5 ms·

The major difference is that Ellsberg was a civilian.

by brandonmenc 3y ago

toyg 3y ago
So what you're saying is that anyone in the military loses their human rights.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justi... > The UCMJ was established by the United States Congress in accordance with their constitutional authority, per Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power . . . to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces" of the United States.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
  That's like saying people who sign NDAs lose their human rights.
- verall 3y ago
  Like, literally You can be ordered to take chemicals or medications which have not been FDA approved, and you can be put in jail for refusing. You can under certain circumstances be compelled to testify against yourself (5th amendment waived).
  - mattparcens 3y ago
    Without bound?
  - cfeduke 3y ago
    > You can be ordered to take chemicals or medications which have not been FDA approved, and you can be put in jail for refusing. It's sort of like that and not at the same time. Under the UCMJ, refusing a lawful order can put you in the brig, or a variety of punishments applied (NJP, loss of rank, loss of pay, etc.). Under most circumstances, forcing a service member to ingest an unknown drug is not a lawful order. Under official civilian authority you can be highly encouraged to take an untested vaccine or some such, and refusal, while not disobeying a lawful order, can end up with you receiving unpleasant treatment. (You are there under contract for a set period of time, after all, so a long period of time of unpleasant treatment can be motivation enough to do things you wouldn't normally want to do.) I was able to avoid the anthrax vaccine around 2000 by refusing to sign a waiver. I ended up getting transferred to a new command shortly thereafter which was scheduled long before this anthrax vaccine situation, but I can't be certain that there were going to be any repercussions regardless of my decision because most of my fellow service members at that time were unwilling to be test subjects as well.
    - trogdor 3y ago
      >most of my fellow service members at that time were unwilling to be test subjects as well. The information I have been able to find suggests that anthrax vaccine refusal rates were very low. "An analysis of active-duty personnel deployed in an area potentially at risk to biological warfare reported just 5 out of 10,000 soldiers refusing the anthrax vaccine. Most of these cases were personnel that did not desire to stay in the military. While official records of total vaccine refusals are not available, it was reported that Pentagon statements estimated 350 servicemembers had refused the vaccine between 1998 and 2000." Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9376337/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9376337/
- hguant 3y ago
  Not their human rights, but many of their civil rights, yes. A good example - the Sikh believe that men should maintain their beards, and should wear a specific head covering. Freedom of religion/expression laws in the US prevent schools, or public institutions, from requiring those men to remove their head coverings or to shave. However, for the longest time, Sikhs who wanted to serve in the US armed forces had to chose between being religiously observant,or being eligible to serve (saying "no" in boot camp when they come by with the clippers does not a happy career make). Even now, there's a dispensation for Sikhs, but in times of war/necessity, that goes out the window. (Tangent - the reason the armed forces have facial hair regs for men is a) conformity but also b) so that gas masks/CBRN protective gear can get a good face seal. Additionally, and this sounds dumb but it's true...helmets aren't designed for people to have a lot of hair under them, which is something women in combat conditions she had to encounter as well)
lokar 3y ago
No, the difference is Ellsberg came forward to make his case and accept the consequences. He expected to spend the rest of his life in prison, and beloved that it was worth it.
- alex_young 3y ago
  While I admire the principle in some ways, why would deciding to become a martyr make an important difference? Both took a courageous step in leaking documents they knew could lead to their execution for simple moral convictions. That alone makes them more alike than not to me.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner both accepted the consequences, by that measure. William Binney attempted to go through channels, with little success. Snowden (veteran though acting in a civilian role) has had far more impact. What Ellsberg and Snowden both managed to do was to make the story compelling and the information unescapable. Consequences (your argument) or civillian status (raised elsewhere) are both exceedingly red herrings.
- tehjoker 3y ago
  lol, there is no difference. They both did things that benefited the public and should be celebrated for it. There is no "but". The military state has goals that are not aligned with your well being and making moral choices based on what the killing machine declares secret makes no sense.
photochemsyn 3y ago
In a democratic system, civilians take responsibility for the actions of their military, and if the military conscripts are being used for stupid foreign war games, the civilians step in to change the political leadership that authorized that idiocy via the democratic process. Of course, America is no longer a democracy, it's a kleptocratic oligarchy in which the politicians are little more than puppets of their billionaire donors, so that system has been short-circuited.
- zirgs 3y ago
  Most Americans supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The major difference is that Ellsberg was a civilian.

