USAF Lt. Col: Bradley Manning has rights!

[jaminjim]

We were ALWAYS able to speak up when I was in the military. There were proper times/places and chains in which to do so. We were ENCOURAGED to THINK, not just react. LEGAL orders HAD to be obeyed, ILLEGAL orders were to be fought.

What you could NOT do was just run around, smarting off, show disrespect etc. There was a strict "cast" system and as long as you stayed within the "rules and norms" you had great latitude to think and contribute. There is NO advancement without opposing ideas. Even a lowly private is capable of coming up with an idea that is better than the general's. The trick is learning HOW to tell the general.

Wasn't a trick at all, he just had to think it was his idea.

 

[greg334]

We were ALWAYS able to speak up when I was in the military.

Really?

So how many times did you go around speaking of classified information and telling others about operations that were about to happen?

There is a difference between having the right to speak up about public issues and having the right to speak in public about military matters.

I think Amonger's point was about the punishment of a soldier who was taking a political position which in itself has some issues about it but I do not agree with the punishment he went through nor the idea he should have been told to shut up - it was a public issue, not a military one AND MORE IMPORTANTLY has little to do with releasing classified documents.

There were proper times/places and chains in which to do so. We were ENCOURAGED to THINK, not just react. LEGAL orders HAD to be obeyed, ILLEGAL orders were to be fought.

Yep sure is but as a citizen, my life and property depend on the performance of those are allowed to defend the country and that performance is and should be under the scrutiny of those who I put in office to represent me and my fellow citizens.

BUT than there is another issue - what consititutes a legal order? IF it is protection of the country, then I expect that definition to be broad and include what the purpose of any military is to do during war time - destroy the enemy and their ability to make war. I don't care what happens in order to do that because again my life and property is at stake. What this does not mean is to invade a country that hasn't done a thing to us or take a military action because of a third party - i.e. Korea.

What you could NOT do was just run around, smarting off, show disrespect etc. There was a strict "cast" system and as long as you stayed within the "rules and norms" you had great latitude to think and contribute. There is NO advancement without opposing ideas. Even a lowly private is capable of coming up with an idea that is better than the general's. The trick is learning HOW to tell the general.

Out side of the contribution to any action or policy, the problem is (and this is a fact people can investigate themselves) that we have become a soft society and it has affected our soldiers in negitive ways. We have given a lot of latitude on issues like insubordination and other serious issue while at the same time we have let our ethics lapse so not to punish people for crimes like desertion.

 

[Turtle]

If you are leased to a carrier and you go online or somewhere else in public and say things they don't like, they might retaliate against you, like canceling your lease. Same thing if you are an employee of any company, say Walmat, as an example. You go public with things you don't like, and the company doesn't like you doing that, expect to get fired or some other consequence to befall you. Those in the military have no special pass to be able to publicly say things about their employer and be able to get away with it. The fact that the military is a government entity doesn't make it censorship, either.

 

[greg334]

If you are leased to a carrier and you go online or somewhere else in public and say things they don't like, they might retaliate against you, like canceling your lease.

Sure Shelled one - that never happens ever.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Bob's Big Boy has been able to keep the recipe for their secret sauce a secret for over 50 years! I say recruit their employees first....

 

[greg334]

Bob's what?



Oh ...

wasn't that sauce formula was released to the public back in 1974 which forced congress to start an investigation of the leak of the formula but for some reason that wasn't known at the time, McDonalds lobbied key congressional members to stop the investigation.

It was later found out through classified information released by a whisleblowers in McDonalds (who turned out to be Mayor McCheese) provided information that the sauce BigBoy's used in many of their franchises was being supplied by McDonalds. But the most damaging information in the documents was the use of "protein fillers" in the hamburger meat and the projected profit increase using the fillers.

 

[layoutshooter]

Greg,

As I ALWAYS say, every right carries a responsibility. OF COURSE we did not discuss classified information out side of secure areas.

We could, and did, talk about public issues. NO interference. Common sense prevailed.

Legal order? Do your job, lift that bale, go out on patrol etc.

Illegal? Go murder someone.

