Yeah...Assassinate everyone who dears reveal the cruelty of the US troops and call others terrorist...I think they've reached the highest levels of hypocrisy.
Lets see... Did this guy vote for the Iraq War? Yes!
He condemned thousands of American and foreign troops to death as well as the uncounted number of Iraq civilians, and while we're on the topic, the "enemy" as well.
Thus, under his own logic, he must be himself be executed.
I agree, but if you buy into the idea of the legitimacy of legalized mass slaughter (war), then you believe that there are exceptions. When a country decides to go to war, people throw out all of the usual ethics and morality.In theory there are some rules to be followed (Geneva Convention, etc), but powerful and influential nations often do little more than wink at those (unless it is someone else breaking them).
That's just it, we as a country never declared war. Bush went to war under resolutions. I highly recommend a read of this article "Is Bush's War Illegal? Let Us Count the Ways" by Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0917.html
Arguably, yes, which is a reason we have such a mess and situations like WikiLeaks. Former presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul advocates sensible advice saying that if the people want a war, then declare one; fight it, win it, then come home; when you go to war over resolutions the wars don't end. If John McCain had won the presidency, for example, he was quoted as saying he didn't care if we were in Iraq for the next 100 years.
What's your point? The country has been in over a hundred conflicts without a formal declaration of war. The legality of a war should have little to do with the necessity of one. The former seems to be more of a formality than anything else.
The formal difference is great. Without declaring war you get ambiguity, and unpopular wars like Vietnam, where veterans came home to be despised and spat on by their fellow American citizens. Like my comment above says, if the people want a war then Congress has the power to declare one, and be clear about it. Without this level of assured commitment, you get war engagements like Iraq -- a country which never attacked us, and we matter-of-factly invaded.
...and yet it was Congress which passed the War Powers Resolution which was in turn used to legalize the conflict in the first place, which congress didn't seem to complain about much according to their near unanimous vote (1-shy). In regards to the "invasion" itself, it sounds as if you're trying to make some type of moral argument for leaving Hussein in power.
The United States needs a new law requiring that the president consult with Congress before going to war, a blue-ribbon panel led by two former secretaries of state said Tuesday.
James Baker, left, and Warren Christopher led a panel that recommended a new War Powers Act.
The current War Powers Resolution is "ineffective, and it should be repealed and it should be replaced," James Baker said in a joint appearance with Warren Christopher, announcing the results of the study they led.
So they changed their mind, so be it. I don't see what difference it will make though. With 125+ undeclared conflicts under our belt, the trend seems to speak for itself.
That's just it. In the U.S. we the people uniquely can make a difference. The U.S. is currently deployed in over 150 countries around the world; we've been in Korea since the 50's. When Congressman Ron Paul ran for president it exposed many of his ideas to a broader audience, some of which make a lot of sense. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but his warnings for straying from the Constitution bear truth, even in recent history when we look at things like the Iraq war. At one point Bush specifically said we were on course for World War 3, presumably with Russia and China, backing up Iran who was in our sights for military action next. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjGX2Gdj2Y4
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are trying to argue for some type of self-defeating isolationism? What does the nation's current troop deployments and/or geopolitical strategy have to do with the constitution?
Not isolationism, just having a standard we go by -- which is supposed to be the Constitution -- so we don't get into ill-advised conflicts. If war is only fought when declared, we know what we're getting into. Is it really a necessary strategy to be in Korea for 60 plus years? Do we really need to be in 150 countries? While running record deficits? I don't think that's isolationism. I think such questions are common sense.
One cannot forget that the USA is a superpower who has taken on the mantle of world police and has been expected to perform in that role for decades. I don't think either of us are qualified to make a judgment on how many countries we need a presence in. The question of a deficit is mostly a separate issue IMO. Their are plenty of other places to point to in the budget that take up a significant amount of money.
