I'm just being a shit disturber B.
Thats not a serious position.
for instance:

Do you think Private Manning did the following?:

I don't think it matters what i think. It matters what Manning thought. If he seriously thought his govenrment had become tyrannical wouldn't he be obliged to resist under some interpretations of your constitution? Jeffersons as i quoted?
Just saying.

Your Constitutional argument is weak

I agree.
I simply see uncomfortable parallels to a similar position amongst those who beleive that there is a right to unilateraly rebel against the govenrnment if they beleive it has become tyrannical on one hand .... but cannot tolerate treason when it actually happens. If tyrrany is in the eye of the beholder so then is treason.
But then, i don't beleive that.

RickyP, I see confusion in my heart on this issue as well. If I had been alive in the times of the US Civil War, I would have been hard pressed to take up arms against my state. Would I advocate Slavery? No, but I would have joined against the tyrannical actions of the Federal Government? Probably.

The difference is that I would have done so with the full knowledge of my actions going against the loyalty of the Federal Government. I would have given my notice and left, not aided and abetted the enemy. If Manning had any backbone at all, he would have reported the violation, disavowed himself, and asked for IMMEDIATE release for reasons of loyalty.

He did not do that. That is why he is a coward in my book, and deserves the full impact of the UCMJ against him. Just as I would expect if I went against the Federal Government in the 1860s.

rickyp wrote:

Besides, Manning took the oath

..to support and defend the constitution ....
Maybe Manning had decided that the government had become tyrannical and he was revolting against it? Maybe he'd unilaterally decided that he was defending his country against unconstitutional activity by the government?

Gee, great point! He is free to use this defense in court. "I was defending the Constitution by leaking deciding for myself what was/was not legitimate actions by my government."

It could work.

Neal Anderth wrote:I didn't make the comment. I'm not an advocate of oaths.

I know, somewhere in you, there is a capacity to reason. Has Manning indicated he's a Bible-thumping Christian? If so, there is a debate about taking oaths and his position would be intriguing. If not, then what does the Bible have to do with it?

My understanding is that he is anything but a Christian. So, why would you appeal to something he would not even consider as worth of a thought?

Oh. Forgot. It's okay to worship a man if he stands against a government you hate.

The difference is that I would have done so with the full knowledge of my actions going against the loyalty of the Federal Government. I would have given my notice and left, not aided and abetted the enemy. If Manning had any backbone at all, he would have reported the violation, disavowed himself, and asked for IMMEDIATE release for reasons of loyalty

If Manning did that, he'd probably still be faced with charge of dereliction of duty and he wouldn't have struck a blow for his cause. It would be like you stepping up to declare for the South at roll call and being arrested as you did so....(As I recall West Point graduates were actually allowed to leave freely, no? Odd way to treat treasonous people.)

The point being that if Manning wanted to actually affect change what he did was far more productive than stepping up to the plate the honorable way... Daniel Ellsberg is perceived by many to be a hero today. He went to jail for his act of disobedience . But largely because Viet Nam was unpopular then and today considered by most to have been an error, he's largely rehabilitated. Maybe even honored.
If Mannings acts contribute to changes the way Ellsberg did perhaps he could hope for that. I doubt it. There's no doubt he revealed some immoral acts, but his release of information seems to have been helter skelter without a specific target... I don't think he really considered the implications of his act nor what he was trying to accomplish. I'll wait to hear more, but I think of him as a petulant child. If he has principles its a sure bet their rented.

There is also some doubt they have enough evidence to convict him isn't there?

steve

Gee, great point! He is free to use this defense in court. "I was defending the Constitution by leaking deciding for myself what was/was not legitimate actions by my government."

I agree with you Steve. Now, for leaking , substitute "arming myself and resisting the govenrment.".
And yet thats considered a legitimate way of thinking by many.

rickyp wrote:steve

Gee, great point! He is free to use this defense in court. "I was defending the Constitution by leaking deciding for myself what was/was not legitimate actions by my government."

I agree with you Steve. Now, for leaking , substitute "arming myself and resisting the govenrment.".
And yet thats considered a legitimate way of thinking by many.

Even if I accepted your argument (and I'm not taking a position on it), the analogy is flawed. By virtue of being born here, I am a US citizen. That required no oath.

I've read enough to believe Manning entered the military with an agenda. Even if he did not, he took an oath he did not have to take and then violated it many times.

he'd unilaterally decided that he was defending his country against unconstitutional activity by the government?

