So there's been a lot of talks about whistle blowing recently, with Bradley Manning's trial beginning and the manhunt for former NSA contract Edward Snowden. Depending on who you are one of these men or both are traitors, or heroic whisleblowers. What's the dividing line? What makes a man who leaks intell a traitor or a whistleblower doing the right thing?
Bradley: Not a traitor, but not a hero. Didn't show any consideration for what was being revealed or who he was revealing it to. He just dumped a huge disk of secrets out to an internet celebrity. I would put him closer to traitor, but he also seems to have some mental issues that played a role in his act.
Snowden: Released only enough to prove what he was saying was real, and to verified, trusted sources, and did so in a way that embarrassed the administration and congress, but didn't add undue risk to others.
Bradley Manning starting his sentencing trial...thinking 25 to life...not sure but might be wrong. also No Parole. Basically put the military in more danger.
Snowden only gave enough info to draw attention to the programs but didn't put anyone at risk unlike Manning. I say.....25 to life
Both signed documents, both knew the type of material that was being handle, and both agree not to divulge say materials. Snowden could have mailed the subject matter and not become a media sensation.
Bradley: Not a traitor, but not a hero. Didn't show any consideration for what was being revealed or who he was revealing it to. He just dumped a huge disk of secrets out to an internet celebrity. I would put him closer to traitor, but he also seems to have some mental issues that played a role in his act.
Snowden: Released only enough to prove what he was saying was real, and to verified, trusted sources, and did so in a way that embarrassed the administration and congress, but didn't add undue risk to others.
I think Ahtman has summed up my thoughts on the matter.
A whistleblower is someone who acts in a responsible matter to air their grievances to an outlet which ensures that attention is given over to the matter. Snowden has done such, IMO.
Manning is not someone who I consider to be a whistleblower. I think saying that he is a traitor is a bit much, but I would say that he has behaved in a manner ill befitting a member of the armed services and seemed to be primarily driven by anger and frustration at circumstances that were not necessarily related to the leaks he committed.
I would've thought you had to have intent to harm to be a traitor. I don't think either of them had that. I'm not convinced you can accidentally or unintentionally be a traitor.
Edward Snowden: Even though his intentions were probably well-meaning, still a traitor.
These men swore to protect and closely guard State secrets, as all who are given security clearances do, and they broke the law, plain and simple. I have no sympathy for those who blatantly disregard their duty to keep classified information just that. I believe that both men should be executed for treasonous actions, more so Manning because he wears the uniform, and potentially put his fellow soldiers in further danger. He broke the oath, and brought disgrace to the uniform.
Slightly off-topic: are we really so ignorant that the information Snowden leaked is a surprise? If Facebook and other sites can target ads at you based in your search history, what do you think the government is doing? I'm not saying its right or lawful, but really? I for one wasn't shocked in the least.
I don't think I have all the necessary details to form a solid judgement, but from the little I do know, I consider Snowden to be a lot closer to "hero" than "traitor". My pedestrian understanding of this is that he divulged only enough information to bring to light massive breaches of constitutional rights on the part of the government; and anyone who considers him a traitor for purely not following orders or adhering to an NDA in such an unjust circumstance is no better than someone claiming the Nazis were only following orders. (Godwin'd on the first page, oh yeah!)
Please, someone feel free to correct me if I've gotten a basic understanding of the situation incorrect.
Traitor is not the opposite of Hero. Both a subjective to your point of view. One can also be both at the same time.
Betrayal can be a heroic act, or a villainous one.
Does a whistleblower betray whoever he is blowing the whistle on. Yes, if he was in a position of trust by that person/organization. So yes, this man is a traitor.
This doesn't mean he did a bad thing, that's a subjective viewpoint, but he most definitely betrayed the trust he was given.
Neither are traitors under the strict definiton of the term as it is spelled out in the US Constitution. It's funny like that because in most other countries they both would absolutely be such.
That being said, Manning did what he did because he's nothing more than a little
Snowden might not have the same craven motives as Manning but we don't have the whole story and I think we should leave open the possibility that he's posturing to cover an alterior motive.
Neither are traitors in my eyes, they saw that their Government was overstepping its bounds and had the balls to let everyone know about it. That's not treason, that's justice.
spectreoneone wrote: These men swore to protect and closely guard State secrets, as all who are given security clearances do, and they broke the law, plain and simple. I have no sympathy for those who blatantly disregard their duty to keep classified information just that. I believe that both men should be executed for treasonous actions, more so Manning because he wears the uniform, and potentially put his fellow soldiers in further danger. He broke the oath, and brought disgrace to the uniform.
Manning falls under UCMJ. He does not fall under regular laws of the USA but he is sworn to defend the US Constitution from foreign and domestic enemy. He was prosecuted under UCMJ and right now is in his sentencing phase. 25 to Life. He be breaking rocks on Thursday. Snowden does not fall under UCMJ but under Federal Laws. Wonder if convicted what type of sentence he is going to get.
Grey Templar wrote: True, although you would have to determine if you are talking common usage or strict Constitutional definitions.
This isn't a Constitutional issue AFAIK so that specific definition wouldn't be used.
Okay. It is true that both "betrayed" their country and both will pay a rather stiff price for doing so. However, neither of them is a "traitor" as defined by the law in the USA.
Anyone notice how the media in the US has turned on Snowden? Talking about how he got a G.E.D. and is just 29, etc. None of them seem to be playing him off as some noble whistleblower type since he's identified himself. Now contrast this with what the same US media said about Kazinski (the Unibomber) when he was finally caught.
Jihadin wrote:Manning falls under UCMJ. He does not fall under regular laws of the USA but he is sworn to defend the US Constitution from foreign and domestic enemy.
So what happens when that enemy is the US army? I'm not saying that's the case here, but rather just asking: do you consider the oath to be to the Constitution, or to the institution?
Jihadin wrote:Manning falls under UCMJ. He does not fall under regular laws of the USA but he is sworn to defend the US Constitution from foreign and domestic enemy.
So what happens when that enemy is the US army? I'm not saying that's the case here, but rather just asking: do you consider the oath to be to the Constitution, or to the institution?
That question was actually put to the test when the US Civil War happened. States ceceeded and soldiers fled the Army to take up arms for the Confederacy. They could have been tried and punished as traitors (the Confederacy being the enemy in this case) but President Andrew Johnson declaired a general amnesty in order to take the country away from a course of vengeance and toward one of reconciliation and healing.
Sasori wrote: Both are Traitors in my eyes, and I hope they get locked away for life.
This, pretty much. They signed a contract and vowed to keep secrets..a secret. They are textbook-definition of traitors and need to be treated as such.
Grey Templar wrote: True, although you would have to determine if you are talking common usage or strict Constitutional definitions.
This isn't a Constitutional issue AFAIK so that specific definition wouldn't be used.
I figured from the start we were just using common, if a bit hyperbolic, use of the term.
I stand by Manning being a tool, as his 'bringing light to injustice' seems more incidental than purposeful. He just dropped a disk full of secrets on Wikileaks doorsteps, many of which I imagine he had no idea what they were. His release was reckless and problematic. If he had shown some restraint or thought over what information he was leaking I would probably have a more compassionate stance, and that he did so to a narcissist like Assange just makes it that much worse. Much of what was released from that didn't help anyone other than AQ and the Taliban. Such a small amount of it actually was worth exposing, the rest were not, and dangerous to do so.
spectreoneone wrote: These men swore to protect and closely guard State secrets, as all who are given security clearances do, and they broke the law, plain and simple.
Legalism is not a valid ethical system. When there is an unjust law you have a duty to oppose it, and that's what happened in this case. The government is violating our rights, so the government forfeits its right to secrecy. The only people who deserve to be executed are the ones who approved the blatantly illegal spying.
Slightly off-topic: are we really so ignorant that the information Snowden leaked is a surprise? If Facebook and other sites can target ads at you based in your search history, what do you think the government is doing? I'm not saying its right or lawful, but really? I for one wasn't shocked in the least.
So if this is something we already knew then how can leaking confirmation of it be such a big deal?
Peregrine wrote: Legalism is not a valid ethical system. When there is an unjust law you have a duty to oppose it, and that's what happened in this case. The government is violating our rights, so the government forfeits its right to secrecy. The only people who deserve to be executed are the ones who approved the blatantly illegal spying.
I have a feeling we're going to find out they're not in fact violating our rights.
I personally think he skipped out of his Hong Kong hotel once he saw polling on how his revelation played. He was waiting for reaction, hoping to get conquering hero status, and when he found out the majority of Americans are fine with the program, lit out. Now he'll end up with asylum in Iceland - though Russia's thinking about it, amusingly - and we'll just have to go and get him.
I think John Oliver said it best on the Daily Show when he said "I think you are missing the point Mr. President. No one is saying you broke the law, we are saying it is weird that you didn't have to." One can violate the fundamental nature of the Constitution without breaking the law, especially where technologies undreamed of at the time of creation are involved, like massive data-mining and surveillance are concerned.
Seaward wrote: I have a feeling we're going to find out they're not in fact violating our rights.
Yeah, I'm sure our power-loving government will soon tell us how everything is ok, and all of their spying is perfectly legal. There will be some technicality and we'll once again assume that if the government says something is legal it must not be a violation of our rights. Who cares about privacy, Something Must Be Done About Terrorism*.
*Especially terrorist plots created by the FBI. How will we catch the terrorists we manufacture if we have a right to privacy?
Governments all over the western world are restricting freedoms under the guise of 'protecting the people'. Personally i would rather be freer than safer by some unknown degree. I dont know abouy anyone else but i dont feel under threat now any more than i have at any point in the past... other than from my own government of course...
Not specifically commenting on either of these cases, but at what point does signing the official secrets act or equivalent mean you have to be party to covering up acts you consider illegal? And if someone does do that unquestioningly, later they are criticised for claiming they were 'just following orders'. You can't have it both ways, sometimes people can be a traitor to their government and be morally in the right.
Read some interesting stuff in the newspaper about how whistleblowers are treated by the average American.
The guy that released information about US military violating human rights was deemed a traitor and had to go in hiding because have been killed otherwise.
Also people wanting to lynch Snowden. I mean, why? Because he tells you everything you do is being spied on?
It really makes me wonder how weird Americans in general must think.
thenoobbomb wrote: Read some interesting stuff in the newspaper about how whistleblowers are treated by the average American. The guy that released information about US military violating human rights was deemed a traitor and had to go in hiding because have been killed otherwise. Also people wanting to lynch Snowden. I mean, why? Because he tells you everything you do is being spied on?
It really makes me wonder how weird Americans in general must think.
Those people betray their very own country - I can't think of anything less moral or correct one could do besides terrorism.
thenoobbomb wrote: Read some interesting stuff in the newspaper about how whistleblowers are treated by the average American.
The guy that released information about US military violating human rights was deemed a traitor and had to go in hiding because have been killed otherwise.
Also people wanting to lynch Snowden. I mean, why? Because he tells you everything you do is being spied on?
It really makes me wonder how weird Americans in general must think.
Those people betray their very own country - I can't think of anything less moral or correct one could do besides terrorism.
The administration of a country doesn't always coincide with what makes a nation.
There are many cases where people betraying their administration was definitely not the least moral thing they could have done. Like all those German scientists who defected during WWII.
Those people betray their very own country - I can't think of anything less moral or correct one could do besides terrorism.
That... Makes no sense... Releasing information the government has deemed secret because they are doing something illegal (under local or international law) immoral is not immoral. It is the right thing to do.
IMO the US government, and the UK government, has become morally bankrupt and blind in some areas. They treat the UN convention on human rights and the Geneva convention as annoyances to get around or things to beat others with. It fells as if much of the media and the public have fallen for this (see extrodenery rendition and CIA black sites).
Breaching state secrecy laws is not always wrong, neither is it always illigal. It is up to the courts to decide if the actions were illigal. Sometimes laws can be broken without being illigal if the jury decides that the law is wrong (at least in the UK).
Manning: Is an idiot and a complete tool who deserves the punishment he's getting and certainly shouldn't wear the title of "hero" or whistleblower for that matter. He leaked intelligence because he was having a gakky day, just took everything he had access to and mailed it to some random jackhole to get back at people. That some of the stuff he leaked was actually something worth making a fuss about is just the law of averages at work. Enjoy Kansas Brad.
Snowden: I don't know about his motives, but his leak was well done, he got the word out with just enough data to prove he, and the programs he was blowing the whistle on were for real, he then leaked them to legit sources. Now is it treason legally? Maybe, but I'd still say it's the right thing to do. PRISM and sources on SECRET COURTS in the freaking United States? Goddessdamn I'm glad someone decided to say something. We've been trading our fundamental rights for some bullgak illusion of security and safety and it's starting to bite us right on the donkey. We didn't ask for the federal government to take this kind of power, we demanded it. We demanded the patriot act, we demanded the NDAA, we in the end demanded PRISM. When the collar's finally around our collective necks we'll find we probably demanded that too.
It's a cute saying, KM, but I take it you're not advocating against throwing out SCI altogether. Some stuff should still be classified, I take it? Doesn't that infringe on my right to know what my government's doing in my name? If transparency's the goal, why do you set an arbitrary point at which to stop being transparent?
Seaward wrote: It's a cute saying, KM, but I take it you're not advocating against throwing out SCI altogether. Some stuff should still be classified, I take it? Doesn't that infringe on my right to know what my government's doing in my name? If transparency's the goal, why do you set an arbitrary point at which to stop being transparent?
Classified materials isn't quite the same as being able to detain U.S. citizens without warrant, warrant-less wire tapping, secret courts that issue edicts with no oversight, massive spy networks, again focused on U.S. citizens, the list goes on here Seaward. That's the problem, not that the government has secrets but that those secrets violate the spirit if not the letter of the law and the constitution. You should be more concerned about your right to privacy. Because that's already well on it's way out the window.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: He was an old fat white dude who liked booze, french hookers and snuff, what do you expect? A chiseled jawline like Ahnuld?
That isn't entirely accurate. He like hookers from anywhere, not just France.
I stand corrected sir, you are correct, Franklin was a global connoisseur and supporter of the oldest profession and limiting him does his legacy a grave disservice.
Why the hell would they be only a little bit less worse then terrorists?
They inform YOU that your government is spying on YOU, or that your goverment's army (for wich you pay tax, wich we obviously should all shove to those who don't have that much money, since it's their own fault) is torturing, maiming and humiliating people that 'might be terrorists'.
Really, is that betraying your own country? Giving people information?
And humiliating others under the flag of your country isn't betraying your country?
Gah, I'm probably to left-ist to understand. I'm left by Dutch standards, and one of our most right political parties equals the Democrats more or less.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So there's been a lot of talks about whistle blowing recently, with Bradley Manning's trial beginning and the manhunt for former NSA contract Edward Snowden. Depending on who you are one of these men or both are traitors, or heroic whisleblowers. What's the dividing line? What makes a man who leaks intell a traitor or a whistleblower doing the right thing?
Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor. Since neither Manning nor Snowden are waging war against the United States, nor have they joined Al-Qaida, they cannot be traitors. Then again, the US Constitution doesn't exactly hold much weight with anyone who supports Obama these days.
AlexHolker wrote: Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor.
One can be a traitor without being tried for treason, and the definition of traitor exists beyond just the legal definition. This was already mentioned a few times.
thenoobbomb wrote: I'll just leave it here that I wouldn't want to be a whistleblower of any kind in the US.
Almost by definiton being a whistleblower is a difficult task. I'm not sure why the US is getting singled out, as these kinds of things have happened elsewhere with similar reactions, or worse (ie China). I could understand if every post was condemning them in some horrible way, but that isn't what has happened. "All whistleblowers are saints" is just as silly as "All whistleblowers are traitors". Each scenario has to be examined on it's own merits, and frankly I find your 'you Americans' attitude wholly unwarranted and just as bad as the thing you claim to be disgusted by.
Manning: Is an idiot and a complete tool who deserves the punishment he's getting and certainly shouldn't wear the title of "hero" or whistleblower for that matter. He leaked intelligence because he was having a gakky day, just took everything he had access to and mailed it to some random jackhole to get back at people. That some of the stuff he leaked was actually something worth making a fuss about is just the law of averages at work. Enjoy Kansas Brad.
Snowden: I don't know about his motives, but his leak was well done, he got the word out with just enough data to prove he, and the programs he was blowing the whistle on were for real, he then leaked them to legit sources. Now is it treason legally? Maybe, but I'd still say it's the right thing to do. PRISM and sources on SECRET COURTS in the freaking United States? Goddessdamn I'm glad someone decided to say something. We've been trading our fundamental rights for some bullgak illusion of security and safety and it's starting to bite us right on the donkey. We didn't ask for the federal government to take this kind of power, we demanded it. We demanded the patriot act, we demanded the NDAA, we in the end demanded PRISM. When the collar's finally around our collective necks we'll find we probably demanded that too.
Before we all forget. PRISM program is word activated. As your conversation gets filter through the program it looks for keywords. One key word sends the entire conversation to another window and get filtered again. If more then one keyword is activated its "Flagged" for human review. I've no idea where I read that, nor remember it was a briefing, possible internship flyer...I can't remember nor do I care to remember. I was on a lot of psycho and pain meds forgot to mention when my GF/current wife would let me drive...I would drive like I was back in the "Box"
Manning no damn Hero. He was a screw up. Little SoB took out his revenge on the US Gov't by dropping a platinum mine on Assauge lap all because
After four weeks at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) in Fort Polk, Louisiana, he was deployed to Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad, arriving in October 2009. From his workstation there, he had access to SIPRNet (the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network) and JWICS (the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System). Two of his superiors had discussed not taking him to Iraq – it was felt he was "a risk to himself and possibly others," according to a statement later issued by the army – but again the shortage of intelligence analysts held sway.[22]
A month later, in November 2009, he was promoted from Private First Class to Specialist. That same month, according to his chats with Lamo, he made his first contact with WikiLeaks, shortly after it posted 570,000 pager messages from the 9/11 attacks, which it released on November 25.[23] Also in November, Manning wrote to a gender counselor in the United States, said he felt female, and discussed having sex reassignment surgery. The counselor told Steve Fishman of New York Magazine that it was clear Manning was in crisis, partly because of his gender concerns, but also because he was opposed to the kind of war in which he found himself involved.[24]
He was by all accounts unhappy and isolated. Because of the army's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy (known as DADT, which was repealed in September 2011), he was not allowed to be openly gay, though he apparently made no secret of it; his friends said he kept a fairy wand on his desk. When he told his roommate he was gay, the roommate responded by suggesting they not speak to each other. His working conditions – 14–15 hour night shifts in a dimly lit secure room – did not help his emotional well being.[25] On December 20, 2009, after being told he would lose his one day off a week for being persistently late, he overturned a table in a conference room, damaging a computer that was sitting on it, and in the view of one soldier looked as though he was about to grab a rifle from a gun rack, before his arms were pinned behind his back. Several witnesses to the incident believed his access to sensitive material ought to have been withdrawn at that point. The following month, he began posting on Facebook that he felt alone and hopeless.[26]
Army investigators told a pre-trial hearing (see below) that they believed Manning downloaded the Iraq and Afghan war logs around this time, in January 2010. WikiLeaks tweeted on January 8 that year that they had obtained "encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians," and linked to a story about the May 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan. Manning put the files on a digital storage card for his camera and took it home with him on a leave in early 2010.[27] During the same month, Manning traveled to the United States via Germany for a two-week holiday, arriving on January 24, and attended a party at Boston University's hacker space. It was during this visit that Manning first lived for a few days as a woman, dressing in women's clothes, wearing a wig and going out. After his arrest, his former partner, Tyler Watkins, told Kevin Poulsen of Wired that Manning had said during the January visit that he had found some sensitive information and was considering leaking it.[28]
to early to get riled up...and first mug of coffee not done yet....but
M
ay 21, 2010: (1:41:12 PM) bradass87: hi
(1:44:04 PM) bradass87: how are you?
(1:47:01 PM) bradass87: im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for "adjustment disorder" in lieu of "gender identity disorder"
(1:56:24 PM) bradass87: im sure you're pretty busy ...
