4 ms·

So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Is that your opinion? If it is not, where

by gizzlon 13y ago

So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Is that your opinion? If it is not, where do you draw the line? When is it okay to break the loyalty for the greater good?

sp332 13y ago
You should at least attempt to follow the chain of command before deciding to break it.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Even when they're guaranteed to deny you and take away your copies of all the evidence?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    They didn't deny the person who leaked about Abu Ghraib. Nor the Pfc. who leaked details of a heinous rape/murder/arson committed by U.S. troops in Iraq.
majelix 13y ago
> So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Absolutely not. But you don't have to shout every secret you have access to (relevant or not) from the loudest possible podium either.
- gizzlon 13y ago
  Agreed, but since he did expose some pretty nasty stuff, maybe we should cut him some slack and focus on the real villains? It's now, according to the actions of these justice systems, worse to expose secrets about crimes than to commit actual crimes. The simplest way of interpreting this is that these crimes are not viewed as crimes at all. But blowing the whistle is. (edited for clarity)
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    > Agreed, but since he did expose some pretty nasty stuff, maybe we should cut him some slack and focus on the real villains? Maybe that's why he only got 35 years. More importantly, what unconstitutional thing did he release? But really, that argument is basically saying that collateral damage is acceptable. Innocents can be destroyed if you kill just one guilty party. > worse to expose secrets about crimes than to commit actual crimes. Well no, he committed actual crimes that lead to actual suffering and death by intelligence agents.

by gizzlon 13y ago

sp332 13y ago

You should at least attempt to follow the chain of command before deciding to break it.

Dylan16807 13y ago
Even when they're guaranteed to deny you and take away your copies of all the evidence?
- mpyne 13y ago
  They didn't deny the person who leaked about Abu Ghraib. Nor the Pfc. who leaked details of a heinous rape/murder/arson committed by U.S. troops in Iraq.

majelix 13y ago

> So, once you put on that uniform you have to keep your mouth shut even if you witness the worst atrocities imaginable. Absolutely not. But you don't have to shout every secret you have access to (relevant or not) from the loudest possible podium either.

gizzlon 13y ago
Agreed, but since he did expose some pretty nasty stuff, maybe we should cut him some slack and focus on the real villains? It's now, according to the actions of these justice systems, worse to expose secrets about crimes than to commit actual crimes. The simplest way of interpreting this is that these crimes are not viewed as crimes at all. But blowing the whistle is. (edited for clarity)
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > Agreed, but since he did expose some pretty nasty stuff, maybe we should cut him some slack and focus on the real villains? Maybe that's why he only got 35 years. More importantly, what unconstitutional thing did he release? But really, that argument is basically saying that collateral damage is acceptable. Innocents can be destroyed if you kill just one guilty party. > worse to expose secrets about crimes than to commit actual crimes. Well no, he committed actual crimes that lead to actual suffering and death by intelligence agents.