession and even with that, states like California setup suicide hotlines to deal with people who could not handle it.

We lack a lot of survival drive of the past and live in a false world removed from reality of the rest of the world where entertainers and media has shaped our opinions of what the world should be like.

Many of the problems we face in our military and society alike have to do with the idea that we have to question everything and if we don't like it, we can refuse to do it. It is prevalent throughout society, from people who demand the government pay for things to soldiers questioning basic orders.

What seems to be missed is what consitute an order that is illegal and where do you draw the line with ethics in war.

In the past we have been led into a war that was war of survival, not just about basic ideologies or differences of opinion. We were involved with 2 European wars, the first had a history going back to the 1840's and the second was started as the first one ended. The atrocities which happened in the previous wars were expanded in the first war we were involved with and our soldiers brought home the reality of that war which was what we had to dealt with in the past - the civil war being one of them. The second war was a true war of survival for us, our country was at stake, it wasn't where were were just fighting to end the fighting in a far away place but we were attacked directly.

Those wars were fought to end the war, civilians and soldiers alike were targeted for the same reason - to destroy them. The need to revisit decisions to find better ways seems never to work and to define what is legal and what isn't prevents the military to do a job - to destroy.

Either of those wars, and the couple of wars that followed were fought by people who were understood life was finite, who didn't view the world through a revision of their lives or told that they were to be unhappy and it wasn't fair. These were people who fought, fought on principles and even ethics of religion, who understood that their lives were meaningless to the bigger picture.

The question that I read one time from a WW2 history was simple - can we fight a war today like we fought in WW2?

I don't think we have it in us. We don't even know there is a war going on. I think today the individual has duty to themselves first, not the country.

 

[bugsysiegel]

If there were a comparison to be made, wouldn't it be more apt to compare Manning and Assange to Hitler? By that I mean they are more likely causing the deaths of the people than they are being ordered to do the killing.

And no, I don't think they are actually comparable to Hitler, I'm just trying to draw a parallel between the levels of responsibility.

 

[pjjjjj]

We, as U.S. Soldiers , have LEGAL means to do this.

In the other country, I believe they believed their soldiers also had legal means to do what they were doing.

In this case it was ONE person, not larges numbers.

Yes, and my question is.. what if one of the US soldiers is ordered to do something, or sees something going on which they truly believe in their heart and mind is not supposed to be what goes on.. what is that one supposed to do?

This person went OUTSIDE of the country.

I believe that is irrelevant to my question, but perhaps I am missing the significance.

This person MAY have placed his OWN comrades in greater danger.

Yes, and perhaps so would a soldier of yesteryear, if he squealed.

There is NO genecide going on.
There is NO final solution being planned.

Perhaps not, but my question is.. how can we be sure that will never happen again if our soldiers must follow orders without any real opportunity to decline or speak or let his country know?

The U.S. does not want to stay where we are now. We will withdraw as soon as the situation is stable. Don't believe that? Ask Germany and Japan.

There is no valid comparison.

I'm not really comparing events, I'm asking a question about what is a soldier to do if ... see original post.

EVERY soldier is allowed to disobey illegal orders. EVERY soldier has the DUTY to do so. There is a chain of command AND other avenues for a soldier to press his grievence. It happens. Sometimes they are right, sometimes wrong. It is not taken lightly.

I wonder why Manning felt he could not do this? And I'm sure we all know that the way things are supposed to work, isn't always the way things actually work in real life.

There is a line that you do not cross. When you give aid to the enemy, it is treason and the penalty for treason is death.

I agree with this, but perhaps it isn't viewed the same by everyone as to what constitutes giving aid to the enemy.

 

[pjjjjj]

It is indeed an interesting question, but in the case of Manning I do not think it applies.

Manning's intentions I do not think were "honourable" more like a need to feed some deep seated need for attention.

Thank you EnglishLady. And by the way, you are a refreshing addition to this forum

Perhaps the case of Manning does not apply... but like you said, it is an interesting question.. just looking for points of view on 'what is a soldier to do'..

If he had kept to the memo's regarding other Countries Leaders, the alleged phone tapping in panama, and such like maybe, just maybe he had a point.

But he didn't.... He didn't just download the memo's that made him "angry", he downloaded everything.
IMO he crossed the line when he gave away secrets that could endanger lives both Military & Civilian.