(1:58:31 PM) bradass87: if you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?[48]
May 22, 2010:
(11:49:02 AM) bradass87: im in the desert, with a bunch of hyper-masculine trigger happy ignorant rednecks as neighbors... and the only safe place i seem to have is this satellite internet connection
(11:49:51 AM) bradass87: and i already got myself into minor trouble, revealing my uncertainty over my gender identity ... which is causing me to lose this job ... and putting me in an awkward limbo [...]
(11:52:23 AM) bradass87: at the very least, i managed to keep my security clearance [so far] [...]
(11:58:33 AM) bradass87: and little does anyone know, but among this "visible" mess, theres the mess i created that no-one knows about yet [...]
(12:15:11 PM) bradass87: hypothetical question: if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time ... say, 8–9 months ... and you saw incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC ... what would you do? [...]
(12:21:24 PM) bradass87: say ... a database of half a million events during the iraq war ... from 2004 to 2009 ... with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures ...? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective? [...]
(12:26:09 PM) bradass87: lets just say *someone* i know intimately well, has been penetrating US classified networks, mining data like the ones described ... and been transferring that data from the classified networks over the “air gap” onto a commercial network computer ... sorting the data, compressing it, encrypting it, and uploading it to a crazy white haired aussie who can't seem to stay in one country very long =L [...]
(12:31:43 PM) bradass87: crazy white haired dude = Julian Assange
(12:33:05 PM) bradass87: in other words ... ive made a huge mess :’([48]
May 22, 2010:
(1:11:54 PM) bradass87: and ... its important that it gets out ... i feel, for some bizarre reason
(1:12:02 PM) bradass87: it might actually change something
(1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just ... dont wish to be a part of it ... at least not now ... im not ready ... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ...
(1:14:11 PM) bradass87: i've totally lost my mind ... i make no sense ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard ... [...]
(1:39:03 PM) bradass87: i cant believe what im confessing to you :’([48]
May 25, 2010:
(02:12:23 PM) bradass87: so ... it was a massive data spillage ... facilitated by numerous factors ... both physically, technically, and culturally
(02:13:02 PM) bradass87: perfect example of how not to do INFOSEC
(02:14:21 PM) bradass87: listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltratrating [sic] possibly the largest data spillage in american history [...]
(02:17:56 PM) bradass87: weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis ... a perfect storm [...]
(02:22:47 PM) bradass87: i mean what if i were someone more malicious
(02:23:25 PM) bradass87: i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?
Jihadin wrote: Before we all forget. PRISM program is word activated. As your conversation gets filter through the program it looks for keywords. One key word sends the entire conversation to another window and get filtered again. If more then one keyword is activated its "Flagged" for human review.
Words like 'the', 'and', 'call', and 'hello'.
I think Colbert summed it up well when he described it as the government collecting hay in the hopes of finding a needle. Either way, they still have to get all your texts and phone calls to be able to search for those keywords. It is a permanent wiretap on everyone, essentially, and a pretty egregious violation.
AlexHolker wrote: Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor.
One can be a traitor without being tried for treason, and the definition of traitor exists beyond just the legal definition. This was already mentioned a few times.
Even by that standard, Obama is more of a traitor than any of these whistleblowers. Unlike Manning, there is actual evidence that Obama's actions have aided the enemy - just look at how many terrorists cite the innocent civilians killed by drones as the reason they took up arms against America.
This. In that sense, neither Manning or Snowden are traitors. If they are traitors, I want more "Traitors"!
Also, it seems like the "structure" of your leak is the most important thing to people? If you "leak" correctly you are safe, if you "leak" incorrectly you are a scoundrel. The material leaked almost feels like a secondary concern.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So there's been a lot of talks about whistle blowing recently, with Bradley Manning's trial beginning and the manhunt for former NSA contract Edward Snowden. Depending on who you are one of these men or both are traitors, or heroic whisleblowers. What's the dividing line? What makes a man who leaks intell a traitor or a whistleblower doing the right thing?
Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor. Since neither Manning nor Snowden are waging war against the United States, nor have they joined Al-Qaida, they cannot be traitors. Then again, the US Constitution doesn't exactly hold much weight with anyone who supports Obama these days.
You had me until that last part sentence.
This really isn't a R or D issue. It is an American (or insert country of your choice) issue and the core values each citizen values.
AlexHolker wrote: Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor.
One can be a traitor without being tried for treason, and the definition of traitor exists beyond just the legal definition. This was already mentioned a few times.
Even by that standard, Obama is more of a traitor than any of these whistleblowers. Unlike Manning, there is actual evidence that Obama's actions have aided the enemy - just look at how many terrorists cite the innocent civilians killed by drones as the reason they took up arms against America.
I'd certainly be pleased to see him brought up on charges for that mess.
AlexHolker wrote: Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor.
One can be a traitor without being tried for treason, and the definition of traitor exists beyond just the legal definition. This was already mentioned a few times.
Even by that standard, Obama is more of a traitor than any of these whistleblowers. Unlike Manning, there is actual evidence that Obama's actions have aided the enemy - just look at how many terrorists cite the innocent civilians killed by drones as the reason they took up arms against America.
I didn't give a standard, i just said there is more to the word traitor then just was is laid out in the Constitution. I certainly never said that the standard is simply giving the enemy cause. By your definition every soldier is a traitor, which is ridiculous.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Classified materials isn't quite the same as being able to detain U.S. citizens without warrant, warrant-less wire tapping, secret courts that issue edicts with no oversight, massive spy networks, again focused on U.S. citizens, the list goes on here Seaward. That's the problem, not that the government has secrets but that those secrets violate the spirit if not the letter of the law and the constitution. You should be more concerned about your right to privacy. Because that's already well on it's way out the window.
None of which has anything to do with PRISM. Nobody's listening in my calls or yours without obtaining a warrant. Do you truly believe that a list of call durations and the number called - without any personal identifying information attached - is unconstitutional? I really don't.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Didn't you read? The "classified" FISA courts have ensured they have all the warrants they need to do whatever they want.
Well, the FISA courts exist purely for foreign targets. You'd need to go through another court to get a warrant against an American.
And they have to be "classified." We can't hold public hearings going, "This is our information, this is how we got it." Like it or not, we do actually try to prevent the networks we're spying on from figuring out how we're spying on them.
Manning: Is an idiot and a complete tool who deserves the punishment he's getting and certainly shouldn't wear the title of "hero" or whistleblower for that matter. He leaked intelligence because he was having a gakky day, just took everything he had access to and mailed it to some random jackhole to get back at people. That some of the stuff he leaked was actually something worth making a fuss about is just the law of averages at work. Enjoy Kansas Brad.
Snowden: I don't know about his motives, but his leak was well done, he got the word out with just enough data to prove he, and the programs he was blowing the whistle on were for real, he then leaked them to legit sources. Now is it treason legally? Maybe, but I'd still say it's the right thing to do. PRISM and sources on SECRET COURTS in the freaking United States? Goddessdamn I'm glad someone decided to say something. We've been trading our fundamental rights for some bullgak illusion of security and safety and it's starting to bite us right on the donkey. We didn't ask for the federal government to take this kind of power, we demanded it. We demanded the patriot act, we demanded the NDAA, we in the end demanded PRISM. When the collar's finally around our collective necks we'll find we probably demanded that too.
Good post, KM! You summed up my thoughts exactly. I honestly don't care how many papers you have to sign or how many agreements to secrecy you make. If the organization you're working for is doing something immoral, you have a moral obligation to tell the world about it and do fix it, especially when it's being done by the government and in secret.
One thing that politicians seem to have forgotten is this: just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
rubiksnoob wrote: I don't understand the mindset of people who place loyalty to country above all else.
Be glad you don't understand that mindset. Love of country is a good thing, but rabid devotion only leads to xenophobia and other nasty things.
Also, to all those that want Snowden treated as a traitor: what's your opinion of the Pentagon Papers scandal? Was the man that leaked those papers ALSO a traitor?
This really isn't a R or D issue. It is an American (or insert country of your choice) issue and the core values each citizen values.
Except of course, he was talking against the President who is fully supporting and defending these programs. It's not anti-D it's anti-O.
Okay. Bush did the same stuff, so it is really more anti-executive unconstitutional power grab in my book. It doesn't matter to me if it is O, G.W.B., Nixon, Robot Nixon, or the next president. Unconstitutional power grab is an unconstitutional power grab!
This really isn't a R or D issue. It is an American (or insert country of your choice) issue and the core values each citizen values.
Except of course, he was talking against the President who is fully supporting and defending these programs. It's not anti-D it's anti-O.
Okay. Bush did the same stuff, so it is really more anti-executive unconstitutional power grab in my book. It doesn't matter to me if it is O, G.W.B., Nixon, Robot Nixon, or the next president. Unconstitutional power grab is an unconstitutional power grab!
Boo on that I say.
Here here!
The thing we really need to think about, is how do we change it, what all needs changing, and what else?
Because I don't think we are going to survive another century with our current government....
The first step is vote everyone out at once. Then possibly let the Weiny Legions eat all the evidence.
I concur, this isn't about Bush, or Obama, or Democrats or Republicans. ALL of these scum suckers are working to restrict our freedom, the bills that receive massive bipartisan support do just that, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, hell even programs like CISPA until enough people started freaking out about it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I concur, this isn't about Bush, or Obama, or Democrats or Republicans. ALL of these scum suckers are working to restrict our freedom, the bills that receive massive bipartisan support do just that, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, hell even programs like CISPA until enough people started freaking out about it.
Exactly!!
Collecting data on millions of Americans who have done nothing wrong, and who are suspected of no wrong doing, should not be reduced to a partisan issue.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Huh, two pages to Godwin eh? That was kinda slow for OT
I Godwin'd this muthaf- in the first few posts.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I concur, this isn't about Bush, or Obama, or Democrats or Republicans. ALL of these scum suckers are working to restrict our freedom, the bills that receive massive bipartisan support do just that, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, hell even programs like CISPA until enough people started freaking out about it.
Exactly!! Collecting data on millions of Americans who have done nothing wrong, and who are suspected of no wrong doing, should not be reduced to a partisan issue.
Wholeheartedly agree. What I find even more troubling is the high number of people who seem to be operating under the general principle that everyone should just blindly support the government, even in this situation.
azazel the cat wrote: Wholeheartedly agree. What I find even more troubling is the high number of people who seem to be operating under the general principle that everyone should just blindly support the government, even in this situation.
Could you point some of those people out? I haven't heard anyone, on the interwebs, on TV, anywhere, saying that we should blindly support the government.
azazel the cat wrote: Wholeheartedly agree. What I find even more troubling is the high number of people who seem to be operating under the general principle that everyone should just blindly support the government, even in this situation.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The director of the National Security Agency said Wednesday that once-secret surveillance programs disrupted dozens of terrorist attacks, explicitly describing for Congress how the programs worked in collecting Americans' phone records and tapping into their Internet activity.
Vigorously defending the programs, Gen. Keith Alexander said the public needs to know how the programs operate amid growing concerns that government efforts to secure the nation are encroaching on Americans' privacy and civil liberties.
"I do think it's important that we get this right and I want the American people to know that we're trying to be transparent here, protect civil liberties and privacy but also the security of this country," Alexander told a Senate panel.
Alexander said he will provide additional information to the Senate Intelligence Committee in closed session on Thursday and hopes to have as many details as possible within a week. He said he wants the information to be checked first by other agencies to ensure that the details are correct.
But he also warned that disclosures about the secret programs have eroded agency capabilities and, as a result, U.S. allies and Americans won't be as safe as they were two weeks ago.
"Some of these are still going to be classified and should be, because if we tell the terrorists every way that we're going to track them, they will get through and Americans will die," he said, adding that he would rather be criticized by people who think he's hiding something "than jeopardize the security of this country."
He was questioned at length by senators seeking information on exactly how much data the NSA collects and the legal backing for the activities. He did not give details on the terror plots he said had been disrupted.
Half a world away, Edward Snowden, the former contractor who fled to Hong Kong and leaked the documents, said he's not there to hide from justice and has faith in "the courts and people of Hong Kong to decide my fate."
"I am neither traitor nor hero. I'm an American," Snowden told the South China Morning Post about his disclosures of top-secret surveillance programs that have rocked Washington.
Snowden said in the interview published Wednesday that he hasn't dared contact his family or his girlfriend since coming forward as the leaker of NSA documents. "I am worried about the pressure they are feeling from the FBI," he said.
The FBI visited his father's house in Pennsylvania on Monday.
Snowden resurfaced in the Chinese newspaper after dropping out of sight since Sunday. Snowden said he wanted to fight the U.S. government in Hong Kong's courts and would stay unless "asked to leave." Hong Kong is a Chinese autonomous region that maintains a Western-style legal system and freedom of speech.
U.S. law enforcement officials have said they are building a case against Snowden but have yet to bring charges. Hong Kong has an extradition treaty with the United States; there are exceptions in cases of political persecution or where there are concerns over cruel or humiliating treatment.
Snowden told the paper from a location the paper didn't disclose that he has no plans to leave.
"I have had many opportunities to flee (Hong Kong), but I would rather stay and fight the US government in the courts, because I have faith in (Hong Kong's) rule of law," he said.
On Tuesday, a phalanx of FBI, legal and intelligence officials briefed the entire House in an attempt to explain National Security Agency programs that collect millions of Americans' phone and Internet records. Since they were revealed last week, the programs have provoked distrust in the Obama administration from around the world.
House members were told not to disclose information they heard in the briefing because it is classified. Several said they left with unanswered questions.
"People aren't satisfied," Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., said as he left the briefing Tuesday. "More detail needs to come out."
While many rank-and-file members of Congress have expressed anger and bewilderment, there is apparently very little appetite among key leaders and intelligence committee chiefs to pursue any action. Most have expressed support for the programs as invaluable counterterror tools and some have labeled Snowden a traitor.
Congressional leaders and intelligence committee members have been routinely briefed about the spy programs, officials said, and Congress has at least twice renewed laws approving them. But the disclosure of their sheer scope stunned some lawmakers, shocked foreign allies from nations with strict privacy protections and emboldened civil liberties advocates who long have accused the government of being too invasive in the name of national security.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has complained that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper misled a Senate committee in March by denying that the NSA collects data on millions of Americans. On Wednesday, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., called for Clapper to resign.
"Congress can't make informed decisions on intelligence issues when the head of the intelligence community willfully makes false statements," Amash posted on Facebook.
Some Congress members acknowledged they'd been caught unawares by the scope of the programs, having skipped previous briefings by the intelligence committees.
"I think Congress has really found itself a little bit asleep at the wheel," Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., said.
I think this highlights why it's become such an issue, many in Congress declined to invest their time in the briefings. Similar things happened with counter-terrorism legislation for Northern Ireland. We had promises of heavy scrutiny in Parliament, and what we got instead was rubber stamping when it came renewal time.
Seaward wrote: Could you point some of those people out? I haven't heard anyone, on the interwebs, on TV, anywhere, saying that we should blindly support the government.
Snowden said that according to unverified documents seen by the Post, the NSA had been hacking computers in Hong Kong and on the mainland since 2009. None of the documents revealed any information about Chinese military systems, he said ... Snowden believed there had been more than 61,000 NSA hacking operations globally, with hundreds of targets in Hong Kong and on the mainland.
I'm glad he told us this. It's in clear violation of the 142nd Amendment and thus needs to be brought to light.
Because international relations is founded upon the keeping of publicly known but not confirmed secrets. Plausible deny everything so to speak. Everyone knows that the US and China spy on each other. It's considered bad etiquette to officially point this out or acknowledge it because then it pressures politicians to actually do something about it.
Because international relations is founded upon the keeping of publicly known but not confirmed secrets. Plausible deny everything so to speak. Everyone knows that the US and China spy on each other. It's considered bad etiquette to officially point this out or acknowledge it because then it pressures politicians to actually do something about it.
That, but also there's the little matter of us not knowing exactly what was revealed. There could be plenty of insight into exactly how we do it, for all we know.
If people have just decided we no longer need classified information because it's a breach of our freedom, great, but I call the non-official cover list for CIA covert folks so I can do the Mission: Impossible thing and sell it to a shady European arms dealer. You guys can fight over the railgun blueprints or whatever. Because, hey, everyone knows we do it, so what's the harm in confirming it and letting people know how?
rubiksnoob wrote: I don't understand the mindset of people who place loyalty to country above all else.
Then you must not understand the mindset of anyone who is loyal to anything.
Also, the country and the government of said country are not the same thing. One can be loyal to the country and not like the government.
Is that so? Since I don't understand the rationale behind regarding loyalty to country as the highest order of loyalty, I am incapable of understanding loyalty at all? Sorry, but no.
Loyalty to anything isn't something that should just be arbitrarily expected; it should have some logical basis to it, i.e. the king treated his subjects fairly and with understanding, thus earning him their loyalty. Or, loyalty to one's self is necessary in order to lead a fulfilled life.
It should not be regarded as an automatic given, i.e. you happened to be born within a particular set of lines on a map, thus you must remain loyal to the ideals and aims of the social construct those lines on the map arbitrarily define, even at the expense of other loyalties to self, beliefs, loved ones, etc.
And yes, loyalty to country and loyalty to government are indeed separate and distinct. That is why many people are arguing that Snowden is not a traitor. By exposing PRISM he remained loyal to what many consider the ideals of the country: personal freedom, privacy from government intrusion, etc. It becomes tricky, however, when you get down to the legal nitty gritty. Treason may be widely understood to refer to a betrayal of one's country, yet the defense against government brought treason charges that you betrayed the government and not the country probably won't hold up in a government court with the government prosecuting. For legal purposes, the distinction between country and government is negligible at best, to the point where government and country are de facto one and the same.
Well the issue with that is that they don't actually know exactly how it's done. If they did they can make up counter-measures. That said, I thought this PRISM system had been going on for over a decade by now, or has Tom Clancy simply beaten the curve having featured this in a novel of his from the late 90's?
Ratbarf wrote: Well the issue with that is that they don't actually know exactly how it's done. If they did they can make up counter-measures. That said, I thought this PRISM system had been going on for over a decade by now, or has Tom Clancy simply beaten the curve having featured this in a novel of his from the late 90's?
There's existed rumors of similar over the years, see Carnivore, and then Echelon before that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The difference is that Echelon did signals collection, which anyone could do on a smaller scale, and you do when you turn on the radio, and Carnivore was the equivalent of a phone wiretap. It was not warrantless wiretapping, not was it at the scale of everyone at once.
Not sure which of the PRISM/Snowden threads this would be most appropriate to post to, but this one is the closest to the top and the more people that get this information the better:
rubiksnoob wrote: Not sure which of the PRISM/Snowden threads this would be most appropriate to post to, but this one is the closest to the top and the more people that get this information the better:
Spoiler:
That video is the most beautiful thing that can come from the NSA scandal. We should definitely incorporate that into our daily lives.
Sigvatr wrote:Those people betray their very own country - I can't think of anything less moral or correct one could do besides terrorism.
Just like that damned Oskar Schindler, who also betrayed his country?
Are you seriously setting a genocide on the same level as PRISM? That's got to be one of the most offensive things I have read recently. It's highly disrespectful for any family who lost people to the nazis in WWII and I highly hope you just went over the top there for a bit. I'm used to other posts by you.
Edward Snowden: Even though his intentions were probably well-meaning, still a traitor.
These men swore to protect and closely guard State secrets, as all who are given security clearances do, and they broke the law, plain and simple. I have no sympathy for those who blatantly disregard their duty to keep classified information just that. I believe that both men should be executed for treasonous actions, more so Manning because he wears the uniform, and potentially put his fellow soldiers in further danger. He broke the oath, and brought disgrace to the uniform.
agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Edward Snowden: Even though his intentions were probably well-meaning, still a traitor.
These men swore to protect and closely guard State secrets, as all who are given security clearances do, and they broke the law, plain and simple. I have no sympathy for those who blatantly disregard their duty to keep classified information just that. I believe that both men should be executed for treasonous actions, more so Manning because he wears the uniform, and potentially put his fellow soldiers in further danger. He broke the oath, and brought disgrace to the uniform.
agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
i dont know about ira. im just saying that alot of muslim people are in alqaeda. alot of terrorist attacks are by muslim people. im not saying that all muslims are bad but alot are.