World police? Earlier you alluded to leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Was he the only source of wrongdoing in the world? The only person we needed to police? Do you know what atrocities continue in Saudi Arabia -- our close "ally"? As for being qualified to make a judgment on how many countries we need to be in, the U.S. is the the most powerful nation on the the planet. We can vaporize anyone we choose within hours. What else must one know besides that?
I haven’t read all the papers put up on Wikileaks so I don’t feel comfortable making a judgment there. But as someone who grew up in a military family I’d like to take a second to defend the harshness of the justice system in the Military (since part of this article’s point is how barbaric the military punishment for treason seems)
The thing you have to understand about Military Justice is that it has to be harsh. These are guys whose job it is to take guns and kill people with them. Which is why, as a society, we very specifically outline their chain of command and that chain of command ends at the one person in the country that must be elected by the majority of people in the country. Because the right to legally order that another person be killed is so solemn that we only dare give it to the President himself (who then decides who he wants to put his trust in as far as chain of command).
As such you have to understand the highest value in a soldier’s life must be “to follow orders”. Because if that soldier substitutes his own judgment for that of his commander than our whole society falls apart (this is how we get military coups). Which is why we force soldiers to sign over their life to the military for their term of duty and why we take away many of their rights as citizens. You, as a private citizen, can tell off your boss without any fear of legal repercussions but a soldier will go to jail for the same act because the highest military value is “obey your commander”.
So while I understand Military Justice might look harsh to civilians you have to understand that it’s absolutely necessary. The guys with guns who have the legal right to kill people have to be held to the highest standard possible. As do the paper pushers who deal with confidential data since they too can cause a person’s death through their actions.
(Just to head off one criticism right up front some will say this could lead to a corrupt Military. To those people I’d point out that a soldier can say anything he or she wants about their time in the service AFTER they leave the military)
All that is obvious. One does not need to come from a military family to understand that. Common sense should suffice. The interesting questions are:
1) if the WikiLeaks war logs contain "nothing new" (according to the White House), then why is that it's a problem of national security?
2) yes, guys with guns must be held to the highest standard possible; unfortunately, the civilians who have the power to send the "guys with guns" to invade sovereign nations and kill people are held to no standard at all. We didn't lower the bar, we removed the bar. Zero accountability for the decision-makers, death penalty to the pawns in uniform? Isn't a rogue executive branch potentially more dangerous than a rogue Army private?
3) did Congress authorize the war in Afghanistan? I don't remember any declaration of war. If we're not officially at war, then what Rogers claims to be "treason" does not call for capital punishment.
4) if we are at war and Manning should be executed for treason, then why not execute Cheney too? Didn't he reveal classified information and endangered Americans when he exposed Valerie Plame?
That will never happen. Unfortunately, the political decision-makers are above the law. We all know that. Does anyone remember LBJ & McNamara being prosecuted for the deaths of 58,000 Americans and over 2,000,000 Vietnamese?
Actually, the author is a very experienced prosecutor who has worked on many murder cases (including Charles Manson). He certainly sounds like he knows what he is talking about!
Fortunately for the political class, malice can easily be disguised as incompetence. Plausible deniability makes it hard to attribute culpability.
If a mafia top dog sends his goons to invade private property, his goons get shot at and return fire and kill people, then the mafia guy is a criminal. If the commander-in-chief sends his goons in uniform to invade a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the U.S., his pawns get shot at and return fire and kill 100,000s of people, then the commander-in-chief is a national hero, and anyone who dares to disagree is a traitor, a liberal, a communist, a socialist, un-american scum. Lesson to be learned: if you want to be a criminal, avoid the private sector.
And it is probably just as likely as Henry Kissinger being prosecuted. I'm sure that you may see the odd foreign judge or two throw out a summons for Bush, to little or no effect.
