4 ms·

I agree with most of your comment, but calling Manning a traitor is an example of the worst argument in the world: http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argumen

I agree with most of your comment, but calling Manning a traitor is an example of the worst argument in the world: http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/

jeltz 14y ago
I have to disagree there. Calling Manning a traitor makes perfect sense. If you believe he intentionally leaked information which risked American security during a war (which many do but I do not personally agree) then he is the very definition of a traitor. EDIT: He is charged with "aiding the enemy" which most people would count as treason. So if you believe the charges then calling him a traitor is correct.
- mpyne 14y ago
  "Treason" has a specific U.S. Constitutional meaning. "Aiding the enemy" is probably the nearest equivalent under U.S. military legal procedure. Either definition would fit the layman meaning of 'traitor'. Your first paragraph is kind of worrisome though. You say that Manning meets the definition of a traitor "if you believe he intentionally leaked information which risked American security during a war". But from the military legal standpoint there is no such thing as "no harm, no foul", so really he would be a traitor "if you believe he intentionally leaked information [to an American enemy] during a war", and this is true whether or not one would go through even a neutral (or Allied!) third-party first. Other military servicemembers have acted as actual whistleblowers, even for things far more embarrassing to the U.S. than leaked diplomatic cables (e.g. Pfc. Justin Watt, who revealed a heinous crime of rape, multiple murders, and arson committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, or the unnamed(?) whistleblower who revealed the Abu Ghraib abuses). The reason they ended up OK is because they were whistleblowers, and not just exfiltrating as much confidential material as they could (without even examining it all) before their security access was removed due to a previous Article 15 conviction from punching another soldier in the face. I mention this only because I see all the time (even here on HN now) about how people think Pfc. Manning is a "whistleblower" who is being oppressed, but there's far more to that story.
  - sigzero 14y ago
    Well said.
  - jeltz 14y ago
    Thanks for a good explanation, that was mostly poor wording on my part. I did not mean in any way to imply "no foul, no harm". I agree with you on all this. My personal view of Manning is that it is correct to charge him but that the treatment of him by the US authorities has been horrible. As for if he is a traitor or not: since I do not think there is an ongoing war involving the US in the middle east I cannot really count it as treason. Still criminal of course.
- rishonik 14y ago
  > American security during a war Just a reminder, but there's no declared war. There's military action, yes. But no war has been declared. Manning is only a traitor if one enjoys fellating the Military-Industrial Complex.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > > American security during a war > Just a reminder, but there's no declared war. There's military action, yes. But no war has been declared. Please look through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite... The war in Afghanistan was formally authorized by Congress in the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (a resolution which even explicitly mentioned that it satisfies all requirements of the War Powers Act passed in the aftermath of Vietnam). Despite the fact that the writers didn't put "Declaration of War against $FOO" in the title of the resolution, it was certainly a declaration in the Article I, Sec. 8 sense. But please, tell me more about how traitors are only created when Congress dots their I's and crosses their T's in a certain format.

jeltz 14y ago

I have to disagree there. Calling Manning a traitor makes perfect sense. If you believe he intentionally leaked information which risked American security during a war (which many do but I do not personally agree) then he is the very definition of a traitor. EDIT: He is charged with "aiding the enemy" which most people would count as treason. So if you believe the charges then calling him a traitor is correct.

mpyne 14y ago
"Treason" has a specific U.S. Constitutional meaning. "Aiding the enemy" is probably the nearest equivalent under U.S. military legal procedure. Either definition would fit the layman meaning of 'traitor'. Your first paragraph is kind of worrisome though. You say that Manning meets the definition of a traitor "if you believe he intentionally leaked information which risked American security during a war". But from the military legal standpoint there is no such thing as "no harm, no foul", so really he would be a traitor "if you believe he intentionally leaked information [to an American enemy] during a war", and this is true whether or not one would go through even a neutral (or Allied!) third-party first. Other military servicemembers have acted as actual whistleblowers, even for things far more embarrassing to the U.S. than leaked diplomatic cables (e.g. Pfc. Justin Watt, who revealed a heinous crime of rape, multiple murders, and arson committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, or the unnamed(?) whistleblower who revealed the Abu Ghraib abuses). The reason they ended up OK is because they were whistleblowers, and not just exfiltrating as much confidential material as they could (without even examining it all) before their security access was removed due to a previous Article 15 conviction from punching another soldier in the face. I mention this only because I see all the time (even here on HN now) about how people think Pfc. Manning is a "whistleblower" who is being oppressed, but there's far more to that story.
- sigzero 14y ago
  Well said.
- jeltz 14y ago
  Thanks for a good explanation, that was mostly poor wording on my part. I did not mean in any way to imply "no foul, no harm". I agree with you on all this. My personal view of Manning is that it is correct to charge him but that the treatment of him by the US authorities has been horrible. As for if he is a traitor or not: since I do not think there is an ongoing war involving the US in the middle east I cannot really count it as treason. Still criminal of course.
rishonik 14y ago
> American security during a war Just a reminder, but there's no declared war. There's military action, yes. But no war has been declared. Manning is only a traitor if one enjoys fellating the Military-Industrial Complex.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > > American security during a war > Just a reminder, but there's no declared war. There's military action, yes. But no war has been declared. Please look through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite... The war in Afghanistan was formally authorized by Congress in the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (a resolution which even explicitly mentioned that it satisfies all requirements of the War Powers Act passed in the aftermath of Vietnam). Despite the fact that the writers didn't put "Declaration of War against $FOO" in the title of the resolution, it was certainly a declaration in the Article I, Sec. 8 sense. But please, tell me more about how traitors are only created when Congress dots their I's and crosses their T's in a certain format.