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
i dont know about ira. im just saying that alot of muslim people are in alqaeda. alot of terrorist attacks are by muslim people. im not saying that all muslims are bad but alot are.
Only about 6% (according to USA Today) of the world's Muslims are affiliated with Al Quada. Also, believe it or not, but there are Christian and atheistic terrorists as well.
And if you try to claim that Muslims are incredibly violent, I suggest you read the Koran, then read the Bible, then compare.
EDIT: And when you say that non-Muslims shouldn't be scared, please look up Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism. (HINT: Under Joseph McCarthy basically attacked anybody who could possibly be somewhat connected to the idea of communism (including enjoying the color red). His actions could result in any person being stripped of their possessions and reputation. The connections to today are terrifyingly abundant.)
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
i dont know about ira. im just saying that alot of muslim people are in alqaeda. alot of terrorist attacks are by muslim people. im not saying that all muslims are bad but alot are.
Hold the phone.
You're telling me that the population of an extremist Muslim organization is made up of 'alot [sic] of muslim people'? And you're not saying that all Muslims are bad, but 'alot' of the 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world are?
I would kindly suggest that you get out and experience the world more, the sheer ignorance inherent in this statement boggles my mind.
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
i dont know about ira. im just saying that alot of muslim people are in alqaeda. alot of terrorist attacks are by muslim people. im not saying that all muslims are bad but alot are.
Hold the phone.
You're telling me that the population of an extremist Muslim organization is made up of 'alot [sic] of muslim people'? And you're not saying that all Muslims are bad, but 'alot' of the 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world are?
I would kindly suggest that you get out and experience the world more, the sheer ignorance inherent in this statement boggles my mind.
yes im saying alot of muslims are bad. osama bin laden and saddam hussein attacked us on 911. not all muslims tho, but alot are terrorists. there are plenty of good muslims
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
i dont know about ira. im just saying that alot of muslim people are in alqaeda. alot of terrorist attacks are by muslim people. im not saying that all muslims are bad but alot are.
Hold the phone.
You're telling me that the population of an extremist Muslim organization is made up of 'alot [sic] of muslim people'? And you're not saying that all Muslims are bad, but 'alot' of the 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world are?
I would kindly suggest that you get out and experience the world more, the sheer ignorance inherent in this statement boggles my mind.
yes im saying alot of muslims are bad. osama bin laden and saddam hussein attacked us on 911. not all muslims tho, but alot are terrorists. there are plenty of good muslims
A lot of people are bad. Welcome to planet Earth.
On topic, I find it both incredibly ironic and somewhat nauseating that citizens of a country founded on revolution (I'm pretty sure the British called it treason back in the olden days) want to lynch these men. Manning endangered people in the field. Try him for that, if you want. Snowden did nothing beyond proving the programs exist. Yeah, they broke the law. But so did the founding fathers. Where's the line?
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
i dont know about ira. im just saying that alot of muslim people are in alqaeda. alot of terrorist attacks are by muslim people. im not saying that all muslims are bad but alot are.
Hold the phone.
You're telling me that the population of an extremist Muslim organization is made up of 'alot [sic] of muslim people'? And you're not saying that all Muslims are bad, but 'alot' of the 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world are?
I would kindly suggest that you get out and experience the world more, the sheer ignorance inherent in this statement boggles my mind.
yes im saying alot of muslims are bad. osama bin laden and saddam hussein attacked us on 911. not all muslims tho, but alot are terrorists. there are plenty of good muslims
How many is 'alot' then? I'm guessing you don't know that many muslims. Your language and attitude suggest you're quite young and ignorant, so I suggest you grow up a bit and try to see a bit more of the world than whatever has led you to label 'alot' of Muslims as 'bad' and/or 'terrorists'. It's quite ludicrous and offensive.
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
i dont know about ira. im just saying that alot of muslim people are in alqaeda. alot of terrorist attacks are by muslim people. im not saying that all muslims are bad but alot are.
Hold the phone.
You're telling me that the population of an extremist Muslim organization is made up of 'alot [sic] of muslim people'? And you're not saying that all Muslims are bad, but 'alot' of the 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world are?
I would kindly suggest that you get out and experience the world more, the sheer ignorance inherent in this statement boggles my mind.
yes im saying alot of muslims are bad. osama bin laden and saddam hussein attacked us on 911. not all muslims tho, but alot are terrorists. there are plenty of good muslims
How many is 'alot' then? I'm guessing you don't know that many muslims. Your language and attitude suggest you're quite young and ignorant, so I suggest you grow up a bit and try to see a bit more of the world than whatever has led you to label 'alot' of Muslims as 'bad' and/or 'terrorists'. It's quite ludicrous and offensive.
im not trying to be offensive. im just trying to tell the truth. if you look at it, 911 was done by muslims. im not trying to offend anybody. are you muslim.
im not trying to be offensive. im just trying to tell the truth. if you look at it, 911 was done by muslims. im not trying to offend anybody. are you muslim.
It is refreshing to me that no other group of people of any other creed or religion have ever attacked any other people under pretence of diametrically opposed system of beliefs (especially after the latter used the former against their "enemies" at the time and left them to rot when the time came).
Were it to be otherwise, you might be diminishing both, your sense of history and your shallow world view. Also, go America. I'm sure those Muslims wouldn't have done what they did if only we'd have offered them miniature American flags to wave fiercely.... FOR FREEDOM!
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
i dont know about ira. im just saying that alot of muslim people are in alqaeda. alot of terrorist attacks are by muslim people. im not saying that all muslims are bad but alot are.
Hold the phone.
You're telling me that the population of an extremist Muslim organization is made up of 'alot [sic] of muslim people'? And you're not saying that all Muslims are bad, but 'alot' of the 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world are?
I would kindly suggest that you get out and experience the world more, the sheer ignorance inherent in this statement boggles my mind.
yes im saying alot of muslims are bad. osama bin laden and saddam hussein attacked us on 911. not all muslims tho, but alot are terrorists. there are plenty of good muslims
How many is 'alot' then? I'm guessing you don't know that many muslims. Your language and attitude suggest you're quite young and ignorant, so I suggest you grow up a bit and try to see a bit more of the world than whatever has led you to label 'alot' of Muslims as 'bad' and/or 'terrorists'. It's quite ludicrous and offensive.
im not trying to be offensive. im just trying to tell the truth. if you look at it, 911 was done by muslims. im not trying to offend anybody. are you muslim.
Why should it matter if I'm a Muslim or not? It's irelevant. You're objectively wrong, stupidly so. What does your point that 9/11 was committed by Muslims prove? There have been far more attacks by the IRA in Britain than the US has ever suffered from Muslims, but we don't brand all Itish as being 'bad'. In fact take a look at the number of bombings and killings in the US committed by white right extremists. But 'domestic terrorism' doesn't fit with the story that's its brown foreigners are the source of all problems.
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
i dont know about ira. im just saying that alot of muslim people are in alqaeda. alot of terrorist attacks are by muslim people. im not saying that all muslims are bad but alot are.
Hold the phone.
You're telling me that the population of an extremist Muslim organization is made up of 'alot [sic] of muslim people'? And you're not saying that all Muslims are bad, but 'alot' of the 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world are?
I would kindly suggest that you get out and experience the world more, the sheer ignorance inherent in this statement boggles my mind.
yes im saying alot of muslims are bad. osama bin laden and saddam hussein attacked us on 911. not all muslims tho, but alot are terrorists. there are plenty of good muslims
Hate to burst your bubble, but Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
Black Knight wrote: agree. tey swore oath to government. i actualy dont mind wiretapping that much. obama is just trying to keep us safe from the muslims. i dont think that people should be scared if they are not muslim
Yeah.... that's sort of like saying that every Irish Catholic was in the IRA (hint: they weren't)
i dont know about ira. im just saying that alot of muslim people are in alqaeda. alot of terrorist attacks are by muslim people. im not saying that all muslims are bad but alot are.
Hold the phone.
You're telling me that the population of an extremist Muslim organization is made up of 'alot [sic] of muslim people'? And you're not saying that all Muslims are bad, but 'alot' of the 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world are?
I would kindly suggest that you get out and experience the world more, the sheer ignorance inherent in this statement boggles my mind.
yes im saying alot of muslims are bad. osama bin laden and saddam hussein attacked us on 911. not all muslims tho, but alot are terrorists. there are plenty of good muslims
How many is 'alot' then? I'm guessing you don't know that many muslims. Your language and attitude suggest you're quite young and ignorant, so I suggest you grow up a bit and try to see a bit more of the world than whatever has led you to label 'alot' of Muslims as 'bad' and/or 'terrorists'. It's quite ludicrous and offensive.
im not trying to be offensive. im just trying to tell the truth. if you look at it, 911 was done by muslims. im not trying to offend anybody. are you muslim.
Why should it matter if I'm a Muslim or not? It's irelevant. You're objectively wrong, stupidly so. What does your point that 9/11 was committed by Muslims prove? There have been far more attacks by the IRA in Britain than the US has ever suffered from Muslims, but we don't brand all Itish as being 'bad'. In fact take a look at the number of bombings and killings in the US committed by white right extremists. But 'domestic terrorism' doesn't fit with the story that's its brown foreigners are the source of all problems.
it prove that muslim people have in the past attacked the us. im not trying to say anything about britain. im just saying that in the us, most terrorist attacks are by muslims. muslim people like osama dont like america because they hate us for our freedom.
Jihadin wrote: Before we all forget. PRISM program is word activated. As your conversation gets filter through the program it looks for keywords. One key word sends the entire conversation to another window and get filtered again. If more then one keyword is activated its "Flagged" for human review. I've no idea where I read that, nor remember it was a briefing, possible internship flyer...I can't remember nor do I care to remember. I was on a lot of psycho and pain meds forgot to mention when my GF/current wife would let me drive...I would drive like I was back in the "Box"
Manning no damn Hero. He was a screw up. Little SoB took out his revenge on the US Gov't by dropping a platinum mine on Assauge lap all because
Spoiler:
After four weeks at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) in Fort Polk, Louisiana, he was deployed to Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad, arriving in October 2009. From his workstation there, he had access to SIPRNet (the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network) and JWICS (the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System). Two of his superiors had discussed not taking him to Iraq – it was felt he was "a risk to himself and possibly others," according to a statement later issued by the army – but again the shortage of intelligence analysts held sway.[22]
A month later, in November 2009, he was promoted from Private First Class to Specialist. That same month, according to his chats with Lamo, he made his first contact with WikiLeaks, shortly after it posted 570,000 pager messages from the 9/11 attacks, which it released on November 25.[23] Also in November, Manning wrote to a gender counselor in the United States, said he felt female, and discussed having sex reassignment surgery. The counselor told Steve Fishman of New York Magazine that it was clear Manning was in crisis, partly because of his gender concerns, but also because he was opposed to the kind of war in which he found himself involved.[24]
He was by all accounts unhappy and isolated. Because of the army's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy (known as DADT, which was repealed in September 2011), he was not allowed to be openly gay, though he apparently made no secret of it; his friends said he kept a fairy wand on his desk. When he told his roommate he was gay, the roommate responded by suggesting they not speak to each other. His working conditions – 14–15 hour night shifts in a dimly lit secure room – did not help his emotional well being.[25] On December 20, 2009, after being told he would lose his one day off a week for being persistently late, he overturned a table in a conference room, damaging a computer that was sitting on it, and in the view of one soldier looked as though he was about to grab a rifle from a gun rack, before his arms were pinned behind his back. Several witnesses to the incident believed his access to sensitive material ought to have been withdrawn at that point. The following month, he began posting on Facebook that he felt alone and hopeless.[26]
Army investigators told a pre-trial hearing (see below) that they believed Manning downloaded the Iraq and Afghan war logs around this time, in January 2010. WikiLeaks tweeted on January 8 that year that they had obtained "encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians," and linked to a story about the May 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan. Manning put the files on a digital storage card for his camera and took it home with him on a leave in early 2010.[27] During the same month, Manning traveled to the United States via Germany for a two-week holiday, arriving on January 24, and attended a party at Boston University's hacker space. It was during this visit that Manning first lived for a few days as a woman, dressing in women's clothes, wearing a wig and going out. After his arrest, his former partner, Tyler Watkins, told Kevin Poulsen of Wired that Manning had said during the January visit that he had found some sensitive information and was considering leaking it.[28]
to early to get riled up...and first mug of coffee not done yet....but
Spoiler:
May 21, 2010: (1:41:12 PM) bradass87: hi
(1:44:04 PM) bradass87: how are you?
(1:47:01 PM) bradass87: im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for "adjustment disorder" in lieu of "gender identity disorder"
(1:56:24 PM) bradass87: im sure you're pretty busy ...
(1:58:31 PM) bradass87: if you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?[48]
May 22, 2010:
(11:49:02 AM) bradass87: im in the desert, with a bunch of hyper-masculine trigger happy ignorant rednecks as neighbors... and the only safe place i seem to have is this satellite internet connection
(11:49:51 AM) bradass87: and i already got myself into minor trouble, revealing my uncertainty over my gender identity ... which is causing me to lose this job ... and putting me in an awkward limbo [...]
(11:52:23 AM) bradass87: at the very least, i managed to keep my security clearance [so far] [...]
(11:58:33 AM) bradass87: and little does anyone know, but among this "visible" mess, theres the mess i created that no-one knows about yet [...]
(12:15:11 PM) bradass87: hypothetical question: if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time ... say, 8–9 months ... and you saw incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC ... what would you do? [...]
(12:21:24 PM) bradass87: say ... a database of half a million events during the iraq war ... from 2004 to 2009 ... with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures ...? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective? [...]
(12:26:09 PM) bradass87: lets just say *someone* i know intimately well, has been penetrating US classified networks, mining data like the ones described ... and been transferring that data from the classified networks over the “air gap” onto a commercial network computer ... sorting the data, compressing it, encrypting it, and uploading it to a crazy white haired aussie who can't seem to stay in one country very long =L [...]
(12:31:43 PM) bradass87: crazy white haired dude = Julian Assange
(12:33:05 PM) bradass87: in other words ... ive made a huge mess :’([48]
May 22, 2010:
(1:11:54 PM) bradass87: and ... its important that it gets out ... i feel, for some bizarre reason
(1:12:02 PM) bradass87: it might actually change something
(1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just ... dont wish to be a part of it ... at least not now ... im not ready ... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ...
(1:14:11 PM) bradass87: i've totally lost my mind ... i make no sense ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard ... [...]
(1:39:03 PM) bradass87: i cant believe what im confessing to you :’([48]
May 25, 2010:
(02:12:23 PM) bradass87: so ... it was a massive data spillage ... facilitated by numerous factors ... both physically, technically, and culturally
(02:13:02 PM) bradass87: perfect example of how not to do INFOSEC
(02:14:21 PM) bradass87: listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltratrating [sic] possibly the largest data spillage in american history [...]
(02:17:56 PM) bradass87: weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis ... a perfect storm [...]
(02:22:47 PM) bradass87: i mean what if i were someone more malicious
(02:23:25 PM) bradass87: i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?
(02:23:58 PM) bradass87: because it's public data [...]
(02:24:46 PM) bradass87: it belongs in the public domain
(02:25:15 PM) bradass87: Information should be free[48
That... puts things in a whole new light. For anyone who doesn't fully get what this amounts to:
Imagine having a shock collar you can't remove, that never runs dry, and which randomly blasts the hell out of you. At first, you just keep your head up and bear it, but as time wears on you become increasingly erratic and tortured. When you admit "hey, this thing is bothering me" you're shunned, when you seek help in stopping it from continuing to shock you you lose your job, and the whole while your commanders and peers stand by and watch your behavior grow increasingly erratic, not only doing nothing to help you, but continuing to allow you to act in a position where an unpredictable, resentful, half-mad-with-pain individual could do massive harm to very important operations.
Manning is ultimately culpable, but his/her commanding officers should be going to the chopping block too for failing to prevent the situation.
Edit: and everyone, stop playing with Black Knight; 10 to 1 odds he's a fully literate adult who knows full well what nonsense he's spouting, and is laughing uproariously at the conversation. Engaging him in conversation just makes you look silly.
If Snowden is a traitor, then fine I say bring on the traitors. If the state is violating the law then I would say that ‘traitorous’ acts of this nature are about as patriotic as it gets. Doesn’t this violate both the 1st and 4th amendments? It’s downright Orwellian and as far as I’m concerned Snowden deserves a medal.
Those attacking Snowden really do worry me, it’s almost as if they are happy to be spied upon by their governments.
LuciusAR wrote: If Snowden is a traitor, then fine I say bring on the traitors. If the state is violating the law then I would say that ‘traitorous’ acts of this nature are about as patriotic as it gets. Doesn’t this violate both the 1st and 4th amendments? It’s downright Orwellian and as far as I’m concerned Snowden deserves a medal.
Those attacking Snowden really do worry me, it’s almost as if they are happy to be spied upon by their governments.
im not sure about the amendments. i think its important that obama knows whats happening so he can protect us. i dont want another 911 happening to america
It is absolutely mind boggling to see the kind of blind loyalty to Governments that people don't otherwise even respect, even a little bit, that comes out in these situations.
Also, Black Knight, you may or may not be trying to offend people but the sort of blatant stereotyping you are engaged in is against the rules. Admittedly, that rule is often enforced lopsidedly in favour of Christianity, but sweeping statements about any religious group should not be tolerated.
LuciusAR wrote: If Snowden is a traitor, then fine I say bring on the traitors. If the state is violating the law then I would say that ‘traitorous’ acts of this nature are about as patriotic as it gets. Doesn’t this violate both the 1st and 4th amendments? It’s downright Orwellian and as far as I’m concerned Snowden deserves a medal.
It probably doesn't violate those amendments, no. A lot of armchair legal scholars are claiming otherwise, despite not being able to tell you what the Fourth Amendment is without a trip to Wikipedia, but I suppose we'll see eventually.
Also, I'll say this again, since it didn't seem to sink in the first time: he has now moved on to revealing classified information that has nothing to do with violating the Constitution.
Black Knight wrote: yes im saying alot of muslims are bad. osama bin laden and saddam hussein attacked us on 911. not all muslims tho, but alot are terrorists. there are plenty of good muslims
2 people "alot" does not make, especially when 1 of them wasn't even involved. A lot would imply a large number, possibly a majority. There are not 750 million people in this world that are evil muslims hellbent on destroying 'MURICA, if there were... They'd probably try invading considering that they could easily outnumber our rotound population 2:1...
Black Knight wrote: im not sure about the amendments. i think its important that obama knows whats happening so he can protect us. i dont want another 911 happening to america
Obama can learn about things the exact same way that president's before him learned about things, through our intelligence agencies. Not to mention the MASSIVE invasion of privacy this is. Say you're talking on the phone to one of your mates about a kerfuffle you got into with d-bag at school/work/church bake sale/etc... and you say, "Man I'm going to kill Daryl, dude really has it coming, I'll make sure that his next "President's speech" goes off with a bang!" You're now on a list and could potentially have the secret service come to your door when all you meant is that "Daryl is a dick, and I'm going to screw over his next speech as President of our organization." So now you have to deal with lawyers, and the federal government, who can detain you indefinitely can't they (wasn't that the gist of the NDAA?), and they could try to figure out if you're plotting to kill the president all because you were totes okay with them listening in on and recording your phone conversation about Daryl.
Also, while 2 "evil" men does not make alot... this makes alot:
Eh... I feel like the Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials in trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception, and to media executives in search of an easy storyline to serve a celebrity-obsessed audience.
*jedi waves* Focus... this is not the scandal you're looking for....
Easy E wrote: No, we should all be looking at Benghazi right?
Among other things... like:
IRS political targeting
Eric Holdner in contempt
James Rosen
AP Wiretaps
EPA shenanigans
States Dept coverup
Fast & Furious
Pigford
.... and others (hard to keep track! ).
That's bigger than Watergate!
With respect to Benghazi, I'd still submit it's the same if not bigger... because, ya know, no one died during Watergate.