Real life example of an illegal order:

Setting: Basic training, Ft. Lenard Wood, MO, 1970

A "weak, nut case type" soldier passed out often. We ran (we ran everywhere) to get shots. The guy passes out, AGAIN, and starts to hyperventilate. We were in front of the clinic, WITH LIVE DOCTORS INSIDE. I told a few buddies to help me pick him up, take him inside for treatment. My goofy ER, DI ordered us NOT to take him inside, to let him lay there. WE carried him in any way. WE all got called in to the CO's office. The DR told the CO that the DI was wrong. The DI got busted 2 pay grades and those of us we did WHAT WAS RIGHT got in no trouble.


I know, anecdotle etc. REAL life. Can't prove it. It happened. That IS how it is. You are NOT required to obey an illegal order.

 

[greg334]

Layout,
What people consider the job of the military is just that - to murder or kill (depending on how your convictions are).

The example means little, the order was given to a boot not a person in the field and the DI was wrong as many of them have been wrong in the past. BUT there is an issue that has to be said about the training that has to be endured to survive. The DIs job is not to worry about feelings but to ensure you have the skills to survive. Their failings are not always their fault (not in your example) but the intake system to make sure that people are not of ilk quality. THIS doesn't mean that there are physical limitations that should be kept in mind while training as in your case.

I think a better example is to get an order to bomb a village in a country that we are not at war with because the commander felt like it - that is a problem with the order and I would expect anyone to refuse to carry it out. Bombing a village with the enemy seems to be logical given the nature of the business the military is in.

 

[layoutshooter]

Layout,
What people consider the job of the military is just that - to murder or kill (depending on how your convictions are).

The example means little, the order was given to a boot not a person in the field and the DI was wrong as many of them have been wrong in the past. BUT there is an issue that has to be said about the training that has to be endured to survive. The DIs job is not to worry about feelings but to ensure you have the skills to survive. Their failings are not always their fault (not in your example) but the intake system to make sure that people are not of ilk quality. THIS doesn't mean that there are physical limitations that should be kept in mind while training as in your case.

I think a better example is to get an order to bomb a village in a country that we are not at war with because the commander felt like it - that is a problem with the order and I would expect anyone to refuse to carry it out. Bombing a village with the enemy seems to be logical given the nature of the business the military is in.

We had a DRAFT back then. Drafted, you went in. The "intake system" did not have a choice. They were "sorted out" in Basic Training.

The DI WAS wrong. He was NOT teaching survival skills etc. He was just being a Donkey's Behind. He did not like that guy. The guy in question got a "general" discharge before basic was over. He had NO business in the military. The system worked.

Of course my example was spot on. That was the level that I was at. It was a REAL LIFE situation. I was EXPECTED to do what was right, FROM DAY ONE. That TOO is a lesson to be learned in basic. (assuming of course that you did not learn it prior, which I had)

Speaking of survival training, knowing when, and how, to move a sick or injured person is very much a part of survival training.


As your career progress you learn, by building on smaller lessons like mine in basic, to "do right" as the stakes get higher. It is called a "foundation". You don't learn to disobey or even recognize an "illegal order" suddenly when you are promoted to staff and find your self under fire. It's too late then.

 

[Black Sheep]

As for the charges against Manning, this is the Charge Sheet. It can, of course, be amended at any time. He is currently charged with 4 specifications of Article 92 and 8 specifications of Article 134 of the UCMJ.

It's pretty easy to find, even without looking. The story originated with the UK's Telegraph, who as one person on Alaska Pride (a gay Website, duh) so wryly put it, "Once again, a foreign media source reports what the gutless, co-opted, celebrity-obsessed American national media hasn't the courage to touch."

The political correctness of this scares the bejezus out of the American press, and the military. The military don't want anything to do with it, because the military will have to admit they put a gay man who was mad at the military over DADT in a position of classified intelligence, and the press don't want to touch it because they don't want to look like they're attacking the military (Fox) or attacking the liberal's gay agenda (CNN and everyone else). The gay crowd is all over it, but not about him being gay, no siree, because that risks blowback, at is were, so they rail on the inhumane confinement and torture, torture I tell you!, of an American hero, because, you know, all of the people in the past who have leaked stuff went down in the annals of American history as heroes, and Manning is, too. So there.

Here's Manning's Facebook page, before it went poof. Note carefully his "other" interests. It's a page turner.

Here's an article where it touches on things quite a bit, tho some of the speculation is (probably, tho not a certainty) a bit over the top.