But that's not true. Nothing the government did was "unconstitutional" the constitution gives US citizens rights, it gives a framework for how the government will run
It has nothing to do with how other non-Americans are treated, he can be acting on morals most certainly, but he is absolutely not "defending the constitution" in any stretch of the imagination.

Jesus' criticism of oaths that you helped highlight is that people hide behind them, 'the I was just following orders crowd', from the 'I took an oath after all' group. The problem with saying Manning's actions are inexcusable because he took an oath also implies that immoral acts are excusable because someone did take an oath.

Neal Anderth wrote:Jesus' criticism of oaths that you helped highlight is that people hide behind them, 'the I was just following orders crowd', from the 'I took an oath after all' group. The problem with saying Manning's actions are inexcusable because he took an oath also implies that immoral acts are excusable because someone did take an oath.

Here's another religious quote that is just as applicable:

Living is a pretty grim joke, but a joke just the same. The entire function of man is to survive. The outermost limit of endeavour is creative work. Anything less is too close to simple survival until death happens along. So I am engaged in striving to maintain equilibrium sufficient to at least realize survival in a way to astound the gods. I turned the thing up so it's up to me to survive in a big way . . . Foolishly perhaps, but determined none the less, I have high hopes of smashing my name into history so violently that it will take a legendary form even if all books are destroyed.

Obviously, Manning was trying to smash his name into history. It turns out he is . . .

a Scientologist!

Seriously, what does Jesus have to do with Manning? Are you just a drone or are you capable of reasoning? What about Manning makes you think he had Jesus' words in mind--either when he took the oath or when he betrayed it?

You trying to use the words of Christ to justify Manning's actions is entertaining. How about quoting Mao? Confucius? Moses? Mohamed? The Watch Tower? Helen G. White?

I drag Jesus into it because the blood thirsty crowd here claims an association with Jesus.

Neal Anderth wrote:I drag Jesus into it because the blood thirsty crowd here claims an association with Jesus.

Does Manning?

Isn't he the one who is alleged to have broken the law?

And, is the Sermon on the Mount something a non-Christian can be said to be basing his life on?

Whether you understand Jesus aright (a dubious proposition) or not, you've yet to establish how His words should take precedence in this case over Hubbard's.

When did Manning adapt this understanding of Jesus' teaching on oaths?

If it's YOUR understanding, is it the law of the land? How does it apply to Manning?

Saying that it applies to me, GA, or others doesn't really help Manning much, does it?

Who forced Manning to join the Army? Who forced him, as an openly gay man, to violate other aspects of the Army's policy (DADT)?

You are only defending the man because you dislike the US government. That's fine. As a US citizen, you have a really odd take on its benefits: you like your rights, but want zero responsibility. In that way, your defense of Manning makes perfect sense--your outlook is exactly the same. You hate the country and yet like your other options even less (or you'd move).

tom

But that's not true. Nothing the government did was "unconstitutional"

So you say.
However Manning may disagree with you, and according to how some interpret the constitution, being a citizen like Steve, he has a right to act on his apprehensions.

rickyp wrote:tom

But that's not true. Nothing the government did was "unconstitutional"

So you say.
However Manning may disagree with you, and according to how some interpret the constitution, being a citizen like Steve, he has a right to act on his apprehensions.

So have many traitors in the past. In the end, that Manning had apprehensions about the Constitutionality of something is a pretty big leap. It's going to be far easier for a jury to believe the truth: that he is a homosexual activist who despises DADT and entered the military under false pretenses with a goal of damaging "the machine." He got his wish and will get his day in court.

Like other activists throughout our history, Mr. Manning will be a footnote in textbooks--just another traitor.

So I say?
Explain to me how manning was defending the US Constitution. Go ahead, I explained how it simply can not be taken that way, evcen stretching things you simply can not say this....but you do. Simply saying "says you" while giving absolutely no reasons and no explanation? Go ahead and show me how any can twist this to be the case. I explained why, can you do the same?


And the richest part of this is watching NA drift, all he is doing is stirring the pot while he takes whatever position that stirs the pot most. Please tell us your position, you flip flopped to each and every angle so far. Pretty funny to think nobody would notice you first saying he was honoring an oath, then he should never take an oath, then the oath had nothing to do with this, then back to the oath (and adding Jesus for extra measure) take a position please.