3 ms·

I cannot and will not donate to any defense fund for someone accused of leaking classified material. Regardless of the reasons, moral or otherwise, they committ

I cannot and will not donate to any defense fund for someone accused of leaking classified material. Regardless of the reasons, moral or otherwise, they committed the crime. Now it's time to do the time. This should not even be a "Yes, but.." situation. Manning is guilty and deserves the punishment.

joshie_woshie 11y ago
I don't believe that any situation can't be a "Yes, but". That's too absolute a stance in any regard.
driverdan 11y ago
So you believe that whistleblowers should be punished?
- Simulacra 11y ago
  I don't think this was a whistleblower issue. Rather than responding with a yes or no, I think we should consider if breaking a law in the furtherance of whistleblowing is justified. If someone reveals classified information, does claiming "whistle blower" status automatically make the initial crime excusable? I disagree. Otherwise why not make it legal to divulge classified material? Then blowing the whistle can be done safely without fear of prosecution because then no law was broken.
  - almost 11y ago
    Whistleblowing almost always involves breaking at least one law. The general trend has been to bring in more laws to make it less likely that it is possible legally in any given situation. To say "I support whistleblowing but only if no laws are broken" is almost meaningless.
almost 11y ago
Do you believe that if any possible law is broken by anyone under any situation the should always be punished or is it just this specific law? A stance such as yours seems to lack all nuance and would lead to some pretty ridicules outcomes if applied everywhere
- Simulacra 11y ago
  I think any law, because where do you draw the line? Once you draw a line it will always be pushed and blurred in the interest of "yes, but.." arguments. There were multiple laws broken here, not just one, and not just for the good of a nation.
  - almost 11y ago
    That's quite an extreme view. I'm sure you've already taken into account the horrifying laws that have existed and do exist in the U.S. and other countries. I'm not sure why you mention multiple laws and good of the nation as you've already stated your position is that it doesn't matter what law is broken or what mitigating circumstances there are.
wl 11y ago
Why is leaking classified information special to the point where someone even accused of that crime is unworthy of help no matter the circumstances? More generally, just because someone is indisputably guilty of violating some statute doesn't mean they deserve the prescribed punishment. You're taking a legal conclusion and imputing some sort of moral authority to it. The law often requires outcomes that are arguably immoral. Sometimes this provides the motivation to change the law. Other times, judges ignore the law. And sometimes, the government does terrible things because nobody does anything to stop it. It seems ridiculous to argue that someone who is arguably being punished for doing the right thing should just stand there and take whatever the law metes out.
drjesusphd 11y ago
The world must seem so simple to you.

joshie_woshie 11y ago

I don't believe that any situation can't be a "Yes, but". That's too absolute a stance in any regard.

driverdan 11y ago

So you believe that whistleblowers should be punished?

Simulacra 11y ago
I don't think this was a whistleblower issue. Rather than responding with a yes or no, I think we should consider if breaking a law in the furtherance of whistleblowing is justified. If someone reveals classified information, does claiming "whistle blower" status automatically make the initial crime excusable? I disagree. Otherwise why not make it legal to divulge classified material? Then blowing the whistle can be done safely without fear of prosecution because then no law was broken.
- almost 11y ago
  Whistleblowing almost always involves breaking at least one law. The general trend has been to bring in more laws to make it less likely that it is possible legally in any given situation. To say "I support whistleblowing but only if no laws are broken" is almost meaningless.

almost 11y ago

Do you believe that if any possible law is broken by anyone under any situation the should always be punished or is it just this specific law? A stance such as yours seems to lack all nuance and would lead to some pretty ridicules outcomes if applied everywhere

Simulacra 11y ago
I think any law, because where do you draw the line? Once you draw a line it will always be pushed and blurred in the interest of "yes, but.." arguments. There were multiple laws broken here, not just one, and not just for the good of a nation.
- almost 11y ago
  That's quite an extreme view. I'm sure you've already taken into account the horrifying laws that have existed and do exist in the U.S. and other countries. I'm not sure why you mention multiple laws and good of the nation as you've already stated your position is that it doesn't matter what law is broken or what mitigating circumstances there are.

wl 11y ago

Why is leaking classified information special to the point where someone even accused of that crime is unworthy of help no matter the circumstances? More generally, just because someone is indisputably guilty of violating some statute doesn't mean they deserve the prescribed punishment. You're taking a legal conclusion and imputing some sort of moral authority to it. The law often requires outcomes that are arguably immoral. Sometimes this provides the motivation to change the law. Other times, judges ignore the law. And sometimes, the government does terrible things because nobody does anything to stop it. It seems ridiculous to argue that someone who is arguably being punished for doing the right thing should just stand there and take whatever the law metes out.

drjesusphd 11y ago

The world must seem so simple to you.