toyg 3y ago

So what you're saying is that anyone in the military loses their human rights.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justi... > The UCMJ was established by the United States Congress in accordance with their constitutional authority, per Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power . . . to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces" of the United States.
zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
That's like saying people who sign NDAs lose their human rights.
verall 3y ago
Like, literally You can be ordered to take chemicals or medications which have not been FDA approved, and you can be put in jail for refusing. You can under certain circumstances be compelled to testify against yourself (5th amendment waived).
- mattparcens 3y ago
  Without bound?
- cfeduke 3y ago
  > You can be ordered to take chemicals or medications which have not been FDA approved, and you can be put in jail for refusing. It's sort of like that and not at the same time. Under the UCMJ, refusing a lawful order can put you in the brig, or a variety of punishments applied (NJP, loss of rank, loss of pay, etc.). Under most circumstances, forcing a service member to ingest an unknown drug is not a lawful order. Under official civilian authority you can be highly encouraged to take an untested vaccine or some such, and refusal, while not disobeying a lawful order, can end up with you receiving unpleasant treatment. (You are there under contract for a set period of time, after all, so a long period of time of unpleasant treatment can be motivation enough to do things you wouldn't normally want to do.) I was able to avoid the anthrax vaccine around 2000 by refusing to sign a waiver. I ended up getting transferred to a new command shortly thereafter which was scheduled long before this anthrax vaccine situation, but I can't be certain that there were going to be any repercussions regardless of my decision because most of my fellow service members at that time were unwilling to be test subjects as well.
  - trogdor 3y ago
    >most of my fellow service members at that time were unwilling to be test subjects as well. The information I have been able to find suggests that anthrax vaccine refusal rates were very low. "An analysis of active-duty personnel deployed in an area potentially at risk to biological warfare reported just 5 out of 10,000 soldiers refusing the anthrax vaccine. Most of these cases were personnel that did not desire to stay in the military. While official records of total vaccine refusals are not available, it was reported that Pentagon statements estimated 350 servicemembers had refused the vaccine between 1998 and 2000." Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9376337/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9376337/
hguant 3y ago
Not their human rights, but many of their civil rights, yes. A good example - the Sikh believe that men should maintain their beards, and should wear a specific head covering. Freedom of religion/expression laws in the US prevent schools, or public institutions, from requiring those men to remove their head coverings or to shave. However, for the longest time, Sikhs who wanted to serve in the US armed forces had to chose between being religiously observant,or being eligible to serve (saying "no" in boot camp when they come by with the clippers does not a happy career make). Even now, there's a dispensation for Sikhs, but in times of war/necessity, that goes out the window. (Tangent - the reason the armed forces have facial hair regs for men is a) conformity but also b) so that gas masks/CBRN protective gear can get a good face seal. Additionally, and this sounds dumb but it's true...helmets aren't designed for people to have a lot of hair under them, which is something women in combat conditions she had to encounter as well)

lokar 3y ago

No, the difference is Ellsberg came forward to make his case and accept the consequences. He expected to spend the rest of his life in prison, and beloved that it was worth it.

alex_young 3y ago
While I admire the principle in some ways, why would deciding to become a martyr make an important difference? Both took a courageous step in leaking documents they knew could lead to their execution for simple moral convictions. That alone makes them more alike than not to me.
dredmorbius 3y ago
Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner both accepted the consequences, by that measure. William Binney attempted to go through channels, with little success. Snowden (veteran though acting in a civilian role) has had far more impact. What Ellsberg and Snowden both managed to do was to make the story compelling and the information unescapable. Consequences (your argument) or civillian status (raised elsewhere) are both exceedingly red herrings.
tehjoker 3y ago
lol, there is no difference. They both did things that benefited the public and should be celebrated for it. There is no "but". The military state has goals that are not aligned with your well being and making moral choices based on what the killing machine declares secret makes no sense.

photochemsyn 3y ago

In a democratic system, civilians take responsibility for the actions of their military, and if the military conscripts are being used for stupid foreign war games, the civilians step in to change the political leadership that authorized that idiocy via the democratic process. Of course, America is no longer a democracy, it's a kleptocratic oligarchy in which the politicians are little more than puppets of their billionaire donors, so that system has been short-circuited.

zirgs 3y ago
Most Americans supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.