When we get to comments like this, I think we can safely say this doesn't belong on Hacker News. There must be some other political forum where this can rehashed.
re: (2) I suggest that congressmen start checking the executive branch, which is their duty. Failing to do so, they committ a soft form of treason. We expect the guys in uniform to sacrifice their lives, but the congressmen are not even expected to sacrifice their careers in the defense of the U.S. Constitution. Soldiers will continue to die for nothing, and congressmen will continue avoiding unpopular fights that might cost them votes.
> if we are at war and Manning should be executed for treason, then why not execute Cheney too? Didn't he reveal classified information and endangered Americans when he exposed Valerie Plame?
I agree with you on most things but, there is a lot of clascifed information that you are not allowed to disclose. Also, you can "talk back" to your commander, but it's far more risky.
PS: O:"Go there" P:"I think I BLEEP ing see an IED." vs P:BOOM.
Which is why, as a society, we very specifically outline their chain of command and that chain of command ends at the one person in the country that must be elected by the majority of people in the country.
So while I understand Military Justice might look harsh to civilians you have to understand that it’s absolutely necessary. The guys with guns who have the legal right to kill people have to be held to the highest standard possible.
In sane places, ordinary individuals are also allowed to own guns and to kill people (mostly limited to self-defense). Some states have the death penalty; that power rests with a judge or set of judges (with approval from twelve semi-random people).
I think it has more to do with the need to act together and be reliable. Given the top-down decision structure and time/resource constraints involved in going to war, soldiers not following orders can be rather like your brakes malfunctioning or one of your tires falling off while driving down the Interstate. Probably there's also a bit of historical artifact in not distinguishing sufficiently (I believe there are some recognized distinctions) between whether or not a particular incident could actually have that extreme of an effect.
As do the paper pushers who deal with confidential data since they too can cause a person’s death through their actions.
So can people designing or building bridges and skyscrapers.
As such you have to understand the highest value in a soldier’s life must be “to follow orders”. Because if that soldier substitutes his own judgment for that of his commander than our whole society falls apart (this is how we get military coups). Which is why we force soldiers to sign over their life to the military for their term of duty and why we take away many of their rights as citizens. You, as a private citizen, can tell off your boss without any fear of legal repercussions but a soldier will go to jail for the same act because the highest military value is “obey your commander”.
This is why the Nuremberg trials were a complete farce.
Well, in the past there were quite a long chain of military coups supported by the US, specially here in Latin America in the 60s and 70s, and generally this was supported (and orchestrated) by the high-ranking military officers of these countries, to summarize I think that your thinking is flawed, just because you have a couple of soldiers following orders does not mean that the military will necessarily defend the government in the case of a coup, even in these days the powerful (secular supporting) military of Turkey is feared by the (religious inspired) ruling party.
For me, a coups generally occurs when there are so much partisanship in a country that even the high-ranking officials are supporting one side.
I'm not in the military, personally, but most of my family has served/is serving and what you say is so patently wrong that I can't believe you put that military family disclaimer in the beginning since you obviously don't have a clue how it works.
The military is no harsher than a civilian justice system. There are things you can't do in the military that would only get you a warning anywhere else. Things like being late, sleeping on the job, not respecting the chain of command. And there are things that would get you an article 15 and mandatory jail time, like drug possession, assault, or drunk driving. This is offset by the fact that you get the best lawyers the military has to offer. JAGs work your case, your defense counsel could be the prosecuting counsel on another case, unlike the real world you get the full resources and full effort of the military and not an overworked public defender. The civilian criminal courts? who knows you could go from probation to life over a simple possession charge.
Soldiers take an oath to defend the constitution first and foremost. If the commander-in-chief is at odds with that then they default to the later. They'll take orders from the president as long as the end game is the preservation of the union. There are treaties and conventions in place that dictate how a soldier is supposed to behave ask one of your family members if they memorized the geneva conventions, I can guarantee all of mine have. Killing on orders hasn't been a valid defense since the Nazis lost.