Watergate and the aftermath of Benghazi were BOTH political response... rather than doing the right thing.
It probably doesn't violate those amendments, no. A lot of armchair legal scholars are claiming otherwise, despite not being able to tell you what the Fourth Amendment is without a trip to Wikipedia, but I suppose we'll see eventually.
There is definitely a case to be made for a violation of the Fourth Amendment as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. It all comes down to if there is a reasonable right to privacy inherent in what you do online.
To me it seems like if I'm accessing my password protected email there is no reason that the government should have to ability to trawl through my personal correspondence at will.
Black Knight wrote: yes im saying alot of muslims are bad. osama bin laden and saddam hussein attacked us on 911. not all muslims tho, but alot are terrorists. there are plenty of good muslims
2 people "alot" does not make, especially when 1 of them wasn't even involved. A lot would imply a large number, possibly a majority. There are not 750 million people in this world that are evil muslims hellbent on destroying 'MURICA, if there were... They'd probably try invading considering that they could easily outnumber our rotound population 2:1...
i didnt just mean saddam and osama. there are also alot of bad muslims. i would gues that about 40 percent of muslims dont like america. note i only said 40 percent. there are plenty of good muslims.
Black Knight wrote: im not sure about the amendments. i think its important that obama knows whats happening so he can protect us. i dont want another 911 happening to america
Obama can learn about things the exact same way that president's before him learned about things, through our intelligence agencies. Not to mention the MASSIVE invasion of privacy this is. Say you're talking on the phone to one of your mates about a kerfuffle you got into with d-bag at school/work/church bake sale/etc... and you say, "Man I'm going to kill Daryl, dude really has it coming, I'll make sure that his next "President's speech" goes off with a bang!" You're now on a list and could potentially have the secret service come to your door when all you meant is that "Daryl is a dick, and I'm going to screw over his next speech as President of our organization." So now you have to deal with lawyers, and the federal government, who can detain you indefinitely can't they (wasn't that the gist of the NDAA?), and they could try to figure out if you're plotting to kill the president all because you were totes okay with them listening in on and recording your phone conversation about Daryl.
Also, while 2 "evil" men does not make alot... this makes alot:
as long as you dont want to attack the us you should be fine. i dont think this is bad to the fourth amenment. if you are not hiding anything and you are not muslim, you have nothing to be afraid
as long as you dont want to attack the us you should be fine. i dont think this is bad to the fourth amenment. if you are not hiding anything and you are not muslim, you have nothing to be afraid
Alf, check his post history to note the proper grammar and ability to manifest a coherent thought before wasting more of your time on this guy. You're getting trolled.
as long as you dont want to attack the us you should be fine. i dont think this is bad to the fourth amenment. if you are not hiding anything and you are not muslim, you have nothing to be afraid
Alf, check his post history to note the proper grammar and ability to manifest a coherent thought before wasting more of your time on this guy. You're getting trolled.
I've yet to froth from the mouth at his posts, and honestly it's like two different people posting from this account... Me wonders if Black Knight left his Dakka window open and his misinformed racist grandma is posting.
as long as you dont want to attack the us you should be fine. i dont think this is bad to the fourth amenment. if you are not hiding anything and you are not muslim, you have nothing to be afraid
Alf, check his post history to note the proper grammar and ability to manifest a coherent thought before wasting more of your time on this guy. You're getting trolled.
I've yet to froth from the mouth at his posts, and honestly it's like two different people posting from this account... Me wonders if Black Knight left his Dakka window open and his misinformed racist grandma is posting.
no im srs about the muslims they attacked us on 911 bc they dont like our freedom. this is rly my account
as long as you dont want to attack the us you should be fine. i dont think this is bad to the fourth amenment. if you are not hiding anything and you are not muslim, you have nothing to be afraid
Alf, check his post history to note the proper grammar and ability to manifest a coherent thought before wasting more of your time on this guy. You're getting trolled.
I've yet to froth from the mouth at his posts, and honestly it's like two different people posting from this account... Me wonders if Black Knight left his Dakka window open and his misinformed racist grandma is posting.
OMG.....I left High School over 20 yrs ago....please please....PLEASE tell me the level of education has not dropped that LOW as demonstrated by Black Knight? If so I've to seriously get with the ex and talk about sending my daughter to a private school...one that doesn't allow PoV's.....that way I can keep jeep and/or Spyder a bit longer
Jihadin wrote: OMG.....I left High School over 20 yrs ago....please please....PLEASE tell me the level of education has not dropped that LOW as demonstrated by Black Knight? If so I've to seriously get with the ex and talk about sending my daughter to a private school...one that doesn't allow PoV's.....that way I can keep jeep and/or Spyder a bit longer
Look at his post history. His posts in the other forums are fairly well-written with proper grammar and syntax. We're either being trolled or someone else is on his account.
On the topic of muslims, I actually just had a couple stop by the gas station I work at the other day; all women, all in dresses (Don't think they had the "proper garb") and all incredibly polite, down to earth people. Not going to lie, one of them would have had me praising allah if she had been a more permanent resident of the town.
@ Easy E; it's both and the same, honestly.
People defend assault rifles and shotguns as "Protected by the Constitution" when the Founders had no idea such things would ever exist (They couldn't have). If the Constitutional Rights given to us affect guns that didn't exist, it has to apply to forms of expression that couldn't have existed back then.
Do you think Islamic women say "Oh, Allah!" during instead of "Oh, God!" ?
Sigvatr wrote:Those people betray their very own country - I can't think of anything less moral or correct one could do besides terrorism.
Just like that damned Oskar Schindler, who also betrayed his country?
Are you seriously setting a genocide on the same level as PRISM? That's got to be one of the most offensive things I have read recently. It's highly disrespectful for any family who lost people to the nazis in WWII and I highly hope you just went over the top there for a bit. I'm used to other posts by you.
Sorry for how long it took me to get back to this.
Am I setting genocide on the same level as PRISM? No. But I don't need to be to illustrate my point (my point being that you made a ridiculous statement).
Your statement was that you could not think of anything less moral or correct than betraying their country. Oskar Schindler betrayed his country. Therefore, you cannot think of anything less moral or correct than what Oskar Schindler did (which is ironic, considering your outrage at the mere comparison to the Holocaust).
Of course, you can retract your statement now that you've been forced to think about how ridiculous it is, if you like.
Stop posting like a tool. You don't make any sense, and your just parroting a bunch of double speak that makes you look bad. There is a world of information at your fingertips to be found, regardless if Lee Harvey Snowden wants to act like he broke the brinks bank on some low level intel geek fest.
They were terrorists that attacked, and continue to do so. Now with the added advantage of friendly neighborhood revenge killings and bad publicity scandal's and sheer amounts of political ineptitude of not knowing exactly who you are putting in the fill in the blanks "Bad Guy" mold.
They are not affiliated State players, and are pretty much on line with any number of the million and one alphabet soup I hate America assclowns that make it their life's work of attacking people just for the sake of getting their name on TV. Being Muslims has jack all to do with it. People have been doing it since man picked up stick. Only thing that changes is the mix and match letters.
These two tools in question are a couple of self serving cake eaters doing it for their own personal gain with personal selfishness is it's own reward. The attackers are smarter then you. They use the Muslim angle as a recruiting tool to gain press and favor with the same sort of jackass that posts stuff like, "I hate the government. It's run by three legged green men from pluto..." or some other such nonsense.
i agree ultimately the people attacking the us are the jews their using the muslims as puppets bc the muslims hate us for our freedom. i think that caesar knew in his heart tat jesus is lord also the jews are evil. he tried to save jesus from being crucified
Slarg232 wrote: On the topic of muslims, I actually just had a couple stop by the gas station I work at the other day; all women, all in dresses (Don't think they had the "proper garb") and all incredibly polite, down to earth people. Not going to lie, one of them would have had me praising allah if she had been a more permanent resident of the town.
@ Easy E; it's both and the same, honestly.
People defend assault rifles and shotguns as "Protected by the Constitution" when the Founders had no idea such things would ever exist (They couldn't have). If the Constitutional Rights given to us affect guns that didn't exist, it has to apply to forms of expression that couldn't have existed back then.
The founders would have been the first in line for a brand new spanking AK. They wanted exactly as was written. Not so called "Interpreted" by self serving political hacks that have hijacked a pretty cut and dried form of government. It was designed that way, because education wasn't an asset by the common man and to push a particular idea- simple sells.
The rights are not given, they have been earned. Joe Biden and company has no right telling you what sort of weapon to buy then he does what kind of car to drive. Within reason you have a right to common defense. It is and should be expected that if called upon, you should assist your local community in whatever issue they have, from natural disaster to voting for the local dog catcher.
Which is exactly what I was trying to say; if all new versions of guns are to be free to use, then all forms of messaging, including the internet and such, should be off limits.
Slarg232 wrote: On the topic of muslims, I actually just had a couple stop by the gas station I work at the other day; all women, all in dresses (Don't think they had the "proper garb") and all incredibly polite, down to earth people. Not going to lie, one of them would have had me praising allah if she had been a more permanent resident of the town.
@ Easy E; it's both and the same, honestly.
People defend assault rifles and shotguns as "Protected by the Constitution" when the Founders had no idea such things would ever exist (They couldn't have). If the Constitutional Rights given to us affect guns that didn't exist, it has to apply to forms of expression that couldn't have existed back then.
The founders would have been the first in line for a brand new spanking AK. They wanted exactly as was written.
It seems a bit odd to me that gun ownership is justified under the pretence that the public need to defend themselves against government tyranny. But when people do act against the government to expose coverups and spying on the public, the nationalism and anger for their 'treason' seems to come out strong in favour of the government and outweighs the upset of what the government is doing. Whistleblowing is seen almost as a bigger offence than anything the governement could be doing unless it was truly heinous.
I'm not trying to make a big point, it's more of an observation. It's a bit of an odd dichotomy, on one hand the American public want the power to fight the government and keep their freedom through arms, but on the other they despise almost anyone who acts against the government even when the government is doing things it probably shouldn't be and which undermine those freedoms they value.
Well, since they, presumably, didn't mean "bear arms", but to bear "arms", what alternate definition of Arms could you derive that doesn't involve swinging around detached Humerous bones?
Howard A Treesong wrote: It seems a bit odd to me that gun ownership is justified under the pretence that the public need to defend themselves against government tyranny. But when people do act against the government to expose coverups and spying on the public, the nationalism and anger for their 'treason' seems to come out strong in favour of the government and outweighs the upset of what the government is doing. Whistleblowing is seen almost as a bigger offence than anything the governement could be doing unless it was truly heinous.
I'm not trying to make a big point, it's more of an observation. It's a bit of an odd dichotomy, on one hand the American public want the power to fight the government and keep their freedom through arms, but on the other they despise almost anyone who acts against the government even when the government is doing things it probably shouldn't be and which undermine those freedoms they value.
Welcome to Murica, where people love to talk a big game but hate anyone who acts on it
Also, think of how hard stupid something like this is; if a hard core terrorist plot is formed, they will use public computers (which can't be traced who uses them; you can literally walk into a library to browse the internets) to research something. If they need to make a phone call, you buy a burner phone/make your own walky talky and BOOM, any attempt to hear and stop your movements is pretty much null and void.
This Prism bill does nothing for counter terror, but spies on innocent civilians......
Slarg232 wrote: Welcome to Murica, where people love to talk a big game but hate anyone who acts on it
Also, think of how hard stupid something like this is; if a hard core terrorist plot is formed, they will use public computers (which can't be traced who uses them; you can literally walk into a library to browse the internets) to research something. If they need to make a phone call, you buy a burner phone/make your own walky talky and BOOM, any attempt to hear and stop your movements is pretty much null and void.
This Prism bill does nothing for counter terror, but spies on innocent civilians......
If I recall right wasn't there a suspected terror cell that bypassed detection by using Hotmail, but not sending the messages. They saved them in drafts and the members of the cell signed in and read them. That cut down on their electronic trail.
If I recall right wasn't there a suspected terror cell that bypassed detection by using Hotmail, but not sending the messages. They saved them in drafts and the members of the cell signed in and read them. That cut down on their electronic trail.
That's actually really clever. You run some sort of trusted encryption program locally to encode/decode the data, and that would be silly hard to crack even when you finally did catch it.
Yeah. Terrorists, home grown or otherwise, aren't going to be using standard means of communication. If the government really assumes they would, we are much worse off than even I ever thought (And I'm about as pessimistic as you can get.....)
Well, since they, presumably, didn't mean "bear arms", but to bear "arms", what alternate definition of Arms could you derive that doesn't involve swinging around detached Humerous bones?
I'll assume you're being deliberately obtuse, but indulge you anyway. They never define arms; do they mean swords, muskets, rifles, etc, but stop at artillery? Does it mean only things that can be carried on one's person? Can a militia have a cavalry detachment, for instance? Or an artillery section? More in line with modern times, can I have a tank or nuclear bomb? More realistically (because I could carry it on my person), can I walk about with a minigun or a canister of nerve gas? Our laws generally rule out the latter examples. Why? Because of interpretation. Which is both the point and subject.
Well, since they, presumably, didn't mean "bear arms", but to bear "arms", what alternate definition of Arms could you derive that doesn't involve swinging around detached Humerous bones?
I'll assume you're being deliberately obtuse, but indulge you anyway.
They never define arms; do they mean swords, muskets, rifles, etc, but stop at artillery? Does it mean only things that can be carried on one's person? Can a militia have a cavalry detachment, for instance? Or an artillery section? More in line with modern times, can I have a tank or nuclear bomb? More realistically (because I could carry it on my person), can I walk about with a minigun or a canister of nerve gas?
Our laws generally rule out the latter examples. Why? Because of interpretation. Which is both the point and subject.
Well, then I guess all of that stuff falls under the definition of arms, so I guess that works. Did most of those things not exist back then? Absolutely. Would they have worded it differently back then if they knew it was going to happen? Maybe, quite possibly even, but we have no way of knowing.
Mind you, these are also the same guys who did not at all expect us to keep this same government this entire time. Jefferson, who I understand to be a person of note in the history of the US, is attributed as saying "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."
Now, there's two schools of thought I see here: They didn't pin it down better because it didn't matter at the time, and they figured there would be a new government by the time it did, or it is deliberately vague and all-encompassing so that the people will always have the tools needed to end the government, if desired.
Slarg232 wrote: Yeah. Terrorists, home grown or otherwise, aren't going to be using standard means of communication. If the government really assumes they would, we are much worse off than even I ever thought (And I'm about as pessimistic as you can get.....)
Cellphones played a big role in finally tracking down bin Laden.
"Standard means of communication" is also incredibly broad. Unless you believe they've invented Terrorist Sign Language, or stole smoke signals from the Native Americans, of course they use standard means of communication.
Slarg232 wrote: Yeah. Terrorists, home grown or otherwise, aren't going to be using standard means of communication. If the government really assumes they would, we are much worse off than even I ever thought (And I'm about as pessimistic as you can get.....)
Cellphones played a big role in finally tracking down bin Laden.
"Standard means of communication" is also incredibly broad. Unless you believe they've invented Terrorist Sign Language, or stole smoke signals from the Native Americans, of course they use standard means of communication.
Well yeah.
If you trace twenty suspicious calls coming from one area, even on separate burner phones, it warrents investigation. That was more of different calls being in the same area over one phone being used and then dumped.
Well, since they, presumably, didn't mean "bear arms", but to bear "arms", what alternate definition of Arms could you derive that doesn't involve swinging around detached Humerous bones?
I'll assume you're being deliberately obtuse, but indulge you anyway. They never define arms; do they mean swords, muskets, rifles, etc, but stop at artillery? Does it mean only things that can be carried on one's person? Can a militia have a cavalry detachment, for instance? Or an artillery section? More in line with modern times, can I have a tank or nuclear bomb? More realistically (because I could carry it on my person), can I walk about with a minigun or a canister of nerve gas? Our laws generally rule out the latter examples. Why? Because of interpretation. Which is both the point and subject.
Well, then I guess all of that stuff falls under the definition of arms, so I guess that works. Did most of those things not exist back then? Absolutely. Would they have worded it differently back then if they knew it was going to happen? Maybe, quite possibly even, but we have no way of knowing.
Mind you, these are also the same guys who did not at all expect us to keep this same government this entire time. Jefferson, who I understand to be a person of note in the history of the US, is attributed as saying "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."
Now, there's two schools of thought I see here: They didn't pin it down better because it didn't matter at the time, and they figured there would be a new government by the time it did, or it is deliberately vague and all-encompassing so that the people will always have the tools needed to end the government, if desired.
Wasnt it meant along the lines to bear 'arms' to be able to form militia groups. Back in the late 18th and early 19th century this would be the way of protecting yourself against the government and rebellion. All you needed was a sufficiently large group of people with at least a bit of training. But at the start of the 20th century the constitution doesnt hold up that well on the right to bear 'arms'. The draft is still used in most modern armies at this time (~1930), but a militia group just wont do it anymore. We have arrived at a stage were any rebellion against the government would end up like Syria if the government was serious enough to stop it or the rebels used violence as a means. The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?
Disciple of Fate wrote: The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?
You act as though the USA would be willing to bring it's full military might against its citizens. That would piss off almost all of our (Volunteer) soldiers, causing them to either refuse to fight or full out defecting. Also, the destruction caused by any real military weapon would cause too much collateral.
The moment the government brings out the tanks/planes/missles, it's instantly 50 states against D.C. Not to mention any country that gives us aid, because there are quite a few people who aren't a fan of the "meddling US Government".
Disciple of Fate wrote: The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?
You act as though the USA would be willing to bring it's full military might against its citizens. That would piss off almost all of our (Volunteer) soldiers, causing them to either refuse to fight or full out defecting. Also, the destruction caused by any real military weapon would cause too much collateral.
The moment the government brings out the tanks/planes/missles, it's instantly 50 states against D.C. Not to mention any country that gives us aid, because there are quite a few people who aren't a fan of the "meddling US Government".
Its not what I intended to mean. Off course the very idea is ridiculous that it would employ its might against citizens. But they just have to wait until the other side uses force. This will never happen in the foreseeable future. But with how much force is the government authorized to meet armed resistance? Surely enough as to save lives or preserve their own. But the idea that you can resist the government would lead to an escalation of conflict. Force would be countered by force, which would require more force from one side to be succesfull.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?
You act as though the USA would be willing to bring it's full military might against its citizens. That would piss off almost all of our (Volunteer) soldiers, causing them to either refuse to fight or full out defecting. Also, the destruction caused by any real military weapon would cause too much collateral.
The moment the government brings out the tanks/planes/missles, it's instantly 50 states against D.C. Not to mention any country that gives us aid, because there are quite a few people who aren't a fan of the "meddling US Government".
Its not what I intended to mean. Off course the very idea is ridiculous that it would employ its might against citizens. But they just have to wait until the other side uses force. This will never happen in the foreseeable future. But with how much force is the government authorized to meet armed resistance? Surely enough as to save lives or preserve their own. But the idea that you can resist the government would lead to an escalation of conflict. Force would be countered by force, which would require more force from one side to be succesfull.
No matter what, a large scale conflict in the United States would end with the rebellion winning; the civilians have access to just as big of non-mounted weapons as the military, even if we can't dress ours up as pretty with grenade launchers (Which would cause too much collateral damage in a crowded street) and the like, and even then all it would take is one military base to fall to the resistance.
While you could say that the military is more adequately trained with the use of their weapons (Which you would be right to say), you have to remember that ~1/4 or more of the military personal would defect due to them not agreeing with the government/getting tired of being gak on by the "1%".
A lot of the US' might rests in it's missles, tanks, and tech. you can't really deploy any of that on our own soil without causing too massive of a destruction. If the citizens rose up, the government would pretty much be forced into a corner to talk its way out.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?
You act as though the USA would be willing to bring it's full military might against its citizens. That would piss off almost all of our (Volunteer) soldiers, causing them to either refuse to fight or full out defecting. Also, the destruction caused by any real military weapon would cause too much collateral.
The moment the government brings out the tanks/planes/missles, it's instantly 50 states against D.C. Not to mention any country that gives us aid, because there are quite a few people who aren't a fan of the "meddling US Government".