Perhaps there wasn't time to pick and choose, and he believed he was sending it to a safe place where the truth could perhaps be deciphered?

All he has done is caused chaos and made the world a more dangerous place than it already was.

Perhaps, ... and a more embarrassed United States of America.

 

[pjjjjj]

Pjjj, .....

I understand (I think?) what you're saying, and I agree.. but I don't think it's really answering the OP.

 

[layoutshooter]

"I wonder why Manning felt he could not do this? And I'm sure we all know that the way things are supposed to work, isn't always the way things actually work in real life."

Yes, it has and does work. I have seen it in my career. It is of course difficult, for good reason, but men of character are not put off by difficulty. Our military, as is yours, is NOT staffed with raging lunatics. It is staffed with mainly, normal everyday human beings who wish to do more to serve their country. It is an honorable profession. The VAST majority know the difference between right and wrong, at all levels, and will stand up when a line is crossed. It seldom is. I find it very hard to believe that a PFC would have the context needed to make such a grave decision at that point in his career.

 

[RLENT]

There is NO genecide going on.

I think that is very much open to debate.

I'm fairly sure that if you were to go outside the US, into some of the lands we've been occupying, you find a far different viewpoint on the matter.

It's been documented that there have been over 100,000 Iraqis killed since we arrived .....

The U.S. does not want to stay where we are now. We will withdraw as soon as the situation is stable. Don't believe that?

No, I do not - history has shown it to be otherwise.

Ask Germany and Japan.

Funny ..... I thought we had bases in both of those countries ...

And it seems that I've heard that we intend to have long-term basing in Iraq.

And think that there's at least one more .... now where was it ?

..... oh yeah ..... Korea ....

There is no valid comparison.

For someone who is unwilling to look at the actual facts, of course there isn't .....

 

[layoutshooter]

"Funny ..... I thought we had bases in both of those countries ...

And it seems that I've heard that we intend to have long-term basing in Iraq.

And think that there's at least one more .... now where was it ?

..... oh yeah ..... Korea .... "

Yes, this is boring, we have bases UNDER AGREEMENT AND AT THE WILL OF THE HOST COUNTRIES in Japan, Germany AND South Korea. As we do in England. We operate WITH those host countries to our combined benefit. IF we base long term in Iraq we will do so under a similar statute of forces agreement or not base there. Proof of this is France. We have NO bases there. Had you served in a military or intell capacity at ANY base in you would know this. In fact EVERY base on which I served overseas were OWNED by the HOST country and we LEASED space, per agreement, from them. In Japan it was a JASDF Air Base and in England it was an RAF station. But you do really know this, don't you?

 

[RLENT]

Our military, as is yours, is NOT staffed with raging lunatics. It is staffed with mainly, normal everyday human beings who wish to do more to serve their country.

I'd suggest you may wish to acquaint yourself with the full history of General Curtis "Dr. Strangelove" LeMay, who managed to rise to the rank of Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force.

He advocated to Kennedy that we make preemptive thermonuclear strikes against the USSR ...... casually mentioning that we would probably lose New York, Washington, DC and a few other large cities as well in the process. In his mind, that apparently would have been "ok" .....

He also threatened Kennedy as President.

The guy was a psychopathic whackjob.

If ya want another, somewhat less (apparently) whacked out example, try General Wesley "Lets-Bomb-Everything-In-Sight" Clark. There was a reason he was forced to retire .... and it wasn't because he failed to shine his dress shoes.

And more near to the present, I'd say General Stanley McCrystal, may have a good shot at the appellation .... if all the details ever come out about what he's really been up to ....

Of course, that likely won't happen ...

It is an honorable profession.

It can be an honorable .... whether it is or not, largely depends on the individual.

Of course, when the institutions of the military make it a common practice to lie, deny, and withhold relevant data from the US citizenry, all under the guise of "national security", a rubric which often used to cover up embarrassing facts (if not actual crimes) then it's hard not to view the entire profession as inherently corrupt.

The VAST majority know the difference between right and wrong ....

The real danger is when those who don't rise to high places and positions of power.

 

[RLENT]

Yes, this is boring, we have bases UNDER AGREEMENT AND AT THE WILL OF THE HOST COUNTRIES in Japan, Germany AND South Korea.

