Neal Anderth wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Neal Anderth wrote:[Congress didn't declare war in those cases. The Constitution provides for Congress to declare war. I did not say that they were unauthorized wars*.

And the Court has said since about 1801 in Talbot v. Seeman that a Congressional declaration of war does not require the actual words "Declaration of War" to appear in the legislation authorizing the use of military force for it to pass constitutional muster.

I know I'm arguing against a vast conspiracy of the majority, an empire drowning in debt. The court can be enemies of the Constitution just the same as anyone else. I'll just admit while we're at it that I don't abide the courts assumed authority to rule that black people were personal property as it did in 1857 in the Dred Scott decision.

I just don't buy into the might makes right argument. I know you have all the weapons and resources and will therefore get away with it, but still.

The other big problem is the false moral narratives used to sanctify nefarious actions. We had to invade Iraq because of the torture chambers, they said. Manning exposed the utter depravity of that lie with the Frago 242 revelations. The NeoCons and liberal interventionists condemned anyone not supporting the invasion as being pro-Saddam. Manning exposed the false moral narrative of the government. The fact that they can't treat him decently in confinement is well, just more of the same.

The fact that you have so blindly embraced a traitor speaks volumes for you. Volumes that you, apparently, will never be able to articulate or refute.

bbauska

You have a right to do anything.

No you don't.
When you do something that is a "right" you are protected for that action in a court of law or by a body of law. The concept of Universal rights is a fairly modern (post war) concept that The UN first gave a formal standing . (from Wikipedia)

Human rights are "rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Proponents of the concept usually assert that everyone is endowed with certain entitlements merely by reason of being human.[2] Human rights are thus conceived in a universalist and egalitarian fashion. Such entitlements can exist as shared norms of actual human moralities, as justified moral norms or natural rights supported by strong reasons, or as legal rights either at a national level or within international law.[3] However, there is no consensus as to the precise nature of what in particular should or should not be regarded as a human right in any of the preceding senses, and the abstract concept of human rights has been a subject of intense philosophical debate and criticism

.

What you go on to say is, you have a right to do anything, include commit treason, as long as you win. Well, thats not a right. A right is when you do something and fail but are still protected from some or even all of the negative consequences because you were within your rights to do so...
I have a right to speak freely, even if no one agrees or listens.I can't suffer imprisonment for speaking out.
I have a right to vote. To own property. etc.
I have a right to basic human dignity.
All of these things have been encoded in laws in civilized societies and also by the UN. And the intent of these laws is to provide protection for the exercise of these rights.
Without laws and enforcement of laws to protect rights they do not exist.
There is no protection for someone who committs treason except success.(Including running and hiding successfully).

Tom

In America we have the right to bear arms, we must have the ability to shoot people dead

charmingly stated.
And part of the reason many people beleive this right must exist (be protected under law) is in order to be able to choose to rebell against the government when and if you decide it has become tyrannical.
Kind of the same reasoning Manning could choose to use as a defence. I saw tyranny and had to act...

Its not, by the way, reasoning i support. I think its crazy. Its just looks crazy to anyone when its applied to Manning but doesn't for some who use the same logic for the 2nd amendment.
Manning is in an indefensible postion I think. He can claim it was his moral duty to act in a treasonous fashion. He can claim he had a right to act, but he didn't win. As Bbauska illustrates the best he can hope for is martyrdom. Generally thats not much of a a career choice for young men.

I think we are debating a semantic point. I will not punish someone for not yet committing a crime. Therefore, people have the "ability" to do wrong. I use the term "right" rather than "ability". If that is your only complaint on my point, I accept your agreement.

We have the "freedom" to commit treason. We have the responsibility to stand for our punishment when it comes to us.

Ricky,

I am curious. In your opinion which is the more accureate statement
1.) Individual rights are inherent and "the people" create government and give it powers to protect those rights ; or,
2.) Individuals only have those rights guaranteed/granted by the Government

I don't think its either or Archduke. Its kind of in the middle. And still evolving.

We recognize certain rights as inherent, but its interesting that the litany of these rights has evolved since people first began recognizing the concept. And that not everyone agrees today on what that list might contain.
its really only when we formalize these rights in a way that society acknowledges them that they actually begin to exist. And their existence doesn't matter unless there is some kind of protection for people who exercise their rights..