Its not what I intended to mean. Off course the very idea is ridiculous that it would employ its might against citizens. But they just have to wait until the other side uses force. This will never happen in the foreseeable future. But with how much force is the government authorized to meet armed resistance? Surely enough as to save lives or preserve their own. But the idea that you can resist the government would lead to an escalation of conflict. Force would be countered by force, which would require more force from one side to be succesfull.
No matter what, a large scale conflict in the United States would end with the rebellion winning; the civilians have access to just as big of non-mounted weapons as the military, even if we can't dress ours up as pretty with grenade launchers (Which would cause too much collateral damage in a crowded street) and the like, and even then all it would take is one military base to fall to the resistance.
While you could say that the military is more adequately trained with the use of their weapons (Which you would be right to say), you have to remember that ~1/4 or more of the military personal would defect due to them not agreeing with the government/getting tired of being gak on by the "1%".
A lot of the US' might rests in it's missles, tanks, and tech. you can't really deploy any of that on our own soil without causing too massive of a destruction. If the citizens rose up, the government would pretty much be forced into a corner to talk its way out.
I could see a similar situation like the US civil war developing. For any meaningfull change to happen the people standing up to the goverment have to form a group, making it something akin to a military organization, against which force is authorized. Its difficult to say what would happen. A good amount of troops might defect to the otherside, but that would mean a large scale conflict. Now the amount of force deployed might get out of hand. But for any of this to happen there would have to be a very reasonably sized movement. I guess the idea of the government making it this bad would be almost unthinkable, but its also unthinkable what such a bad government might do.
It's not so much that they couldn't bring to bare all weapons at their disposal, it's more of they wouldn't; destroy a town in Afganistan, killing civilians, destroying buildings, and mucking up the infastructer?? Meh, who cares.
Destroy a US City, pay taxes to rebuild it, makes no one happy. Kill Citizens, lose tax money.
I'm not saying they wouldn't use Drones, armored Humvees, or similar, but any sort of self conflict (Barring of course, occupying resistance headquarters) on US Soil would never see missle strikes, carpet bombs, "Bringing the Rain", Tanks, or anything "large caliber".
Grot 6 wrote: As to that crack about US might. Too bad it isn't that simple. 9 times out of 10, your being duped into thinking that all they do is to just arbitrarily just start dropping drones on kids and old ladies. You aren't being told that the fighter has an AK and an RPG one minute, drops them after he ganks someone after tripping off an IED and walks around the corner, feigning ignorance. Using the kids and old ladies as cover, while he scurries off with someone on him, dead to rights and they use the noncombatants as human shields, or shoot through them to get at you. The above said issue is an ongoing occurrences.
You are not fighting cobra commander here, you are fighting an idea. It's harder and not as blasé as you post. There are a million different variables, not the most is that people fight with a hand tied behind their back that is both imposed, and taught.
As to the drone stuff, I wish it weren't true, but you don't know what your talking about on those.
Uh...... Sure?
Individual combatants may use human shields, but the government would NEVER airstrike their own taxpayers; they NEED people to support them. Not to mention a giant airstrike/bombing/whatever would just be fuel to the fire for any sort of resistance.
I'm fighting Larry, I accidently hit Tom. Tom's older brother/sister is now on his way over to kick my ass for hurting his/her little brother. Resistances/uprisings need to be handled with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.
You know, I'm not really that bothered by the idea of a surveillance program that scans for key words. I am bothered by the government's need to keep this whole thing secret.
I mean, there's the argument that if you have done nothing wrong then you shouldn't fear surveillance. Well, yeah, and if that's true then don't hide gak from us, government people.
whembly wrote: Eh... I feel like the Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials in trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception, and to media executives in search of an easy storyline to serve a celebrity-obsessed audience.
*jedi waves* Focus... this is not the scandal you're looking for....
Yep. Focusing on the guy who came out and said it, not what the person is actually saying. That was what was actually upsetting about the Valerie Plame thing, not whether someone technically revealed the identity of someone who was an actual or just a technical undercover CIA agent... but that as soon as Joe Wilson came out and stated publically that intelligence was being twisted to overstate the WMDs in Iraq, then the administration turned on him and his wife.
It's the same thing here, the debate has been shifted to whether Snowden is a hero or a villain. Whether he's one or the other or maybe a bit of both, he's just one guy and it doesn't fething matter. What matters is that massive surveillance program that government kept secret from the people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grot 6 wrote: In the evolution of the idea, we have the National guard/ reserves today, but people take care of their own, when the chips are down. Your a volunteer taking up your duty. You deal with a natural disaster and keep order.
Ultimately, though, that whole thing you described is just weirdly anachronistic. It made sense in the late 18th century, in an age where full professionalisation was still largely a generation away. But today we have people trained and specialised in professions, as part of large, co-ordinated organisations that simply work much better than volunteers rushing to the scene in a disorganised, shambolic way.
It's nice to think of a community all rushing together to fight a bushfire or whatever, but that's dangerous, ineffective, and about 200 years out of date. We do things with professionals in co-ordinated organisations now. It's better.
Wasnt it meant along the lines to bear 'arms' to be able to form militia groups. Back in the late 18th and early 19th century this would be the way of protecting yourself against the government and rebellion. All you needed was a sufficiently large group of people with at least a bit of training. But at the start of the 20th century the constitution doesnt hold up that well on the right to bear 'arms'. The draft is still used in most modern armies at this time (~1930), but a militia group just wont do it anymore. We have arrived at a stage were any rebellion against the government would end up like Syria if the government was serious enough to stop it or the rebels used violence as a means. The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?
That's kind of the point of my one school of thought. Without calling it right or wrong, the 'arms' of the 'militia' should hypothetically scale in capability to the 'arms' of the state, such that it always remains possible.
Of course, the point where you get into dangerous thinking is when you give anyone with the will to do so the ability to irradiate mass population centers regardless of political orientation. Likewise, also irradiating the midwest, which is the de facto producer of food for the country.
I never said it was an easy situation to deal with, but the alternative is effectively leaving the people at the mercy of the goodwill of the state, which I'm fairly certain was not the intention of our "founding fathers" either. Not necessarily on either side here. Just trying to look at it objectively.
No matter what, a large scale conflict in the United States would end with the rebellion winning.
Psst, don't tell the Confederacy. They might get more sullen about that whole Civil War thing.
Um....
You do realize that that wasn't citizens vs government, but more of government vs government, right? The Southern States broke off due to lower standards of living, slaves, and various other problems cropping up from the government. The North didn't like what the South was doing, and vice versa, dividing the entire nation.
If the citizens, which is all fifty states, don't like what the government is doing, which occupies a smaller "state" thing, the rebellion would have the man power, the equipment (If you assume even 5% of the Military defects to the rebellion) and the area, where as the government just has money. Money could also be given to the Rebels via other countries (Russia and China would LOVE to see chaos in the US, and I'm sure a couple of European countries would give one side or the other money).
Our troops (whatever-higher-power-you-believe-in bless them) have a hard time holding ground in a landmass that is maybe the size of Texas and California put together. Do you really think they could occupy the entire US?
5% of the U.S. military defecting in the event of a mass citizen's rebellion is laughably optimistic... for the U.S. government. 50% at a minimum, probably more, and that's just regular bodies of troops. National Guard and Reserve units would imho pretty much uniformly stand with their communities.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:5% of the U.S. military defecting in the event of a mass citizen's rebellion is laughably optimistic... for the U.S. government. 50% at a minimum, probably more, and that's just regular bodies of troops. National Guard and Reserve units would imho pretty much uniformly stand with their communities.
I'm not so sure. I think the institutionalization has a pretty dramatic effect, and given the attitudes of many people who immediately called Snowden a traitor for simply not obeying his "orders" despite those orders being morally wrong, I think guessing 50% is laughably high.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:5% of the U.S. military defecting in the event of a mass citizen's rebellion is laughably optimistic... for the U.S. government. 50% at a minimum, probably more, and that's just regular bodies of troops. National Guard and Reserve units would imho pretty much uniformly stand with their communities.
I'm not so sure. I think the institutionalization has a pretty dramatic effect, and given the attitudes of many people who immediately called Snowden a traitor for simply not obeying his "orders" despite those orders being morally wrong, I think guessing 50% is laughably high.
Uh... facing down your neighbors in your American Town is VASTLY different than opinionating some dude in China as a traiter.
Most of my Family has been or is currently in the Military... they'd expressed to me that 50% is laughably too low.
Even so, that 15% would quickly be able to train any sort of civilian troops, so only the Elite Navy Seals/Pararescue/Rangers would have the training advantage.
Attention: Due to certain vocabulary used in this conversation, the NSA is now monitoring you all for potential disloyalty and traitorous behavior, you will be possibly detained without due process for an unspecified period of time as per post 9/11 protocols as Liberties were voted away for the sake of State Security.
You will never have a revolution in the US. Despite any flaws the federal government may have, it's still competent and accountable enough to ensure we don't fall into the downward spiral that culminates in such horrible conditions that people are willing to risk their lives on the weakest chance that things may improve.
The recent revolutions in the middle east weren't people saying "hey, why don't we burn everything to the ground because the government is overstepping some abstract philosophical idea," it was "we can't continue to live in these conditions, I and everyone I know may die horribly but I'm too pissed off to have any sense of self-preservation left."
Unless China the PRC overtakes us and destroys us economically, things won't enter such a death spiral here, and if that happens... well, we'll just have to hope that the US can keep them (the PRC) down, and improvements in manufacturing technology will render their de facto slave labor uneconomic when the costs of shipping are considered.
Edit: put "China" instead of "the PRC"; China is basically a protectorate of the US, the PRC is the hostile regime occupying mainland China.
Hmmm, Cutting on social programs while handing massive handouts to Big OIl and other wealthy types is more than a mere abstract idea.
Corporations making laws and getting them passed is not making people angry enough(Monsanto Protection act, and the Law preventing whistleblowers from spying on abuses in the agro business in the midwest?)
The idea that we are gonna be restricted and spied on is not making folks angry enough.
I guess you are right, I have searched all my TV remotes and have yet to find the button marked "revolution" on it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:5% of the U.S. military defecting in the event of a mass citizen's rebellion is laughably optimistic... for the U.S. government. 50% at a minimum, probably more, and that's just regular bodies of troops. National Guard and Reserve units would imho pretty much uniformly stand with their communities.
I'm not so sure. I think the institutionalization has a pretty dramatic effect, and given the attitudes of many people who immediately called Snowden a traitor for simply not obeying his "orders" despite those orders being morally wrong, I think guessing 50% is laughably high.
Uh... facing down your neighbors in your American Town is VASTLY different than opinionating some dude in China as a traiter.
Most of my Family has been or is currently in the Military... they'd expressed to me that 50% is laughably too low.
Oh, you think so? Because Snowden has been "othered" pretty severely and quickly. If you were in the military, you might not want to face down your neighbours. But (you're from MO, right?) I bet you'd have few issues taking down a "domestic terrorist threat" in, say, Oregon.
shasolenzabi wrote: Hmmm, Cutting on social programs while handing massive handouts to Big OIl and other wealthy types is more than a mere abstract idea.
Corporations making laws and getting them passed is not making people angry enough(Monsanto Protection act, and the Law preventing whistleblowers from spying on abuses in the agro business in the midwest?)
The idea that we are gonna be restricted and spied on is not making folks angry enough.
I guess you are right, I have searched all my TV remotes and have yet to find the button marked "revolution" on it.
Compared to a bankrupt state disappearing you, your family, and everyone you've ever met for mentioning any of these things, yeah, those are pretty much "transgressions of abstract philosophical ideals".
First world revolutionary wannabes don't seem to realize that what revolutionaries elsewhere fight for is the slimmest chance that things might be a tenth as good as our worst. What you see as a miserable, intolerable state of affairs is like a magical fantasy-land ideal that they can barely dream of, and they're willing to risk everything just to have the chance at something worse than we can even properly conceptualize.
This is hyperbole to an extent, but seriously, things are damn good here, and the trend is towards further improvement, for all the flaws and excesses along the way.
I'm saying 50% based on personal experience with a large body of members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Most of us are in it for the country, not the government, and if the government turns on the country you get the military turning on the government. Maybe they spend all the money they save by rationing health care in Canada on brainwashing your military into good little drones but that's just not how it works down here.
I recall a time, back when news was actually hard hitting journalism where half of what has taken place here with the erosion of liberties and the erection of a growing police state would be vilified to the max but as we see the new trend in news is to regurgitate what the government spews out, and who is leading in popularity on reality shows and what is Lady Gaga wearing next? We no longer have the kind of journalism that toppled the Nixon Regime, or exposed the kinds of disasters like "Love Canal" where some pretty dangerous stuff occurs, not that it makes any of the other things elsewhere in the world that causes revolutions less important, but in pieces we are headed there as can be seen in the non main stream media
We as a nation are under the control of a Banker system, the same bankers that make the conditions in the so called 3rd world a reality, we do have the reality here that is glossed over of "Corporate Welfare" and "Upward Socialism" where the majority of the cash flow that is so important heads to one or a few, same as in these other nations where folks are so angry, yes we do live better than most nations, same in Europe and Japan in comparison. Now for such a wealthy nation as the US the unemployment figures are likely in reality far higher as those who never enrolled in unemployment are not used and neither are those whose unemployment ended, even if they have not been hired. We have the other problem of food being discarded and wasted for sitting too long unbought on store shelves, 14million tons each year tossed to the landfills, that food could have been used to feed the hungry in this nation, or help the people revolting over seas no? of course not, that would cut profits so heavily! You seem to think only abstract issues are here in America, but it is a measure of scale and relativity in each nation. It just gets so much worse in the other nations because they are already on the shoestring budget as is
Here the government can afford to use technology to monitor us and make a move only if we act on the words, over there they have not such so act on the words pre-emptively, sad as it is for them to do so as it shows governments in fear of their citizens to the extreme end.
Things are damn good here only so long as you have enough money to be comfortable.
shasolenzabi wrote: I recall a time, back when news was actually hard hitting journalism...
Why I recall when negroes kept in line, and you could smack up a woman for getting uppity. Yep, them's the good days when everyone had a job and the government was just peaches.
Seriously man, that world you're imagining? It never existed, and what we have now is much closer to what you want than the reality of the age you're reminiscing about. We've gone from wallowing in muck to standing atop a hill, and you're complaining that we can't fly like we used to (you know, when we also couldn't fly).
shasolenzabi wrote: I recall a time, back when news was actually hard hitting journalism...
Why I recall when negroes kept in line, and you could smack up a woman for getting uppity. Yep, them's the good days when everyone had a job and the government was just peaches.
Seriously man, that world you're imagining? It never existed, and what we have now is much closer to what you want than the reality of the age you're reminiscing about. We've gone from wallowing in muck to standing atop a hill, and you're complaining that we can't fly like we used to (you know, when we also couldn't fly).
The news methods of which I speak helped also topple such things as segregation and helped makes strides in exposing and shaming domestic abuse, nowadays the news is more a rating maker for the sake of the ratings. So, hard hitting journalism used to exist, it was and still is needed, now we get to know what is worn by celebrities, over some needed news. Not much is heard of after effects of oil spills like the Gulf anymore as it is out of sight, out of mind.
As to how this is part of the Original topic, well, whether Manning did know full well of the war crimes he was exposing, or was eh just a hurt person lashing out? the government loves to discredit as it does more harm then outright killing you. The news on wikileaks indicates that Mannings' trial is basically a Kangaroo Court, no defense witnesses allowed, no evidence for the defense allowed and some sessions in utter secrecy, When I served in the 1980's we had the Cold War, but we also had given to us the difference between lawful and un lawful orders and to think not blindly obey. That was almost 30 yrs ago, not sure what they teach nowadays.
As for Snowden, it seems corporations are all giving the exact same points to make sure the public does not see them as culpable with the PRISM as the case of the new X-Box-One is also capable of allowing itself to be used by PRISM so we would be paying for the privilege of installing spy gear into our homes under the guise of a gaming/entertainment system? I love how the Big Brother Government we have allowed to come to be has it so that we would be watchable at all times and we foot the bill to install the crap, bad enough the cable companies and phone companies also do this.
That hill you speak of, well, it is part of the "Warm fuzzy Bubble" that has been crafted by the Corporate=Government=media hype to help keep people passive and under docility as the eduction system is being geared to dumb down people as far as civil lessons and political realism are also left undone is that it is easier to vote for the loudest rather than the issues. Too many want to go with the flow as it is the easiest fo rthey fear the hammer nailing down the nail that sticks it's head up and all of that. I am not advocating violent overthrow, but for educating ourselves to make our decisions based on careful, observations, we can vote at the booths, vote at the store with our wallets, we can make changes but only if we do so, sitting and watching the talent and reality shows is how they keep us all under control here in America. That and all the pharmaceuticals prescribed for those who start to notice the flaws and say something or are overwhelmed by it all.
America was not superb but it definitely made a dark turn at 9/11/2001 and now we need to turn around and regain a more Democratic Course than we are on now.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm saying 50% based on personal experience with a large body of members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Most of us are in it for the country, not the government, and if the government turns on the country you get the military turning on the government. Maybe they spend all the money they save by rationing health care in Canada on brainwashing your military into good little drones but that's just not how it works down here.
My point is that it won't look like the government is turning on the people. At no point will the president laugh maniacally and shout "haha now tremble before my presidential might and despair! It's time to round up the masses and send them to work camps, haha!" Any change like that would come very slowly, and it wouldn't look like you're turning against the country -it'd look like you were doing what's right, which is what you're told to do, which is the entire mentality of the military: follow orders.
Ours is not to reason why / ours is but to do and die
The news methods of which I speak helped also topple such things as segregation and helped makes strides in exposing and shaming domestic abuse, nowadays the news is more a rating maker for the sake of the ratings. So, hard hitting journalism used to exist, it was and still is needed, now we get to know what is worn by celebrities, over some needed news. Not much is heard of after effects of oil spills like the Gulf anymore as it is out of sight, out of mind.
As to how this is part of the Original topic, well, whether Manning did know full well of the war crimes he was exposing, or was eh just a hurt person lashing out? the government loves to discredit as it does more harm then outright killing you. The news on wikileaks indicates that Mannings' trial is basically a Kangaroo Court, no defense witnesses allowed, no evidence for the defense allowed and some sessions in utter secrecy, When I served in the 1980's we had the Cold War, but we also had given to us the difference between lawful and un lawful orders and to think not blindly obey. That was almost 30 yrs ago, not sure what they teach nowadays.
As for Snowden, it seems corporations are all giving the exact same points to make sure the public does not see them as culpable with the PRISM as the case of the new X-Box-One is also capable of allowing itself to be used by PRISM so we would be paying for the privilege of installing spy gear into our homes under the guise of a gaming/entertainment system? I love how the Big Brother Government we have allowed to come to be has it so that we would be watchable at all times and we foot the bill to install the crap, bad enough the cable companies and phone companies also do this.
That hill you speak of, well, it is part of the "Warm fuzzy Bubble" that has been crafted by the Corporate=Government=media hype to help keep people passive and under docility as the eduction system is being geared to dumb down people as far as civil lessons and political realism are also left undone is that it is easier to vote for the loudest rather than the issues. Too many want to go with the flow as it is the easiest fo rthey fear the hammer nailing down the nail that sticks it's head up and all of that. I am not advocating violent overthrow, but for educating ourselves to make our decisions based on careful, observations, we can vote at the booths, vote at the store with our wallets, we can make changes but only if we do so, sitting and watching the talent and reality shows is how they keep us all under control here in America. That and all the pharmaceuticals prescribed for those who start to notice the flaws and say something or are overwhelmed by it all.
America was not superb but it definitely made a dark turn at 9/11/2001 and now we need to turn around and regain a more Democratic Course than we are on now.
What I'm saying is all of those problems were the same or worse before, and there were a whole lot of other problems too, many of them even worse. We see things in a different light because no one bothers to remember the problems, and sees only a few isolated events we've since come to regard as positive in relative isolation.