So let's look at the facts shall we:

We go into a country either through overt military, or other covert, means, fight and subdue the any opposition to our being there, and then arrange for the installation of a puppet government who is compliant with our wishes ..... and then they "invite" us to stay ....

Yeah .... I think I get it ...

Our history is replete with examples of this occurring - and only an absolute fool would argue otherwise - because it is largely documented (despite the best efforts of those in power to prevent it)

 

[Turtle]

I understand (I think?) what you're saying, and I agree.. but I don't think it's really answering the OP.

Well, the OP contained about twelve questions, so it's hard to figure out which one you want answered. But, since this apparently boils it down: "... but my question is.. how can we be sure that will never happen again if our soldiers must follow orders without any real opportunity to decline or speak or let his country know?"

Oh, wait, maybe this boils it down: "...and my question is.. what if one of the US soldiers is ordered to do something, or sees something going on which they truly believe in their heart and mind is not supposed to be what goes on.. what is that one supposed to do?"

The answer would depend more on what's legal than what may be in his heart and mind. Any soldier is required to not follow an illegal order, but it must be clearly illegal and not merely distasteful of objectionable. It can't just feel wrong, either. There are certainly many orders that may feel wrong, but if the knowledge behind the decision to give the order was known, it might not feel wrong at all. As Layout noted, context is often critical.

As for not having the opportunity to decline or to speak and let his country know, all soldiers have that opportunity, and there are legal ways to do it. The ends rarely justify the means, as the means are important for many reasons.

 

[layoutshooter]

So let's look at the facts shall we:

We go into a country either through overt military, or other covert, means, fight and subdue the any opposition to our being there, and then arrange for the installation of a puppet government who is compliant with our wishes ..... and then they "invite" us to stay ....

Yeah .... I think I get it ...

Our history is replete with examples of this occurring - and only an absolute fool would argue otherwise - because it is largely documented (despite the best efforts of those in power to prevent it)

I suggest that you return to what PJJJJ wanted in this post.

 

[RLENT]

I suggest that you return to what PJJJJ wanted in this post.

Heheheh ... now that's a real strong comeback there Layout .....

Outstanding way to avoid the issues raised I must say ...

pjjjj,

I hope you didn't mind my slight "diversion" on this .... seemed entirely relevant given some of what was being said .... how did it seem to you ?

 

[LDB]

To the best of my knowledge soldiers are only required to follow lawful orders. I don't know the specific regulation but a soldier is not required to follow an order that violates the constitution or is an unlawful order.

 

[pjjjjj]

Well, the OP contained about twelve questions, so it's hard to figure out which one you want answered. But, since this apparently boils it down: "... but my question is.. how can we be sure that will never happen again if our soldiers must follow orders without any real opportunity to decline or speak or let his country know?"

Oh, wait, maybe this boils it down: "...and my question is.. what if one of the US soldiers is ordered to do something, or sees something going on which they truly believe in their heart and mind is not supposed to be what goes on.. what is that one supposed to do?"

Be sarcastic all you like, I am definitely not anywhere close to being able to articulate exactly what I mean when I write and I apologize for that, I do my best.

The answer would depend more on what's legal than what may be in his heart and mind. Any soldier is required to not follow an illegal order, but it must be clearly illegal and not merely distasteful of objectionable. It can't just feel wrong, either. There are certainly many orders that may feel wrong, but if the knowledge behind the decision to give the order was known, it might not feel wrong at all. As Layout noted, context is often critical.

As for not having the opportunity to decline or to speak and let his country know, all soldiers have that opportunity, and there are legal ways to do it. The ends rarely justify the means, as the means are important for many reasons.

I understand this, we can't have hundreds of people deciding what is right. I would think however, that there are certain standards that everyone would feel the same way about, if they were anywhere near 'normal', which I would hope your soldiers and their superiors are. Let's take the video of the soldiers killing the reuters reporter and other pedestrians as an example. Is that condoned? If a soldier was ordered to do that and I'll just assume it was not part of their real mission there, let's even say it was illegal, what then?

 

[pjjjjj]

Heheheh ... now that's a real strong comeback there Layout .....

Outstanding way to avoid the issues raised I must say ...

pjjjj,

I hope you didn't mind my slight "diversion" on this .... seemed entirely relevant given some of what was being said .... how did it seem to you ?

Whatever gets thrown into the pot as a diversion from the topic is game for commenting on, IMHO.