Uniform in Uniform Code of Military Justice is just that. It applies equally to everyone in the military. This senator can scream death penalty until he's blue in the face but he's not military so his opinion is only that. Spc. Manning is not a prosecutors special case, he is not to be made an example of, he he will be tried under the terms of the UCMJ by his peers (ie. not a senator, not the public, but other guys in uniform) and if found guilty will be given a punishment commensurate to the charges. Nothing greater and nothing less than that.
Yeah...you don't know what you're talking about. If you'd actually read the article you'd realize the senator isn't arbitrarily screaming "death penalty". What he's saying is this guy is guilty of treason in a time of war and the punishment for treason in the military is death. Which is a much harsher punishment than a civilian contractor could get for leaking the same information.
Second your theory that soldiers can "default to the constitution" if they disagree with the President is just foolish. First because there are defined punishments for defying the commander and chief and second because that would lead to chaos. What happens when a conservative regiment decides President Obama is violating the constitution with something he's ordered? Should they be able to take their guns and oppose him? Of course not!
Finally "killing on orders" is just another word for War so soldiers do it all the time
>"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
In which we clearly see that his obligation to protect the constitution is listed before his obligation to obey the president. As such his highest duty is to the constitution, and if he leaked the papers to defend it he should get a medal, not a bullet.
In addition, I seem to recall that the constitution requires an act of war to be made by congress for it to be acceptable to send the army. No such act has ever been made, so isn't going to war in Afghanistan unconstitutional?
A bit off topic, but with the benefit of many years of hindsight Daniel Ellsberg's leaking of classified information about the Vietnam War is widely regarded as a good thing for an open society.
I don't know enough yet about the recent Wikileaks issues to judge that, but it will be interesting in 10 years to look back and see what public consensus is.
Perhaps this shows us that things have changed in journalism? You have to wonder if Watergate, for example, would have been reported on so vigorously had it occurred in 2010.
This guy just wants some publicity, it will never happen. The fact that it's possible, though, is scary.
How come Supreme Court precedents don't apply to the military justice system? They already decided it's illegal to murder people for rape, so it's probably illegal to murder people for posting YouTube videos. (Is it ironic that the title of the video was "Collateral Murder" and there are talks of murdering the leak?)
The fact that this guy was in the military means he will never get a fair trial, which is a human rights violation on par with North Korea and China. Does the "land of the free" really want to stoop to the level of North Korea, just because some guy leaked a video he shouldn't have?
Thing is, he is under the military justice system, which he volunteered to be when he enlisted (if he was drafted, none of this applies and he should be set free under the 14 amendment). Since he went freely, there can be no trembling of his human rights.
Wrong. He may not have completely understood the ramifications of his actions when he joined the military. In the real world, if you steal confidential data, you get fired and get a new job. In the military world, you die.
The magnitude of difference is so incomprehensible that no reasonable person could be expected to anticipate these consequences in advance. Setting up a system that catches people by surprise and leads to death is a violation of human rights.
Killing someone is always a violation of their rights.
Every effort to empower common man will be resisted because, Administration will not allow their clout to be diluted and they want you to be subservient forever.
This is all purely theoretical -- no one has been executed by the military in 50 years. We can argue about the pros and cons of the death penalty, but the reason no one uses it is because it is a terrible solution. Better to discuss what kind of prison term he'll deserve or receive.
47 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadHe condemned thousands of American and foreign troops to death as well as the uncounted number of Iraq civilians, and while we're on the topic, the "enemy" as well.
Thus, under his own logic, he must be himself be executed.
That's just it, we as a country never declared war. Bush went to war under resolutions. I highly recommend a read of this article "Is Bush's War Illegal? Let Us Count the Ways" by Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0917.html
Excerpt:
The United States needs a new law requiring that the president consult with Congress before going to war, a blue-ribbon panel led by two former secretaries of state said Tuesday. James Baker, left, and Warren Christopher led a panel that recommended a new War Powers Act.