I'm not about to say we don't have problems today, but these problems have haunted us for generations in one form or another, and we're slowly wearing them away and fixing them. It's still worth working towards their solutions, but we can't try to hold a fantasy idea of yesterday as an ideal we should strive for.
The news methods of which I speak helped also topple such things as segregation and helped makes strides in exposing and shaming domestic abuse, nowadays the news is more a rating maker for the sake of the ratings. So, hard hitting journalism used to exist, it was and still is needed, now we get to know what is worn by celebrities, over some needed news. Not much is heard of after effects of oil spills like the Gulf anymore as it is out of sight, out of mind.
As to how this is part of the Original topic, well, whether Manning did know full well of the war crimes he was exposing, or was eh just a hurt person lashing out? the government loves to discredit as it does more harm then outright killing you. The news on wikileaks indicates that Mannings' trial is basically a Kangaroo Court, no defense witnesses allowed, no evidence for the defense allowed and some sessions in utter secrecy, When I served in the 1980's we had the Cold War, but we also had given to us the difference between lawful and un lawful orders and to think not blindly obey. That was almost 30 yrs ago, not sure what they teach nowadays.
As for Snowden, it seems corporations are all giving the exact same points to make sure the public does not see them as culpable with the PRISM as the case of the new X-Box-One is also capable of allowing itself to be used by PRISM so we would be paying for the privilege of installing spy gear into our homes under the guise of a gaming/entertainment system? I love how the Big Brother Government we have allowed to come to be has it so that we would be watchable at all times and we foot the bill to install the crap, bad enough the cable companies and phone companies also do this.
That hill you speak of, well, it is part of the "Warm fuzzy Bubble" that has been crafted by the Corporate=Government=media hype to help keep people passive and under docility as the eduction system is being geared to dumb down people as far as civil lessons and political realism are also left undone is that it is easier to vote for the loudest rather than the issues. Too many want to go with the flow as it is the easiest fo rthey fear the hammer nailing down the nail that sticks it's head up and all of that. I am not advocating violent overthrow, but for educating ourselves to make our decisions based on careful, observations, we can vote at the booths, vote at the store with our wallets, we can make changes but only if we do so, sitting and watching the talent and reality shows is how they keep us all under control here in America. That and all the pharmaceuticals prescribed for those who start to notice the flaws and say something or are overwhelmed by it all.
America was not superb but it definitely made a dark turn at 9/11/2001 and now we need to turn around and regain a more Democratic Course than we are on now.
What I'm saying is all of those problems were the same or worse before, and there were a whole lot of other problems too, many of them even worse. We see things in a different light because no one bothers to remember the problems, and sees only a few isolated events we've since come to regard as positive in relative isolation.
I'm not about to say we don't have problems today, but these problems have haunted us for generations in one form or another, and we're slowly wearing them away and fixing them. It's still worth working towards their solutions, but we can't try to hold a fantasy idea of yesterday as an ideal we should strive for.
I agree, we do have a ways to go, and in many ways, 9/11 made us back pedal to an nigh McCarthy-esque era, I say we get away from such a deal and head forwards and regain democracy and civil liberties and dismantle the burgeoning Police State that has been happening with Corporate spurring on.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm saying 50% based on personal experience with a large body of members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Most of us are in it for the country, not the government, and if the government turns on the country you get the military turning on the government. Maybe they spend all the money they save by rationing health care in Canada on brainwashing your military into good little drones but that's just not how it works down here.
My point is that it won't look like the government is turning on the people. At no point will the president laugh maniacally and shout "haha now tremble before my presidential might and despair! It's time to round up the masses and send them to work camps, haha!" Any change like that would come very slowly, and it wouldn't look like you're turning against the country -it'd look like you were doing what's right, which is what you're told to do, which is the entire mentality of the military: follow orders.
Nah, it's pretty obvious that that's something the Vice President would do.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm saying 50% based on personal experience with a large body of members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Most of us are in it for the country, not the government, and if the government turns on the country you get the military turning on the government. Maybe they spend all the money they save by rationing health care in Canada on brainwashing your military into good little drones but that's just not how it works down here.
My point is that it won't look like the government is turning on the people. At no point will the president laugh maniacally and shout "haha now tremble before my presidential might and despair! It's time to round up the masses and send them to work camps, haha!" Any change like that would come very slowly, and it wouldn't look like you're turning against the country -it'd look like you were doing what's right, which is what you're told to do, which is the entire mentality of the military: follow orders.
Ours is not to reason why / ours is but to do and die
(I probably misquoted that)
No you quoted it right, but you'd be shocked how much actual THINKING this country's military does as individuals. Yours too. There's plenty of idiots in the military but there's a delineation you're not grasping in all of this. The popularity of the Oathkeepers movement in the U.S. military is proof enough of that.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm saying 50% based on personal experience with a large body of members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Most of us are in it for the country, not the government, and if the government turns on the country you get the military turning on the government. Maybe they spend all the money they save by rationing health care in Canada on brainwashing your military into good little drones but that's just not how it works down here.
My point is that it won't look like the government is turning on the people. At no point will the president laugh maniacally and shout "haha now tremble before my presidential might and despair! It's time to round up the masses and send them to work camps, haha!" Any change like that would come very slowly, and it wouldn't look like you're turning against the country -it'd look like you were doing what's right, which is what you're told to do, which is the entire mentality of the military: follow orders.
Ours is not to reason why / ours is but to do and die
(I probably misquoted that)
No you quoted it right, but you'd be shocked how much actual THINKING this country's military does as individuals. Yours too. There's plenty of idiots in the military but there's a delineation you're not grasping in all of this. The popularity of the Oathkeepers movement in the U.S. military is proof enough of that.
This ^
Azazel... you're dangerously close to insinuating that Military folks can't think for themselves.
What he's saying is that the situation wouldn't be the clear cut "welp, the people are revolting, get in there and butcher the sumbitches," but more "domestic terrorists are attacking [wherever], get in there and keep the peace/save the hostages/protect the infrastructure" or "people are rioting [wherever], go provide backup/moral support to the police".
Remember that things don't go from good to armed revolt overnight; if things started going downhill and the state became more and more repressive, do you really think the people who'd be morally opposed to cracking down on dissidents would be enlisting? Do you think the military wouldn't alter its training to make its soldiers more damaged and blindly obedient rather than maintaining the comparatively healthy state of affairs it has now?
The whole "what would the military do if the people revolted" question can't be regarded in isolation from the issues that would be requisites for such a revolt.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: What he's saying is that the situation wouldn't be the clear cut "welp, the people are revolting, get in there and butcher the sumbitches," but more "domestic terrorists are attacking [wherever], get in there and keep the peace/save the hostages/protect the infrastructure" or "people are rioting [wherever], go provide backup/moral support to the police".
Remember that things don't go from good to armed revolt overnight; if things started going downhill and the state became more and more repressive, do you really think the people who'd be morally opposed to cracking down on dissidents would be enlisting? Do you think the military wouldn't alter its training to make its soldiers more damaged and blindly obedient rather than maintaining the comparatively healthy state of affairs it has now?
The whole "what would the military do if the people revolted" question can't be regarded in isolation from the issues that would be requisites for such a revolt.
And when those service men hit the grounds and starts seeing what's going on, they'll put 2 + 2 together.
Besides, only the National Guard can intervene domestically. That's what we're talking about.
I see quite a few here went to the "deep end" unsupervised.....
Whembly....The National Guard unit can be run by the state for up to 30 days. After that they go on Title 10 order for up to 392 days and then own by the Federal Government. Individuals National Guard members can go full time on separate orders for the State they're in.
Sir Pseudonymous
Remember that things don't go from good to armed revolt overnight; if things started going downhill and the state became more and more repressive, do you really think the people who'd be morally opposed to cracking down on dissidents would be enlisting? Do you think the military wouldn't alter its training to make its soldiers more damaged and blindly obedient rather than maintaining the comparatively healthy state of affairs it has now?
We had this major thread awhile back. The OWS thread where we went over this. Doesn't matter what training or doctrine that's involve. If we, as in the military, are deployed on home soil. It comes down to two type of orders. Lawful or Unlawful Orders. Individual troopers are not going to make the final decision for the unit. Its up to the Unit Officers and NCO's to either execute the mission with little impact as we can or simply say "No" depending on the order that is giving. This is a thread all to itself. This is a topic that will cover a lot of ground as we go over what is a lawful order and what is a unlawful order and why. Also we have to go down into the "UH Fudge Me Running" avenue to
Azazel
My point is that it won't look like the government is turning on the people. At no point will the president laugh maniacally and shout "haha now tremble before my presidential might and despair! It's time to round up the masses and send them to work camps, haha!" Any change like that would come very slowly, and it wouldn't look like you're turning against the country -it'd look like you were doing what's right, which is what you're told to do, which is the entire mentality of the military: follow orders. Ours is not to reason why / ours is but to do and die
(I probably misquoted that)
Lawful and Unlawful Order for the bold.
Your quote...."Do or Die" we prefer Patton quote. DO not dare go SPQR on me.....
The whole "what would the military do if the people revolted" question can't be regarded in isolation from the issues that would be requisites for such a revolt.
You can't think of it in terms of what the current military would do if tomorrow they were ordered to crush some mass popular uprising that also just magically sprung from nowhere. The ridiculously improbable chain of events that would be required for the US to suffer a revolution would necessarily fundamentally change how the military recruited and indoctrinated soldiers. The intelligence agencies also aren't stupid, and if things entered the death spiral wherein revolt becomes an inevitable outcome they would surely cull potentially problematic officers (if the military wasn't doing the job for them).
Jihadin wrote: I see quite a few here went to the "deep end" unsupervised.....
Whembly....The National Guard unit can be run by the state for up to 30 days. After that they go on Title 10 order for up to 392 days and then own by the Federal Government. Individuals National Guard members can go full time on separate orders for the State they're in.
Woah there cowboy... yeah, I know that.
Also, folks keep forgetting That Posse Commitatus Act.
Ahtman wrote: Texans would disagree, but then they are a bunch of dirty squatters that can't decide on what they want to be.
Never ask a man if he's from Virginia. If he is, he'll tell you. If he's not, you don't want to embarrass him.
As for the other conversation, 50% sounds about right. We can look at places like Libya and Syria, where presumably these magical indoctrination techniques that have been talked about were used, and still see the military defecting to the rebel cause in great numbers.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm saying 50% based on personal experience with a large body of members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Most of us are in it for the country, not the government, and if the government turns on the country you get the military turning on the government.
And what will the military do after it turns on the government? Rule until the country is what it wants it to be?
I mean, that's fine, it is a tradition of the Americas; especially South America. But I'm not sure how well military dictatorship would go over with the US populace.
The military has displayed it's willingness to open fire on peaceful, unarmed civilian protesters before, so I don't think it would be much of a stretch to imagine them being willing to do the same in the event those civilians had guns.
As previously mentioned, die-hard state loyalty is a thing of the past. For every person willing to die for their state, there are ten people who don't really care. Gone are the days when most people lived and died in the same state, without once crossing state lines.
Also, a widespread rebellion would never happen, as most people actually aren't interested in dragging the country into an armed conflict on American soil, believe it or not. They may not like the president, or Congress, but they aren't going to grab the ol' 12 gauge off the mantle, quit their job and go die because of it. The only people that would actually consider going to war against the US government are a vocal minority. The rest of the citizenry is a tad more sensible.
I my 22 yrs in the military...I cannot remember or recall any of us willing to fire on a open peaceful protest...unless your saying we are the same military types from Kent state of...what....30 plus yrs ago? When the National Guard open fire at a possible shooter. If the military is still judge that way from 30 plus years ago then by Gawd then we blindly follow orders from the President....frog march everyone into the FEMA Death Camps. Throw the protester against the wall and shoot them then put a round into their head to ensure their dead. Hang possible/suspected/unlucky soul I can claim as a partisans up by piano wire. Start executing partisan families and friends. Have mass burning of literature that's not on the proscribed reading list of the government. Declare what property is commercial or residential....and Gawd forbid if you live in a designated commercial area that was consider residential yesterday. Its a good way to start the day with a commercial/residential cleansing day at a mass grave deep in the woods. Since we're a modern military we do not care what race or ethnicity you are you still get the same laugh as your kicking in the wind. Also the US Military value initiative so if the death camps are getting full we just round up a couple hundred unlucky souls and have a mass police call at a recent democratic political rally and then burn and bury the trash and non conformist in one area and call it a day. All this and more if we're judged from 30 plus years ago.....its easy to slide back another 30+ yrs.
rubiksnoob wrote: The military has displayed it's willingness to open fire on peaceful, unarmed civilian protesters before, so I don't think it would be much of a stretch to imagine them being willing to do the same in the event those civilians had guns.
I'm guessing you're referring to Kent state? that's just the natural result of sending individuals trained poorly for one job (National Guard infantry) to go do another job that requires a fair amount of guts and experience to handle properly (counter protest/riot control)
Jihadin wrote: I my 22 yrs in the military...I cannot remember or recall any of us willing to fire on a open peaceful protest...unless your saying we are the same military types from Kent state of...what....30 plus yrs ago? When the National Guard open fire at a possible shooter. If the military is still judge that way from 30 plus years ago then by Gawd then we blindly follow orders from the President....frog march everyone into the FEMA Death Camps. Throw the protester against the wall and shoot them then put a round into their head to ensure their dead. Hang possible/suspected/unlucky soul I can claim as a partisans up by piano wire. Start executing partisan families and friends. Have mass burning of literature that's not on the proscribed reading list of the government. Declare what property is commercial or residential....and Gawd forbid if you live in a designated commercial area that was consider residential yesterday. Its a good way to start the day with a commercial/residential cleansing day at a mass grave deep in the woods. Since we're a modern military we do not care what race or ethnicity you are you still get the same laugh as your kicking in the wind. Also the US Military value initiative so if the death camps are getting full we just round up a couple hundred unlucky souls and have a mass police call at a recent democratic political rally and then burn and bury the trash and non conformist in one area and call it a day. All this and more if we're judged from 30 plus years ago.....its easy to slide back another 30+ yrs.
I'm thinking it has more to do with human nature than with anything inherent to the military. The military has certainly changed in the past 30-40 years, but have people? The Guardsmen at Kent State claimed they opened fire because they feared for their lives. And that was against a bunch of unarmed student protestors! My point was that, if a perceived threat to your (general "you", not specific) life is enough to make you open fire on people who are unarmed, would it not be just as easy, if not easier, to open fire on people who are armed, and clearing presenting a much greater threat?
Especially when if you weren't on duty you'd probably be over there with them. Our armed forces are made up of people too. They aren't the mindless drones of the government.
During the Civil War, the army split. It didn't remain completely loyal to the government. If anything, it was way less pronounced then and the defection was more along officer vs enlisted lines(large reason why the South did so well initially was because the majority of the experienced officers defected to the South)
Now it would be a much larger chunk of the army going to the other side.
Plus there would be sections that wouldn't defect but would refuse to fire on Americans citizens.
In all honesty, I am so glad that we never got the launch orders back in '84/85 when in Germany. My old unit is now a normal arty one no more Nukes since the Pershings got scrapped. I had men in my unit willing to launch if the order came, no questions asked.
Slarg232 wrote: You do realize that that wasn't citizens vs government, but more of government vs government, right? The Southern States broke off due to lower standards of living, slaves, and various other problems cropping up from the government. The North didn't like what the South was doing, and vice versa, dividing the entire nation.
If the citizens, which is all fifty states, don't like what the government is doing, which occupies a smaller "state" thing, the rebellion would have the man power, the equipment (If you assume even 5% of the Military defects to the rebellion) and the area, where as the government just has money. Money could also be given to the Rebels via other countries (Russia and China would LOVE to see chaos in the US, and I'm sure a couple of European countries would give one side or the other money).
Revolutions don't work like you're theorising above. The idea that the people en masse just decide to start resisting their government is just way too simplistic. People support and oppose governments for a wide variety of reasons - I mean look at your own revolution. There was no shortage of loyalists to the crown amongst the native population.
In revolution what you see is 'some portion of the people' vs 'some portion of the people + government', with the relative portion in each side rising and falling over time, depending on how smart each side plays their cards.
I think that's a bs study to make this argument...
In that study, the person was isolated with that authoritative figure...
Not applicable in a unit.
Two points:
1. Your willful ignorance makes me sad. The Milgram experiment is one of the most famous psychology experiments in history.
2. The effect actually gets compounded when groups are used.
If you want to dismiss evidence because it doesn't correspond to your worldview, then we're done here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:Yeah, I was gonna say. We don't really want guys doing Point/Counter-Point with the order originator when it comes to nuclear launches.
And do you want guys doing point/counterpoint when it comes to any other orders?
Yeah Az, there's a WHOLE section of international and military law that REQUIRES "point/counter point" for orders. Maybe you could go to a Canadian Forces base and shadow for a day or something like that, you might learn something about how the military actually works.
I think that's a bs study to make this argument...
In that study, the person was isolated with that authoritative figure...
Not applicable in a unit.
Two points:
1. Your willful ignorance makes me sad. The Milgram experiment is one of the most famous psychology experiments in history.
2. The effect actually gets compounded when groups are used.
If you want to dismiss evidence because it doesn't correspond to your worldview, then we're done here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:Yeah, I was gonna say. We don't really want guys doing Point/Counter-Point with the order originator when it comes to nuclear launches.
And do you want guys doing point/counterpoint when it comes to any other orders?
Okay... disclaimer... I just downed 2 bottles of wine tonight (that's for d-usa )
But, I've been an avid student of this study...
Even Eli Roth did a documentry on this study (if you havn't seen it, it's really well done).
But... equating this study's result to predicting that the US armed services will willinging fire on their neighbors is just fething ridiculous man...
I said it a few posts up and I'll it again - revolutions do not fething work like you are all theorising.
There is no sudden, spontaneous moment where all the people decide they're going to resist their government, at which point the government gives an order to the army to go and suppress the population. It does not happen.
Just, go read about, I don't know, the Spanish Civil War. Or the Russian Revolution. Or any revolution, really.
A revolution, basically by definition, is a devisive issue.. Even when the government is despotic and not democratically elected, you'll still find a large portion of the population will support it. In Saddam's Iraq he still had plenty of support among the ethnic and tribal groups his regime had secured their power base through. As such, for any military unit, the question is not 'will you shoot your own population?' but 'which group of the population will you shoot?"
azazel the cat wrote: And do you want guys doing point/counterpoint when it comes to any other orders?
Are they lawful?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yeah Az, there's a WHOLE section of international and military law that REQUIRES "point/counter point" for orders. Maybe you could go to a Canadian Forces base and shadow for a day or something like that, you might learn something about how the military actually works.
Was it lawful to go after the Branch Davidians? (answer: yes)
The point is, if the military were to go after the population, the guy mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon isn't going to be the target; it would be the guys holed up in a complex, like Koresh. And while that wasn't a military action, I really do not think the privates in the US army are trained to use their judgement more than the FBI.
The point is, if the military were to go after the population, the guy mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon isn't going to be the target; it would be the guys holed up in a complex, like Koresh. And while that wasn't a military action, I really do not think the privates in the US army are trained to use their judgement more than the FBI.
And if the chain of command went general officers -> privates, we'd have a bit of a problem if you're correct. Fortunately, there're a few steps on the ladder in between.
And despite your explanation, I still have no idea what the Branch Davidians have to do with this.
azazel the cat wrote: And do you want guys doing point/counterpoint when it comes to any other orders?
Are they lawful?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yeah Az, there's a WHOLE section of international and military law that REQUIRES "point/counter point" for orders. Maybe you could go to a Canadian Forces base and shadow for a day or something like that, you might learn something about how the military actually works.
Was it lawful to go after the Branch Davidians? (answer: yes)
The point is, if the military were to go after the population, the guy mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon isn't going to be the target; it would be the guys holed up in a complex, like Koresh. And while that wasn't a military action, I really do not think the privates in the US army are trained to use their judgement more than the FBI.
Actually, burning people alive /isn't/ a lawful use of force, and there's long been questions and a pretty significant cover up by the FBI and ATF about the mess at the compound. I know folks in Waco, and they all tend to see the Federales as the bad guys in that situation.
