6 ms·

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

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)

tomjen3 16y ago
The oath Manning took: >"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?
Rod 16y ago
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?
- anamax 16y ago
  > 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? Cheney didn't expose Valerie Plame - Richard Armitage was Novak's source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
  - Rod 16y ago
    Thanks for the correction.
- arethuza 16y ago
  At least one experienced prosecutor (now retired) thinks that there is a case for prosecuting Bush for murder of the US soldiers who died in Iraq: http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/B001IWO88O http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/B0...
  - Rod 16y ago
Retric 16y ago
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.
tbrownaw 16y ago
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.
zppx 16y ago
> 'this is how we get military coups' 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.
yardie 16y ago
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.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  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

tomjen3 16y ago

The oath Manning took: >"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?

Rod 16y ago

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?

anamax 16y ago
> 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? Cheney didn't expose Valerie Plame - Richard Armitage was Novak's source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
- Rod 16y ago
  Thanks for the correction.
arethuza 16y ago
At least one experienced prosecutor (now retired) thinks that there is a case for prosecuting Bush for murder of the US soldiers who died in Iraq: http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/B001IWO88O http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/B0...
- Rod 16y ago

Retric 16y ago

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.

tbrownaw 16y ago

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.

zppx 16y ago

> 'this is how we get military coups' 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.

yardie 16y ago

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.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
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