The New York Times article that goes into more detail, most of it interesting stuff that you don't see on the Blogs.

Here's one (Bradley Manning, the Gay Soldier Behind Wikileaks, is Hot) with a pic of him holding a sign, well, you can read it at the link, or below. The best is in the comments below the blog article. There's little question of his sexual orientation. They know. They know.

Not a fan of DADT.

Bradley and his friend Tyler. They're cute, dontcha think?

There they are folks, our Soldiers of Tomorrow

 

[jaminjim]

Really?

Yep really, well not during Basic Training.

So how many times did you go around speaking of classified information

Quite often, provided they were authorized. (need to know type of thing)

and telling others about operations that were about to happen?

Being a Platoon Sgt. I often briefed my Troops what the mission was and how we were going to accomplish it. (by the way they didn't necessarily have clearances)

There is a difference between having the right to speak up about public issues and having the right to speak in public about military matters.

Wrong, I could say most anything as long as it wasn't classified, even in uniform. (provided I didn't disrespect myself, my superiors, or the uniform) I couldn't just say anything (you know that fire in a crowed theater thingy) that I wanted while in uniform, because as already pointed out no mater who you are, actions have consequences.

I think Amonger's point was about the punishment of a soldier

He is not being punished, he is being detained, and he sure as heII isn't a soldier.

who was taking a political position which in itself has some issues about it

You can take a political position as a soldier, but he was attempting to steal classified documents.

but I do not agree with the punishment he went through nor the idea he should have been told to shut up - it was a public issue, not a military one AND MORE IMPORTANTLY has little to do with releasing classified documents.

What? And I really want you to re-state that.

Yep sure is but as a citizen, my life and property depend on the performance of those are allowed to defend

Are you kidding me? I'm sure those that have been allowed to die for your freedom deeply appreciate you allowing them to do so. That is one of the dumbest things I've read from you. A whole host of words come to mind... But I won't use those and just leave it with imperious

the country and that performance is and should be under the scrutiny of those who I put in office to represent me and my fellow citizens.

Pretty sure that most of us that served or are currently serving their country are at minimum, citizens, and because of that I feel we are a better citizen than those that didn't. Not saying better people, but better citizens.

BUT than there is another issue - what consititutes a legal order? IF it is protection of the country, then I expect that definition to be broad and include what the purpose of any military is to do during war time - destroy the enemy and their ability to make war. I don't care what happens in order to do that because again my life and property is at stake.

It isn't all about you and your property.

What this does not mean is to invade a country that hasn't done a thing to us or take a military action because of a third party - i.e. Korea.

First you say occupy, now you say we invaded Korea. Just shaking my G--D--- head.

Out side of the contribution to any action or policy, the problem is (and this is a fact people can investigate themselves) that we have become a soft society and it has affected our soldiers in negitive ways. We have given a lot of latitude on issues like insubordination and other serious issue while at the same time we have let our ethics lapse so not to punish people for crimes like desertion.

Get the politics out of the military and you wouldn't have that problem.

 

[greg334]

Jim,

You know what I meant when I was talking about information. I think you are saying what I mean in a better concise manner.

BUT yes I mean allow.

We as a nation do not allow just anyone to join, do we?

I mean there is an issue with age, intelgence and other factors, like mental illness. You know as well as I it is the civilians who control the military, it is the civilians who tell the military where and when to fight. It is the civilians right or wrong who set the standard for people to join. I don't recall when the military acted alone in deciding where and when to fight other than something defensive, like Wake Island or the Philippines.

We, the citizens, pay for those wages (even though I feel it isn't enough), we set the rules and we allow solider to do their job as we define it. The question is what constitutes illegal, I still can't see where it is defined and how it is determined outside the individual who makes a decision based on their conscience.

But so you may understand what I mean about life and property is this; the problem is that any attack on the country is an attack on my life and property as it is with anyone else's, it simply means as nuts as it sounds, from Concord to 9/11, it is a personal thing with many. One example is Pearl Harbor which wasn't an attack on the territory of Hawaii but a personal attack on the country and everyone in the country. People took that as a threat to their lives and property, directly not indirectly even though the event happened thousands of miles are. At the time while most agreed with the need to fight because they were attacked, not the territory.