The current War Powers Resolution is "ineffective, and it should be repealed and it should be replaced," James Baker said in a joint appearance with Warren Christopher, announcing the results of the study they led.
The thing you have to understand about Military Justice is that it has to be harsh. These are guys whose job it is to take guns and kill people with them. Which is why, as a society, we very specifically outline their chain of command and that chain of command ends at the one person in the country that must be elected by the majority of people in the country. Because the right to legally order that another person be killed is so solemn that we only dare give it to the President himself (who then decides who he wants to put his trust in as far as chain of command).
As such you have to understand the highest value in a soldier’s life must be “to follow orders”. Because if that soldier substitutes his own judgment for that of his commander than our whole society falls apart (this is how we get military coups). Which is why we force soldiers to sign over their life to the military for their term of duty and why we take away many of their rights as citizens. You, as a private citizen, can tell off your boss without any fear of legal repercussions but a soldier will go to jail for the same act because the highest military value is “obey your commander”. So while I understand Military Justice might look harsh to civilians you have to understand that it’s absolutely necessary. The guys with guns who have the legal right to kill people have to be held to the highest standard possible. As do the paper pushers who deal with confidential data since they too can cause a person’s death through their actions.
(Just to head off one criticism right up front some will say this could lead to a corrupt Military. To those people I’d point out that a soldier can say anything he or she wants about their time in the service AFTER they leave the military)
1) if the WikiLeaks war logs contain "nothing new" (according to the White House), then why is that it's a problem of national security?
2) yes, guys with guns must be held to the highest standard possible; unfortunately, the civilians who have the power to send the "guys with guns" to invade sovereign nations and kill people are held to no standard at all. We didn't lower the bar, we removed the bar. Zero accountability for the decision-makers, death penalty to the pawns in uniform? Isn't a rogue executive branch potentially more dangerous than a rogue Army private?
3) did Congress authorize the war in Afghanistan? I don't remember any declaration of war. If we're not officially at war, then what Rogers claims to be "treason" does not call for capital punishment.
4) if we are at war and Manning should be executed for treason, then why not execute Cheney too? Didn't he reveal classified information and endangered Americans when he exposed Valerie Plame?
http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/B0...
If a mafia top dog sends his goons to invade private property, his goons get shot at and return fire and kill people, then the mafia guy is a criminal. If the commander-in-chief sends his goons in uniform to invade a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the U.S., his pawns get shot at and return fire and kill 100,000s of people, then the commander-in-chief is a national hero, and anyone who dares to disagree is a traitor, a liberal, a communist, a socialist, un-american scum. Lesson to be learned: if you want to be a criminal, avoid the private sector.
re: (4) Yes he may have revealed classified information but it does not appear he endangered the lives of anyone by the revelation (you think he did?)
Cheney didn't expose Valerie Plame - Richard Armitage was Novak's source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
PS: O:"Go there" P:"I think I BLEEP ing see an IED." vs P:BOOM.
So while I understand Military Justice might look harsh to civilians you have to understand that it’s absolutely necessary. The guys with guns who have the legal right to kill people have to be held to the highest standard possible.
In sane places, ordinary individuals are also allowed to own guns and to kill people (mostly limited to self-defense). Some states have the death penalty; that power rests with a judge or set of judges (with approval from twelve semi-random people).
I think it has more to do with the need to act together and be reliable. Given the top-down decision structure and time/resource constraints involved in going to war, soldiers not following orders can be rather like your brakes malfunctioning or one of your tires falling off while driving down the Interstate. Probably there's also a bit of historical artifact in not distinguishing sufficiently (I believe there are some recognized distinctions) between whether or not a particular incident could actually have that extreme of an effect.
As do the paper pushers who deal with confidential data since they too can cause a person’s death through their actions.
So can people designing or building bridges and skyscrapers.