Fun fact: It IS completely illegal for the U.S. Military to operate on U.S. soil.
Fun Fact: Actually cops do think less then soldiers when it comes to "opposing unlawful orders" it's a completely different job and mindset for one, and I doubt cops receive instruction about identifying, refusing and otherwise protesting unlawful orders in their basic training. (Cops in my experience tend to go more "Judge Dredd" when it comes to what's "lawful" or not) but then police officers don't have the results of the Nuremberg Trials as legal precedent. Let me be perfectly clear. I received a lengthy and detailed period of instruction on the "Just Following Orders" defense, why that gak doesn't fly in this man's Marine Corps, or in the legal world, along with an extensive listing of the U.S.'s failures in the war crimes department over the last two centuries and some change, with special detail on the My Lai Massacre since that's the Corp's personal dishonor. It was a fun hour or so trust me. Right between some long lectures on the Law of Armed Conflict, the Law of Land Warfare and the Geneva Conventions. Dry stuff but you gotta know the legalities to do your job right these days. Not that I think we need classes to know to avoid shooting bad guys with glass bullets.
Thread is making me laugh. Thanks Second to last chemo treatment tomorrow
Spoiler:
US Military dealing with budget cuts. We cannot conduct operations within the US due to lack of funds. We've enough money to send a Predator drone with a couple Hellfire. Since its cheaper to put a Hellfire through a window to opt you out while on the crapper....why the crapper you say? Less money involve in training a operator to nail a stationary target then a moving target.....back to what I was saying...one drone in operation is cheaper then putting a company of grunts in the woods to surround "Joe Bob" makeshift FoB and having the FBI make coffee runs while we conduct anti insurgent operations to ensure the domestic enemy FoB is not being supplied by the locals......nvm....there are no locals....everyone guilty of being insurgents. Guilty by Association!
Since the military blindly follows all orders and "work for free" we be happy to conduct a "cordon and search" at the local town that's 12 miles down the road. Why twelve miles down the road? Well we are require to complete twelve miles in under three hours wearing full battle rattle. Also cheaper (budget cuts remember) We just met up with our MRAPS, MATV's and Frag 7's outside of town instead of wasting gas hauling our chubby little butts to the AO. Since we work for free since we love working for the POTUS....all at night....that way the towns folk won't hear us coming at 0200 in the morning.....since we work for free and we love working for the POTUS even at 0200 in the morning because we blindly follow orders and also the Privates are a major influence in our Chain of Command since they LOVE WORKING FOR FREE because they love the POTUS...even at 0200 in the morning
minor correction......replace all 0200 with "Oh Dark thirty hours butt crack at dawn" execution time
Since we surrounded the town and gathered up all towns folk we have to force march them to the FEMA Death Camps...why the force march? Well the operation only called for MRAPS, MATV's and Frag 7's. Due to budget cuts we can only afford fuel for these tactical vehicles. No funds for LMTV's, 5tons, and other cargo carrying vehicles...btw the 1st Hellfire took out "Joe Bob" while on the crapper and the second Hellfire took out the SUV that parked out front. Due to budget cuts the operator made sure to place the Hellfire between the SUV and the main building. Maximize the collateral damage.
Due to budget cuts and the US military loves working for free since we love working for POTUS..something to that effect. We can only provide water and rations to military personnel. Those civilians that fall out to side of the road from exhaustion since we're reenacting the "Bataan Death March" (we have to fit in "SGT TIme" training this week) will be bayoneted...repeatedly till the PFCIFC tells us to stop. Its cheaper to slide 6" of cold steel between the ribs. 5.56mm Ball rounds cost a little over a dollar now and we still need to qualify on the range at a future time and date. DHS will not part with ammo due to budget cuts
Since we are a "all volunteer army" that works for free since we love working for the POTUS. We are held to a higher standard. There will be no raping or murdering.....well it won't be reported since prosecution under UCMJ takes time and money...since we're dealing with Budget Cuts the NCO's will conduct "Frontier Justice" Texas style. Due to budget cuts the convict will have removed all article of clothing and boots military in nature to be reissue at a later time to a brand new private joining the US Military and strung up at the closest tree with recoverable "550" cord. Use of cord will not exceed more then 4ft.....budget cuts remember....time permitting...since time is a money issue to we more likely go with throwing him/her under the wheel of MRAP...repeatedly till confirm dead.....in reality since we're limited on water and rations we probably slide 8" of cold steel across his/her throat. Since the wildlife has to eat to we leave them unburied same as the towns folk we killed along the way.
Since we now have a ghost town with running water, electricity, toilets that flush, a Walmart and decent hardtop roads. The US Government can put in a ammunition plant to help ease the ammo shortage country wide. So the Senator of that state can be reelected running on the ticket he/she brought jobs to their state in time of economic hardship. Also affordable housing near a Walmart....all this provided by a military that loves working for free since we blindly follow the POTUS orders so he/she can be reelected to by showing the rest of the US he/she can provide cheap housing, jobs, and whatever else they can throw in for a positive effect.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Fun fact: It IS completely illegal for the U.S. Military to operate on U.S. soil.
Fun fact - when talking about a theoretical future in which political division has become significant enough that people are actually engaging in some form of actual rebellion, then when one or both sides try to involve US military assets no-one is going to give a gak whether or not it is legal.
azazel the cat wrote: And do you want guys doing point/counterpoint when it comes to any other orders?
Are they lawful?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yeah Az, there's a WHOLE section of international and military law that REQUIRES "point/counter point" for orders. Maybe you could go to a Canadian Forces base and shadow for a day or something like that, you might learn something about how the military actually works.
Was it lawful to go after the Branch Davidians? (answer: yes)
The point is, if the military were to go after the population, the guy mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon isn't going to be the target; it would be the guys holed up in a complex, like Koresh. And while that wasn't a military action, I really do not think the privates in the US army are trained to use their judgement more than the FBI.
Actually, burning people alive /isn't/ a lawful use of force, and there's long been questions and a pretty significant cover up by the FBI and ATF about the mess at the compound. I know folks in Waco, and they all tend to see the Federales as the bad guys in that situation.
Then the folks you know in Waco do not understand what the Davidians were (answer: a dangerous cult led my a murderous nutcase).
To those who are presently or have been enlisted in military service: can you give me an example of an engage/do not engage situation wherein you've had the choice, beyond predetermined rules of engagement? (as in, did you have the choice to simply not engage with an allegedly hostile force, as opposed to only the choice of how to engage?)
To those who are presently or have been enlisted in military service: can you give me an example of an engage/do not engage situation wherein you've had the choice, beyond predetermined rules of engagement? (as in, did you have the choice to simply not engage with an allegedly hostile force, as opposed to only the choice of how to engage?)
Az....that's a damn can of worms your asking to open up. Not many of us on here can fully explain, elaborate, justify, and clarify every incident of a fire fight or what actually lead into a fire fight. Well explain in a timely manner since all kinds of questions are going to be popping up left and right and those of us trying to explain will be licknsticking replies all over the place.
Best I can do since this is of sensitive nature you see later on in what I'm about to post is the gist of it. I will not post a actual RoE. This column pretty much covers it
Spoiler:
Current U.S. Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan Problematic
By WILLIAM MAYER
December 17, 2009 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - The response to president Obama's much delayed announcement regarding increased troop levels in Afghanistan has been predictable, with opinion divided predominantly along ideological lines and less concern devoted to matters of military necessity.
Generally, the left hates the idea of committing as many as 30,000 additional troops to the Afghan theater by next summer with many on the political right, though basically supportive of the mission, in large part demanding the full complement of 40,000 troops that Gen. McChrystal had originally requested [that number did not represent the upward limit of the General's most ambitious plan which took form in a much larger surge, comprised of possibly 85,000 troops].
But warfare is more than a game of numbers, depending on many less quantifiable and sometimes more important factors.
Among those which are deservedly receiving much greater prominence now is the matter of the critical guidance issued to U.S. forces that serves to define what constitutes the appropriate use of force when engaging the enemy - the Rules of Engagement [ROE].
The issue comes under scrutiny now that the decision has been made to substantially increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, but with the daunting caveat that they will only be allotted about a year to prove their effectiveness before the withdrawal process is set in motion, in July of 2011, not surprisingly in consideration of the 2012 presidential election.
The exact content of U.S. Rules of Engagement are necessarily classified, but can be stitched together and approximated with a reasonable degree of accuracy from various sources, media and otherwise. The most trustworthy of these come from statements - seldom for attribution - made by active U.S. combat forces and returning vets.
The military itself will comment, with a certain sense of vagueness, about the general outlines of the ROE, but will not address specific elements of the directive.
To those who believe that the West is embroiled in an epic conflict between civilization and Islamic jihad, the ROE loom large. If the rules are overly restrictive, U.S. combat efficiency will be negatively affected and American casualties will quickly rise. On the other hand if the ROE are too wide open then they might well serve to quash popular support for the mission among the Afghani people, a matter of prime concern in counterinsurgency warfare.
There are two official military documents which provide relevant guidance on the use of lethal force.
1. ISAF Commander's Counterinsurgency Guidance
2. Unclassified July 2, 2009 guidance regarding the Tactical Directive [ROE]
At the beginning of December, PipeLineNews.org opened a line of communication with a senior ISAF spokesman in Afghanistan in order to more fully understand the ROE. What follows in this section is a verbatim transcript, our questions appear in bold. The response begins with a general statement of policy; we made the decision not to attribute the comments to a particular individual, though that was not part of the ground rules going into this process.
"In general, our troops retain the right to use lethal force in self-defense. COMISAF's [Editor's note: Commander, NATO International Security Assistance Force] tactical directive is mostly about putting our forces in the right frame of mind to exercise that right. So, for example, in the past if a group of insurgents fired on soldiers and then retreated into a compound or mosque, the "troops in contact" situation might not end until we waited them out or, if we'd taken reasonable but not foolproof steps to ensure civilians weren't present, dropped a bomb or artillery round on the building.
The tactical directive requires troops, to the best of their ability, to ask a few fundamental questions in that situation. Even if someone might be shooting in my general direction, am I still in danger? Will I make more enemies than I'll kill by destroying property or, if I've missed something, innocent civilians?
What are my other options to resolve this without escalating the violence? As unfortunate as they were, the incidents that have become emblems of perceived problems with the tactical directive were not situations in which the decisions discussed in the tactical directive ever came into play."
What is the current directive regarding ROE in Afghanistan?
"All forces operating under the authority of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan are subject to Rules of Engagement (ROE) issued by Allied Joint Force Command Headquarters Brunssum. The ROE are consistent with NATO publication MC 362/1 NATO Rules of Engagement. Non-ISAF US forces operate under similar ROE promulgated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. US ROE are based on CJCSI 3121.01A. All US units, ISAF and non-ISAF, retain the inherent right of self defense. The ROE are classified and their content cannot be released to or discussed with members of the public."
Would you please describe the process under which this policy was determined, by whom the final policy was set and how long it has been in effect?
"As stated in response to the first question, the ISAF ROE has been issued by Joint Force Command Headquarters Brunssum consistent with NATO publication MC 362/1. The content of the ROE is influenced by a variety of factors. ROE must be lawful, and international law defines the lawful limits for the use of force during military operations. The ROE have been in effect since NATO assumed the lead for ISAF in August 2003 and the current ROE were issued in May 2006, but are under constant review.
US ROE is also under constant review by commanders at all levels of command. The Secretary of Defense, with input from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the chain of command, determines the ROE applicable to all US units. General McChrystal has recently issued a tactical directive designed to reduce civilian casualties while maintaining the inherent right of self defense for all units. While the tactical directive, like all orders is always subject to review, there are currently no plans to alter it."
To what degree, if any, was the civilian government in Afghanistan a party to ROE being set?
"ISAF operates in Afghanistan at the request of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and in accordance with resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The ROE is an ISAF military document applicable only to ISAF forces, but it is consistent with ISAF's mandate and the Afghan Government's request that ISAF support it in meeting its responsibilities to provide security, stability and development. US ROE are contained in a classified military document. Although Commanders consider the concerns of the Afghan Government, the Afghan Government plays no direct role in development of the ROE."
Are there plans to modify the current ROE to possibly be more consistent with the Afghan surge?
"ROE are constantly reviewed and, if appropriate, amended, to ensure that they provide ISAF and US forces with the ability to carry out its mandate and support the Afghan Government in meeting its responsibilities to provide security, stability and development."
Under what circumstances are battlefield captures/detainees 'Mirandized'?
"'Mirandize' is a US term about notification of a person's rights under law upon arrest by a US law enforcement officer. It is not a term that is applicable to the detention of a person in Afghanistan by ISAF forces. Law enforcement, such as arrest for a criminal offence, is the function of the Government of Afghanistan. However, persons detained by ISAF forces are advised as soon as circumstances permit of the grounds upon which they are detained and may make representations to the detaining authority about their detention. US Service-members do not Mirandize personnel captured or detained. Detention by US service-members is conducted under the Law of Armed Conflict and not under criminal law and thus Miranda is not applicable. Detainees questioned by US law enforcement personnel for possible prosecution in US Court's may Mirandize the detainees where appropriate."
Under current policy, at what point does custodial interrogation begin for battlefield captures/detainees?
"The questioning of individuals detained by ISAF forces is undertaken in accordance with ISAF and national rules and policy and complies with obligations under international law. As stated above detention by US service-members is conducted under the Law of Armed Conflict and not under criminal law and thus Miranda is not applicable. US law enforcement personnel would determine if Miranda warnings are required prior to any interview they conduct."
It's difficult to read through the above guidance and not get the sense that an extraordinary degree of judgment and hence restraint is being required of the U.S. military in the Afghan theater, to a degree seldom if ever seen in warfare.
A few enterprising U.S. media sources [in this case, an article published November 16, 2009 in the Washington Times] have expended much effort to piece together specific components of the ROE [source, U.S. troops battle both Taliban and their own rules]
"1. No night or surprise searches.
2. Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.
3. ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.
4. U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.
5. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
6. Only women can search women.
7. Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid."
In a recent interview carried on NPR [seldom characterized as a pro-war media source] Rules Of Engagement Are A Dilemma For U.S. Troops one of the interviewees, Tom Bowman, relates his first-hand experience during a trip to Afghanistan, where he observed a detachment of Marines which was forced by the ROE to break off engaging a group of insurgents who were caught dead to rights placing a roadside IED.
"...we were inside this center, a command center, watching a video screen. They were watching live while these guys were digging a hole for a roadside bomb. And there were other indicators, too, besides digging the hole. There was a guy swimming across a canal with this wire, and the wires are used to detonate the bomb... They had all the indicators that these guys were insurgents planting a bomb. So they thought about using a machine gun to shoot these guys. There was another combat outpost not too far away. The problem was there was a compound of houses between where the Marines were with their machine gun and the guys planting the bomb. So then they decided to bring in the helicopters and use the machines guns and the helicopters to shoot these guys. As the helicopters came in, these guys look up in the air and start walking away. One of the guys was carrying a yellow jug - and that's become the icon of the roadside bomb. They mix fertilizer and diesel fuel in this, and that becomes a part of the bomb. And then we saw one of these guys throw this jug into a haystack."
The anecdote ends with the gunship showing up and the insurgents responding by simply walking away unscathed, because the Marines no longer had the authority to engage the now "harmless" enemy.
We have noted similar occurrences in our previous coverage, for example this September 29 piece Obama's Afghan Rules Of Engagement Prove He Has No Interest In Winning
"...When it gets to the point that even Afghan tribal leaders start demanding that U.S. and NATO ground forces take off the silk gloves and start killing more Taliban fighters, something must indeed be wrong with the way our rules of engagement hamper battlefield operations. The tribal leader referred to above was quoted in a Washington Post article as countenancing more of the type of airstrikes which took place in Khunduz province on September 4 which along with killing significant numbers of the enemy also unfortunately resulted in civilian casualties. Rather than decrying the incident, Ahmadullah Wardak, the provincial council chairman confronted U.S. theater commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, bitterly protesting the reticence of U.S. forces to engage the enemy under Obama's new rules of engagement, 'If we do three more operations like was done the other night, stability will come to Kunduz...If people do not want to live in peace and harmony, that's not our fault...We've been too nice to the thugs.'" [source, Washington Post, Sole Informant Guided Decision On Afghan Strike]
Such incidents are unfortunately not isolated.
In a statement made during a national security briefing, sponsored by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, by Lt. Col. Allen West [Retired, having served 2 1/2 years in Afghanistan at Kandahar Air Base as Sr. Advisor to the Afghan Army] he said, "The Rules of Engagement have been so terribly drawn up now that we are allowing the enemy to pin down our forces...before we will engage with all available weapon systems. The Taliban knows what we will and will not do. I'll give you a great example. You go outside the gate of Kandahar Air Base and you will have people that are sitting right outside the gate, that are watching convoys, that are counting, but you can't engage them because they don't have weapons and therefore they're not conveying any hostile intent..." [Col West's statement begins about 7:50 into the video]
Other examples abound. One involves American units coming under attack, taking small arms fire from enemy forces which are operating near a village. In previous wars one of the main options would be to call in close air support and resolve the matter with finality, however in this conflict special legal clearance [which sometimes fail to materialize, despite the justifiability of the proposed action] must often be obtained before acting.
As noted early in this piece, one of the key notions in U.S. counterinsurgency theory is that though the enemy can be militarily defeated, the conflict can nonetheless still be lost through inappropriate application of force which results in enough collateral [civilian] casualties to turn the populace against the effort, rendering liberators into occupiers in their minds.
This concern was made clear by our military source in a follow up note:
"...We can't win this battle by bombing or shooting everything. Our leaders must make hard choices on employment of their troops and weapons in order to accomplish their mission. Protecting the Afghan people is one of our top priorities - we cannot win this battle without them. Preventing civilian casualties is a fabric which runs through all our operations..."
It seems clear that in Afghanistan some primary elements of the ROE must be viewed as being largely discordant with traditional war-fighting doctrine, making guidance subservient to political considerations which may or may not be wise, yielding a military strategy of yet undetermined effectiveness.
One effect the current ROE has is to make all concerned overly cautious, cognizant of potential legal complications. When everyone from the commander on the ground to the command center on up to the Sec. of Defense and CIC becomes risk averse to an extreme degree, the real possibility of insufficient application of force becomes compounded exponentially, the higher the decision making process goes, if only because of increasing estrangement from the battlefield.
The enemy undoubtedly has a very good understanding of our rules of engagement, after all they are the ones being targeted, and they routinely take advantage of them. The ease with which they game the system gives pause for concern that the ROE place questionable constraints on the use of lethal force by our troops.
It's not breaking news that the Afghanis have now been at war continuously for 30 years and no one in that unfortunate country has any misconceptions regarding the brutality of warfare. Those in political authority, at least those at the local level who are not particularly allied with the enemy ideologically [questions of Islamic brotherhood and political hedging aside] want this conflict to end, resolved with a defeated Taliban.
The goal of these players, many of them local chieftains and tribal leaders then intersects with the United States' major foreign policy objective which is to establish a mechanism in Afghanistan whereby the country can best avoid backsliding into its previous role as a base for Islamic jihad directed against the U.S. interests and the West in general.
The only way to do this is to defeat the Taliban, something unquestionably within our military power.
Failing to do so in the most effective manner invokes an event horizon fraught with unacceptable risk:
One, if the Afghans get the sense that we are not serious about this matter, that we are so concerned with world opinion and its media drivers that we are not fully committed to defeating the jihadis, then they will necessarily hold back and not burn bridges with the Taliban and their sponsors.
Who could blame them?
Two, if the American public [increasingly restive about the Afghan operation, though in our opinion that is by no means a hardened position] is once again bombarded with daily body counts appearing above the fold on the front page of the New York Times et al., as U.S. troops suffer unneeded casualties while the war turns increasingly hot next spring and summer, then there will be considerable pressure, perhaps irresistible, given president Obama's apparent lack of genuine commitment to U.S. force projection anywhere, to end the conflict and leave the Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the terrorist network.
Three, though American troops have already proven themselves, beyond measure, as unfailingly courageous and effective, we can't expect them to maintain the requisite level of morale forever in the face of overly restrictive ROE and waning political support.