As for Korea, it is one example - we never declared war on the the north, we are involved with a police action and should have no real interest in maintaining a force there when others should be stepping into our shoes. It is like our troops in Germany, England, France, Italy, the Balkans, Africa, or anywhere else that seems to be in need of local involvement - we are maintaining a force that really isn't needed to be in those places. IF someone like the UN wants us there, then it should go through the same process as a war does, with a declaration and approval.

 

[Pilgrim]

The thing that bothers me the most is that in the all volunteer Army the standards are being relaxed to the point that they would take somebody like this in the first place. It's obvious that this social misfit figured he could use the military as a means of last resort to find a career. The whole idea of the volunteer military was to avoid that entirely, and it now seems the recruiters get under pressure and take these mentally unfit people who are bound to cause problems. The end result of this social experimentation with the military could very well be the reinstatement of the draft - for both men and women. For all of you that voted for hope and change, you're d**n sure going to get change - for the worse.

 

[jaminjim]

Some of the problems with the Volunteer Army are the handcuffing of the recruiters to weed out the misfits at the front door of the station. They can't delay them because of being gay, disrespectful and a host of other things. Then the DI can't tune them up like they use to. Just an experiment/system that will become an epic failure.

 

[jaminjim]

I'm relying on some civics classes from a while back, but if I remember correctly it is the Congress does the authorizing and the President does the commanding. The citizens elect people for those positions, and if they don't like the direction the Military is going write a letter.

It grates on me no end when I hear words to the affect of "You work for me"
or "I'm your boss I pay your wages". When talking about police, firemen, Military.

 

[greg334]

I understand, you seem to understand my point.

I think the military is an underpaid group and I would like to see more benefits go to them than any other group within the federal government. They are specifically addressed by the founding fathers where the police and firemen are not.

The Police do work for the citizens, as does the firemen but they seem to be the first cut from any job and in many ways underpaid. I feel they are the only group of civil servants who should be afforded a union to protect them but outside of that, they are locally created groups who are in direct employment of the people, not exclusive to the job of fire protection or law enforcement because it has only been in the last 150 years that both groups have been established outside of self-governing groups of citizens within the city structure.

 

[AMonger]

It grates on me no end when I hear words to the affect of "You work for me"
or "I'm your boss I pay your wages". When talking about police, firemen, Military.

I don't know if this is merely semantics or what, but when I say something to the effect of "You/he (the cop) work/s for me," I'm not speaking in a monetary sense, in that, since tax money pays his salary, he works for me in the same sense as a Walmart employee works for Walmart. When I say it, I'm saying that we in society are the owners of the country, and we and our forefathers set up government that works for us in the manner that they prescribed in the Constitution, and they are required to abide by those rules whether they like it or not. Further, we in any given jurisdiction have cops because we've chosen to have them for our own security. They don't exist separate from our will that they exist. So if they abuse us or out authority, we can just as easily disband them and put them on the unemployment line, and establish a new department or contract police services to the county or state level forces.

So to say "You work for me so you'd better not give me that ticket" is asinine, but to say, "You work for me, so you're not my superior to do to me as you see fit, and you had better abide by the rules society has set up for you" is appropriate.

 

[AMonger]

There they are folks, our Soldiers of Tomorrow

Did you have to repost those? They were bad enough the first time.

 

[AMonger]

Holy smokes! What branch of service were you in? What time frame did you serve? When I was in, trying to argue with an instructor would have resulted in a DI removing his Campaign Hat and doing a Kato (Goldfinger) like removal of your head.

I knew someone would seize upon my terminology. When I say argue, I don't mean an adversarial argument. I mean to discuss, sometimes disagreeing, to arrive at the truth. You start with disparate views, but then work it out, getting closer and closer. And while this guy was an instructor, he was an academic instructor, not the kind who's up your @$$ and in your face. His job was to teach things we would need to know. Not like digging a foxhole or firing an M16, but there were classes to teach us how the chain of command worked, what pay statements looked like and what the entries meant, the legalities of orders, how the AFSC/MOS system and assignments worked, etc.

So he'd say we retained all our civil rights, but we knew we couldn't tell an officer to kiss our @$$, so we'd raise that objection, and he'd explain that how we exercised our right to free speech is different in the military. That's what I mean by argue: assertion, objection, clarification, etc.