As such you have to understand the highest value in a soldier’s life must be “to follow orders”. Because if that soldier substitutes his own judgment for that of his commander than our whole society falls apart (this is how we get military coups). Which is why we force soldiers to sign over their life to the military for their term of duty and why we take away many of their rights as citizens. You, as a private citizen, can tell off your boss without any fear of legal repercussions but a soldier will go to jail for the same act because the highest military value is “obey your commander”.
This is why the Nuremberg trials were a complete farce.
Well, in the past there were quite a long chain of military coups supported by the US, specially here in Latin America in the 60s and 70s, and generally this was supported (and orchestrated) by the high-ranking military officers of these countries, to summarize I think that your thinking is flawed, just because you have a couple of soldiers following orders does not mean that the military will necessarily defend the government in the case of a coup, even in these days the powerful (secular supporting) military of Turkey is feared by the (religious inspired) ruling party.
For me, a coups generally occurs when there are so much partisanship in a country that even the high-ranking officials are supporting one side.
The military is no harsher than a civilian justice system. There are things you can't do in the military that would only get you a warning anywhere else. Things like being late, sleeping on the job, not respecting the chain of command. And there are things that would get you an article 15 and mandatory jail time, like drug possession, assault, or drunk driving. This is offset by the fact that you get the best lawyers the military has to offer. JAGs work your case, your defense counsel could be the prosecuting counsel on another case, unlike the real world you get the full resources and full effort of the military and not an overworked public defender. The civilian criminal courts? who knows you could go from probation to life over a simple possession charge.
Soldiers take an oath to defend the constitution first and foremost. If the commander-in-chief is at odds with that then they default to the later. They'll take orders from the president as long as the end game is the preservation of the union. There are treaties and conventions in place that dictate how a soldier is supposed to behave ask one of your family members if they memorized the geneva conventions, I can guarantee all of mine have. Killing on orders hasn't been a valid defense since the Nazis lost.
Uniform in Uniform Code of Military Justice is just that. It applies equally to everyone in the military. This senator can scream death penalty until he's blue in the face but he's not military so his opinion is only that. Spc. Manning is not a prosecutors special case, he is not to be made an example of, he he will be tried under the terms of the UCMJ by his peers (ie. not a senator, not the public, but other guys in uniform) and if found guilty will be given a punishment commensurate to the charges. Nothing greater and nothing less than that.
Second your theory that soldiers can "default to the constitution" if they disagree with the President is just foolish. First because there are defined punishments for defying the commander and chief and second because that would lead to chaos. What happens when a conservative regiment decides President Obama is violating the constitution with something he's ordered? Should they be able to take their guns and oppose him? Of course not!
Finally "killing on orders" is just another word for War so soldiers do it all the time
>"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
In which we clearly see that his obligation to protect the constitution is listed before his obligation to obey the president. As such his highest duty is to the constitution, and if he leaked the papers to defend it he should get a medal, not a bullet.
In addition, I seem to recall that the constitution requires an act of war to be made by congress for it to be acceptable to send the army. No such act has ever been made, so isn't going to war in Afghanistan unconstitutional?
I don't know enough yet about the recent Wikileaks issues to judge that, but it will be interesting in 10 years to look back and see what public consensus is.
How come Supreme Court precedents don't apply to the military justice system? They already decided it's illegal to murder people for rape, so it's probably illegal to murder people for posting YouTube videos. (Is it ironic that the title of the video was "Collateral Murder" and there are talks of murdering the leak?)
The fact that this guy was in the military means he will never get a fair trial, which is a human rights violation on par with North Korea and China. Does the "land of the free" really want to stoop to the level of North Korea, just because some guy leaked a video he shouldn't have?
I would vote to acquit.
The magnitude of difference is so incomprehensible that no reasonable person could be expected to anticipate these consequences in advance. Setting up a system that catches people by surprise and leads to death is a violation of human rights.
Killing someone is always a violation of their rights.