I'm sure you and bbauska recognize this is a reflection of my fetish for the contradictions that I see existing in the rationale for the 2nd Amendment. I only used Manning as a round about way of illustrating the rationales absurd nature. Perhaps the sole reason it is now absurd is because it is anachronistic .
And the situation in Libya illustrates this... When the Libyans exercise their inherent right to end tyranny, their inadequate arsenal could not guarantee the exercise of that right. And they had rockets, and other sophisticated weapons. What does that say about ownership of pistols and rifles as a suppossed guarantor of freedom?

Ok so you do recognize the existance of inherent rights. So the next question becomes are all rights

1.)individual, meaning expressible only by the individual operator, ;
2.)collective, meaning expressible only by society as a group; or,
3.) a combination of either, meaning some rights are expressible by the only individual, some expressible by only the group and some expressible by either the individual or the group

I s "express" the right word?
I'll go with 3... But reserve my inherent right to change my mind...

What is your defined list of "inherent rights" ? Source?

But Ricky
What about my example of your own Canada?

You have the right to free speech and freedom of association. It is a Canadian "right"
But you also have rather strict hate speech laws (far stricter than the USA where we apparently have more freedom of speech) Why is it you can accept the right to free speech and the inherent ability this provides to say hateful things but accept such hate speech laws. How is this any different than the "rights" (inherent ability) you have problems with that pertain to rebellion and the right to bear arms?

Seems to me you want to accept something when you agree with it but are stubborn to see the similarities when they don't happen to agree with your thinking.

rickyp wrote:I s "express" the right word?

Honestly I don't know. I used it in the verb sense. Would you be more comfortable with "invoke"

rickyp wrote:II'll go with 3...(snip) ignoring snarky comment(snip)...

So in review. You agree that

1.) there is such a thing as inherent rights; and,

2.) some of those rights are only collective in nature. This means that an individual can not invoke the right.

Is it not true then that the Right of Revolution is an inherent right that is also only a collective right.

Therefore, your arguments that PFC Manning could invoke the right of revolution as a defense to his treasonous acts is wrong. Because he as an individual can not invoke a collective right.

Not wanting to take Ricky's side (I feel it is 100% wrong) but in this particular example, would it not take a single person to start the collective movement?
I see where you are going, but it's not quite "there" yet.

Example: Sons of Liberty

Declared a treasonous group by the Crown, and ruled illegal. However, it was started in the mind of one person, I am sure. Maybe Samuel Adams? No matter... They formed a group, and this group gains prominence and more members. These members give greater strength until the desired response is achieved (rebellion in this case).

Does Private Manning have such a group? If so, who are the others. The "collective" movement is non-existent.

Does Private Manning have such a group?

The community, that is group of activists, that is Wikileaks?

archduke
So in review. You agree that

1.) there is such a thing as inherent rights; (But stipulate that until and unless they are codified and protected under law they are little more than wishes)

2.) some of those rights are only collective in nature. This means that an individual can not invoke the right. (okay, but who leads? )

Is it not true then that the Right of Revolution is an inherent right that is also only a collective right. (The Tunisian revolution started with the self-immolation of one man. Who starts the collective moving comrade?)

Therefore, your arguments that PFC Manning could invoke the right of revolution as a defense to his treasonous acts is wrong. Because he as an individual can not invoke a collective right. ([b]Well I've already said that I think the arguement is a lost cause, but not for this tidy reasoning. For Bbauska's rationale. His "inherent right to revolution" isn't protected by law and he didn't win. Therefore his inherent "right to revolution" never existed. Or was at best ethereal.[/b

]Snarky? I thought I was clever.

bbauska wrote:Example: Sons of Liberty

Declared a treasonous group by the Crown, and ruled illegal. However, it was started in the mind of one person, I am sure. Maybe Samuel Adams? No matter... They formed a group, and this group gains prominence and more members. These members give greater strength until the desired response is achieved (rebellion in this case).

Actually Brad, the Sons of Liberty are a perfect example of the collective right of revolution. It wasn't like somebody woke up one morning and said hey let's start this treasonous group. Groups of individuals started to gather in the various cities and towns of the colonies to complain to each other about the taxes. The groups started to correspond with each other and then started to coordinate actions. They originially tried to work within the system, i.e. public protests, writing editorials in the broadsheets (newspapers), organizing boycotts, supporting candidates for office that supported their position etc, etc. While there were some clashes at the public protests, like we see when opposing groups are in the same place and disagreements are heated, it wasn't until the Crown started cracking down did the groups start to resort to violence.