3 ms·

So you lose the right to object anywhere if you do not try the channels provided by the wrong doer to begin with? That makes no sense. If I see a company engag

So you lose the right to object anywhere if you do not try the channels provided by the wrong doer to begin with? That makes no sense. If I see a company engaging in illegal/unethical activity, by your logic I can only go elsewhere after I try to resolve it with them. However what trust do I have that my complaint will be handled well? Moreover if they are in a position of authority over me my only guarantee of protection is a weakly enforced whistle blower law that can be disregarded in cases of national security. Also, what is your test for acceptable outlet? The NYT is okay but a media outlet without the history of the Grey Lady is not? And Ellsberg gets a pass because he was selective in what he passed on? Honestly if Ellsberg knew about atrocities NOT associated with Vietnam then he should have opened up about those as well.

mpyne 14y ago
We're not talking about "company policy" here, we're talking about U.S. law, and the international military concept in general. Among the many other elements that go into signing away a few years of your life on a DD-2, is that you do in fact swear or affirm that you will use official channels where available, especially in the context of divulging information relative to the security of the 300+ million other citizens you've sworn to defend. He didn't even bother to try, and this was only some scant years after Pfc. Justin Watt proved it could be done. Please don't compare your Initech Employee Handbook to life and death conflict as if they're exactly equivalent.
- rooshdi 14y ago
  Those 300+ million citizens he swore to defend deserve the truth and there is no law which justifies them not knowing it. We've lost too much to find so little: http://costsofwar.org http://costsofwar.org
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  According to Kohlberg's theory of moral development, recognizing rule of law as the authority is only the fourth of six stages. Manning's actions and stated intentions are consistent with the fifth or sixth stages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of... One could take the position that his stated intentions were lies and that he was actually acting consistent with the second stage (self-interest). But all we can do there is speculate unproductively. In any case, law seems like a silly standard to base a moral argument on, and there is no shortage of obviously dumb laws, in addition to outright malicious laws.
  - JoachimSchipper 14y ago
    This misses the important fact that, as pointed out by mpyne, soldiers do indeed swear specifically to uphold certain rules. The law is not always just, but if you mostly-voluntarily swear to uphold it you'd better have good reasons to go back on your promise.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > According to Kohlberg's theory of moral development, recognizing rule of law as the authority is only the fourth of six stages. Where does "I will keep the promises I make to other people" fall into there?

mpyne 14y ago

We're not talking about "company policy" here, we're talking about U.S. law, and the international military concept in general. Among the many other elements that go into signing away a few years of your life on a DD-2, is that you do in fact swear or affirm that you will use official channels where available, especially in the context of divulging information relative to the security of the 300+ million other citizens you've sworn to defend. He didn't even bother to try, and this was only some scant years after Pfc. Justin Watt proved it could be done. Please don't compare your Initech Employee Handbook to life and death conflict as if they're exactly equivalent.

rooshdi 14y ago
Those 300+ million citizens he swore to defend deserve the truth and there is no law which justifies them not knowing it. We've lost too much to find so little: http://costsofwar.org http://costsofwar.org
lawnchair_larry 14y ago
According to Kohlberg's theory of moral development, recognizing rule of law as the authority is only the fourth of six stages. Manning's actions and stated intentions are consistent with the fifth or sixth stages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of... One could take the position that his stated intentions were lies and that he was actually acting consistent with the second stage (self-interest). But all we can do there is speculate unproductively. In any case, law seems like a silly standard to base a moral argument on, and there is no shortage of obviously dumb laws, in addition to outright malicious laws.
- JoachimSchipper 14y ago
  This misses the important fact that, as pointed out by mpyne, soldiers do indeed swear specifically to uphold certain rules. The law is not always just, but if you mostly-voluntarily swear to uphold it you'd better have good reasons to go back on your promise.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mpyne 14y ago
  > According to Kohlberg's theory of moral development, recognizing rule of law as the authority is only the fourth of six stages. Where does "I will keep the promises I make to other people" fall into there?