For these reasons an urgent, immediate and thorough review of the ROE in Afghanistan is called for. This assessment should be done outside the extant "constant review" process referred to in the ISAF spokesman's statement. Attention must be directed to deemphasizing concern over what really amounts to public relations, crafted to assuage players who will never support the mission and don't like us in the first place, and instead move with all deliberate haste to assure maximization of American force effectiveness by optimizing the ROE. The key here must be to decisively defeat the Taliban and whatever remnants of al-Qaeda which might still be present and minimizing [while accepting the inevitability of] U.S. military and civilian Afghan casualties. As part of this process we must not ignore the opinions of those in positions of natural influence at the most elemental level in Afghan society, the tribal elders and imams [mirroring what was done in the successful Iraq surge] who eventually and understandably want us out, but on terms which can still be largely consistent with our legitimate foreign policy goals in the region.
We realize that our military leaders have been presented with a supreme challenge in this matter, fighting a barbaric, totally committed and clever enemy in such a way as to navigate around the numerous obstacles, many of our own construction, placed along the way.
We remain confident that if reasonableness prevails, something not entirely in evidence at this point, then we will achieve our goals and avoid fighting a pretend war which does disservice to this country our troops and the Afghan people.
To those who are presently or have been enlisted in military service: can you give me an example of an engage/do not engage situation wherein you've had the choice, beyond predetermined rules of engagement? (as in, did you have the choice to simply not engage with an allegedly hostile force, as opposed to only the choice of how to engage?)
Az....that's a damn can of worms your asking to open up. Not many of us on here can fully explain, elaborate, justify, and clarify every incident of a fire fight or what actually lead into a fire fight. Well explain in a timely manner since all kinds of questions are going to be popping up left and right and those of us trying to explain will be licknsticking replies all over the place.
Best I can do since this is of sensitive nature you see later on in what I'm about to post is the gist of it. I will not post a actual RoE. This column pretty much covers it
Spoiler:
Current U.S. Rules Of Engagement In Afghanistan Problematic
By WILLIAM MAYER
December 17, 2009 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - The response to president Obama's much delayed announcement regarding increased troop levels in Afghanistan has been predictable, with opinion divided predominantly along ideological lines and less concern devoted to matters of military necessity.
Generally, the left hates the idea of committing as many as 30,000 additional troops to the Afghan theater by next summer with many on the political right, though basically supportive of the mission, in large part demanding the full complement of 40,000 troops that Gen. McChrystal had originally requested [that number did not represent the upward limit of the General's most ambitious plan which took form in a much larger surge, comprised of possibly 85,000 troops].
But warfare is more than a game of numbers, depending on many less quantifiable and sometimes more important factors.
Among those which are deservedly receiving much greater prominence now is the matter of the critical guidance issued to U.S. forces that serves to define what constitutes the appropriate use of force when engaging the enemy - the Rules of Engagement [ROE].
The issue comes under scrutiny now that the decision has been made to substantially increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, but with the daunting caveat that they will only be allotted about a year to prove their effectiveness before the withdrawal process is set in motion, in July of 2011, not surprisingly in consideration of the 2012 presidential election.
The exact content of U.S. Rules of Engagement are necessarily classified, but can be stitched together and approximated with a reasonable degree of accuracy from various sources, media and otherwise. The most trustworthy of these come from statements - seldom for attribution - made by active U.S. combat forces and returning vets.
The military itself will comment, with a certain sense of vagueness, about the general outlines of the ROE, but will not address specific elements of the directive.
To those who believe that the West is embroiled in an epic conflict between civilization and Islamic jihad, the ROE loom large. If the rules are overly restrictive, U.S. combat efficiency will be negatively affected and American casualties will quickly rise. On the other hand if the ROE are too wide open then they might well serve to quash popular support for the mission among the Afghani people, a matter of prime concern in counterinsurgency warfare.
There are two official military documents which provide relevant guidance on the use of lethal force.
1. ISAF Commander's Counterinsurgency Guidance
2. Unclassified July 2, 2009 guidance regarding the Tactical Directive [ROE]
At the beginning of December, PipeLineNews.org opened a line of communication with a senior ISAF spokesman in Afghanistan in order to more fully understand the ROE. What follows in this section is a verbatim transcript, our questions appear in bold. The response begins with a general statement of policy; we made the decision not to attribute the comments to a particular individual, though that was not part of the ground rules going into this process.
"In general, our troops retain the right to use lethal force in self-defense. COMISAF's [Editor's note: Commander, NATO International Security Assistance Force] tactical directive is mostly about putting our forces in the right frame of mind to exercise that right. So, for example, in the past if a group of insurgents fired on soldiers and then retreated into a compound or mosque, the "troops in contact" situation might not end until we waited them out or, if we'd taken reasonable but not foolproof steps to ensure civilians weren't present, dropped a bomb or artillery round on the building.
The tactical directive requires troops, to the best of their ability, to ask a few fundamental questions in that situation. Even if someone might be shooting in my general direction, am I still in danger? Will I make more enemies than I'll kill by destroying property or, if I've missed something, innocent civilians?
What are my other options to resolve this without escalating the violence? As unfortunate as they were, the incidents that have become emblems of perceived problems with the tactical directive were not situations in which the decisions discussed in the tactical directive ever came into play."
What is the current directive regarding ROE in Afghanistan?
"All forces operating under the authority of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan are subject to Rules of Engagement (ROE) issued by Allied Joint Force Command Headquarters Brunssum. The ROE are consistent with NATO publication MC 362/1 NATO Rules of Engagement. Non-ISAF US forces operate under similar ROE promulgated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. US ROE are based on CJCSI 3121.01A. All US units, ISAF and non-ISAF, retain the inherent right of self defense. The ROE are classified and their content cannot be released to or discussed with members of the public."
Would you please describe the process under which this policy was determined, by whom the final policy was set and how long it has been in effect?
"As stated in response to the first question, the ISAF ROE has been issued by Joint Force Command Headquarters Brunssum consistent with NATO publication MC 362/1. The content of the ROE is influenced by a variety of factors. ROE must be lawful, and international law defines the lawful limits for the use of force during military operations. The ROE have been in effect since NATO assumed the lead for ISAF in August 2003 and the current ROE were issued in May 2006, but are under constant review.
US ROE is also under constant review by commanders at all levels of command. The Secretary of Defense, with input from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the chain of command, determines the ROE applicable to all US units. General McChrystal has recently issued a tactical directive designed to reduce civilian casualties while maintaining the inherent right of self defense for all units. While the tactical directive, like all orders is always subject to review, there are currently no plans to alter it."
To what degree, if any, was the civilian government in Afghanistan a party to ROE being set?
"ISAF operates in Afghanistan at the request of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and in accordance with resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The ROE is an ISAF military document applicable only to ISAF forces, but it is consistent with ISAF's mandate and the Afghan Government's request that ISAF support it in meeting its responsibilities to provide security, stability and development. US ROE are contained in a classified military document. Although Commanders consider the concerns of the Afghan Government, the Afghan Government plays no direct role in development of the ROE."
Are there plans to modify the current ROE to possibly be more consistent with the Afghan surge?
"ROE are constantly reviewed and, if appropriate, amended, to ensure that they provide ISAF and US forces with the ability to carry out its mandate and support the Afghan Government in meeting its responsibilities to provide security, stability and development."
Under what circumstances are battlefield captures/detainees 'Mirandized'?
"'Mirandize' is a US term about notification of a person's rights under law upon arrest by a US law enforcement officer. It is not a term that is applicable to the detention of a person in Afghanistan by ISAF forces. Law enforcement, such as arrest for a criminal offence, is the function of the Government of Afghanistan. However, persons detained by ISAF forces are advised as soon as circumstances permit of the grounds upon which they are detained and may make representations to the detaining authority about their detention. US Service-members do not Mirandize personnel captured or detained. Detention by US service-members is conducted under the Law of Armed Conflict and not under criminal law and thus Miranda is not applicable. Detainees questioned by US law enforcement personnel for possible prosecution in US Court's may Mirandize the detainees where appropriate."
Under current policy, at what point does custodial interrogation begin for battlefield captures/detainees?
"The questioning of individuals detained by ISAF forces is undertaken in accordance with ISAF and national rules and policy and complies with obligations under international law. As stated above detention by US service-members is conducted under the Law of Armed Conflict and not under criminal law and thus Miranda is not applicable. US law enforcement personnel would determine if Miranda warnings are required prior to any interview they conduct."
It's difficult to read through the above guidance and not get the sense that an extraordinary degree of judgment and hence restraint is being required of the U.S. military in the Afghan theater, to a degree seldom if ever seen in warfare.
A few enterprising U.S. media sources [in this case, an article published November 16, 2009 in the Washington Times] have expended much effort to piece together specific components of the ROE [source, U.S. troops battle both Taliban and their own rules]
"1. No night or surprise searches.
2. Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.
3. ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.
4. U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.
5. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
6. Only women can search women.
7. Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid."
In a recent interview carried on NPR [seldom characterized as a pro-war media source] Rules Of Engagement Are A Dilemma For U.S. Troops one of the interviewees, Tom Bowman, relates his first-hand experience during a trip to Afghanistan, where he observed a detachment of Marines which was forced by the ROE to break off engaging a group of insurgents who were caught dead to rights placing a roadside IED.
"...we were inside this center, a command center, watching a video screen. They were watching live while these guys were digging a hole for a roadside bomb. And there were other indicators, too, besides digging the hole. There was a guy swimming across a canal with this wire, and the wires are used to detonate the bomb... They had all the indicators that these guys were insurgents planting a bomb. So they thought about using a machine gun to shoot these guys. There was another combat outpost not too far away. The problem was there was a compound of houses between where the Marines were with their machine gun and the guys planting the bomb. So then they decided to bring in the helicopters and use the machines guns and the helicopters to shoot these guys. As the helicopters came in, these guys look up in the air and start walking away. One of the guys was carrying a yellow jug - and that's become the icon of the roadside bomb. They mix fertilizer and diesel fuel in this, and that becomes a part of the bomb. And then we saw one of these guys throw this jug into a haystack."
The anecdote ends with the gunship showing up and the insurgents responding by simply walking away unscathed, because the Marines no longer had the authority to engage the now "harmless" enemy.
We have noted similar occurrences in our previous coverage, for example this September 29 piece Obama's Afghan Rules Of Engagement Prove He Has No Interest In Winning
"...When it gets to the point that even Afghan tribal leaders start demanding that U.S. and NATO ground forces take off the silk gloves and start killing more Taliban fighters, something must indeed be wrong with the way our rules of engagement hamper battlefield operations. The tribal leader referred to above was quoted in a Washington Post article as countenancing more of the type of airstrikes which took place in Khunduz province on September 4 which along with killing significant numbers of the enemy also unfortunately resulted in civilian casualties. Rather than decrying the incident, Ahmadullah Wardak, the provincial council chairman confronted U.S. theater commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, bitterly protesting the reticence of U.S. forces to engage the enemy under Obama's new rules of engagement, 'If we do three more operations like was done the other night, stability will come to Kunduz...If people do not want to live in peace and harmony, that's not our fault...We've been too nice to the thugs.'" [source, Washington Post, Sole Informant Guided Decision On Afghan Strike]
Such incidents are unfortunately not isolated.
In a statement made during a national security briefing, sponsored by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, by Lt. Col. Allen West [Retired, having served 2 1/2 years in Afghanistan at Kandahar Air Base as Sr. Advisor to the Afghan Army] he said, "The Rules of Engagement have been so terribly drawn up now that we are allowing the enemy to pin down our forces...before we will engage with all available weapon systems. The Taliban knows what we will and will not do. I'll give you a great example. You go outside the gate of Kandahar Air Base and you will have people that are sitting right outside the gate, that are watching convoys, that are counting, but you can't engage them because they don't have weapons and therefore they're not conveying any hostile intent..." [Col West's statement begins about 7:50 into the video]
Other examples abound. One involves American units coming under attack, taking small arms fire from enemy forces which are operating near a village. In previous wars one of the main options would be to call in close air support and resolve the matter with finality, however in this conflict special legal clearance [which sometimes fail to materialize, despite the justifiability of the proposed action] must often be obtained before acting.
As noted early in this piece, one of the key notions in U.S. counterinsurgency theory is that though the enemy can be militarily defeated, the conflict can nonetheless still be lost through inappropriate application of force which results in enough collateral [civilian] casualties to turn the populace against the effort, rendering liberators into occupiers in their minds.
This concern was made clear by our military source in a follow up note:
"...We can't win this battle by bombing or shooting everything. Our leaders must make hard choices on employment of their troops and weapons in order to accomplish their mission. Protecting the Afghan people is one of our top priorities - we cannot win this battle without them. Preventing civilian casualties is a fabric which runs through all our operations..."
It seems clear that in Afghanistan some primary elements of the ROE must be viewed as being largely discordant with traditional war-fighting doctrine, making guidance subservient to political considerations which may or may not be wise, yielding a military strategy of yet undetermined effectiveness.
One effect the current ROE has is to make all concerned overly cautious, cognizant of potential legal complications. When everyone from the commander on the ground to the command center on up to the Sec. of Defense and CIC becomes risk averse to an extreme degree, the real possibility of insufficient application of force becomes compounded exponentially, the higher the decision making process goes, if only because of increasing estrangement from the battlefield.
The enemy undoubtedly has a very good understanding of our rules of engagement, after all they are the ones being targeted, and they routinely take advantage of them. The ease with which they game the system gives pause for concern that the ROE place questionable constraints on the use of lethal force by our troops.
It's not breaking news that the Afghanis have now been at war continuously for 30 years and no one in that unfortunate country has any misconceptions regarding the brutality of warfare. Those in political authority, at least those at the local level who are not particularly allied with the enemy ideologically [questions of Islamic brotherhood and political hedging aside] want this conflict to end, resolved with a defeated Taliban.
The goal of these players, many of them local chieftains and tribal leaders then intersects with the United States' major foreign policy objective which is to establish a mechanism in Afghanistan whereby the country can best avoid backsliding into its previous role as a base for Islamic jihad directed against the U.S. interests and the West in general.
The only way to do this is to defeat the Taliban, something unquestionably within our military power.
Failing to do so in the most effective manner invokes an event horizon fraught with unacceptable risk:
One, if the Afghans get the sense that we are not serious about this matter, that we are so concerned with world opinion and its media drivers that we are not fully committed to defeating the jihadis, then they will necessarily hold back and not burn bridges with the Taliban and their sponsors.
Who could blame them?
Two, if the American public [increasingly restive about the Afghan operation, though in our opinion that is by no means a hardened position] is once again bombarded with daily body counts appearing above the fold on the front page of the New York Times et al., as U.S. troops suffer unneeded casualties while the war turns increasingly hot next spring and summer, then there will be considerable pressure, perhaps irresistible, given president Obama's apparent lack of genuine commitment to U.S. force projection anywhere, to end the conflict and leave the Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the terrorist network.
Three, though American troops have already proven themselves, beyond measure, as unfailingly courageous and effective, we can't expect them to maintain the requisite level of morale forever in the face of overly restrictive ROE and waning political support.
For these reasons an urgent, immediate and thorough review of the ROE in Afghanistan is called for. This assessment should be done outside the extant "constant review" process referred to in the ISAF spokesman's statement. Attention must be directed to deemphasizing concern over what really amounts to public relations, crafted to assuage players who will never support the mission and don't like us in the first place, and instead move with all deliberate haste to assure maximization of American force effectiveness by optimizing the ROE. The key here must be to decisively defeat the Taliban and whatever remnants of al-Qaeda which might still be present and minimizing [while accepting the inevitability of] U.S. military and civilian Afghan casualties. As part of this process we must not ignore the opinions of those in positions of natural influence at the most elemental level in Afghan society, the tribal elders and imams [mirroring what was done in the successful Iraq surge] who eventually and understandably want us out, but on terms which can still be largely consistent with our legitimate foreign policy goals in the region.
We realize that our military leaders have been presented with a supreme challenge in this matter, fighting a barbaric, totally committed and clever enemy in such a way as to navigate around the numerous obstacles, many of our own construction, placed along the way.
We remain confident that if reasonableness prevails, something not entirely in evidence at this point, then we will achieve our goals and avoid fighting a pretend war which does disservice to this country our troops and the Afghan people.
Wow that's a long post.
Yeah, I don't have time to read through that just now, but I will before I repond again.
For what it's worth, I'm not asking so much for a combat report, but really just an example of a situation wherein someone had the choice to simply not engage with the "enemy". Maybe that quesion is exceedingly difficult to answer? (I'm not really familiar with regulations about reporting discussions/decisions)
azazel the cat wrote: And do you want guys doing point/counterpoint when it comes to any other orders?
Are they lawful?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yeah Az, there's a WHOLE section of international and military law that REQUIRES "point/counter point" for orders. Maybe you could go to a Canadian Forces base and shadow for a day or something like that, you might learn something about how the military actually works.
Was it lawful to go after the Branch Davidians? (answer: yes)
The point is, if the military were to go after the population, the guy mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon isn't going to be the target; it would be the guys holed up in a complex, like Koresh. And while that wasn't a military action, I really do not think the privates in the US army are trained to use their judgement more than the FBI.
Actually, burning people alive /isn't/ a lawful use of force, and there's long been questions and a pretty significant cover up by the FBI and ATF about the mess at the compound. I know folks in Waco, and they all tend to see the Federales as the bad guys in that situation.
Then the folks you know in Waco do not understand what the Davidians were (answer: a dangerous cult led my a murderous nutcase).
You do know what a smear campaign is right? The feds did the same thing to Randy Weaver during Ruby Ridge. You know when an FBI Sniper shot an unarmed woman with a baby in her arms in the head. I've spoken with people who KNEW David Koresh, and they'll all tell you that what the news was saying was a pile of donkey gak. Even the Sheriff has said "That situation could have been resolved peacefully and without incident" but the ATF decided it was a good day to play sturmtruppen and murdered 83 people including women and children. But you'll apparently believe whatever CNN tells you so why bother eh?
azazel the cat wrote: And do you want guys doing point/counterpoint when it comes to any other orders?
Are they lawful?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yeah Az, there's a WHOLE section of international and military law that REQUIRES "point/counter point" for orders. Maybe you could go to a Canadian Forces base and shadow for a day or something like that, you might learn something about how the military actually works.
Was it lawful to go after the Branch Davidians? (answer: yes)
The point is, if the military were to go after the population, the guy mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon isn't going to be the target; it would be the guys holed up in a complex, like Koresh. And while that wasn't a military action, I really do not think the privates in the US army are trained to use their judgement more than the FBI.
Actually, burning people alive /isn't/ a lawful use of force, and there's long been questions and a pretty significant cover up by the FBI and ATF about the mess at the compound. I know folks in Waco, and they all tend to see the Federales as the bad guys in that situation.
Then the folks you know in Waco do not understand what the Davidians were (answer: a dangerous cult led my a murderous nutcase).
You do know what a smear campaign is right? The feds did the same thing to Randy Weaver during Ruby Ridge. You know when an FBI Sniper shot an unarmed woman with a baby in her arms in the head. I've spoken with people who KNEW David Koresh, and they'll all tell you that what the news was saying was a pile of donkey gak. Even the Sheriff has said "That situation could have been resolved peacefully and without incident" but the ATF decided it was a good day to play sturmtruppen and murdered 83 people including women and children. But you'll apparently believe whatever CNN tells you so why bother eh?
Yeah, I remember that and have family in the Dallas area who would say the same thing.
Not saying that the Davidians were innocent, but that situation could have been handled differently.
whembly wrote: Not saying that the Davidians were innocent, but that situation could have been handled differently.
Yeah, and because of the weird politics surrounding this and similar issues it that simple, non-exciting conclusion that most people skip over entirely - there were lots of good, sound reasons for police intervention in Waco, but the police bungled the issue and the result was tragedy.
Because there's two big points both sides miss about Waco;
1) When police came in the building, the Branch Davidians decided to open fire. Now, they were armed police, but they were police none the less. Regulare folk don't open fire on the police. They surrender and deal with that in the courts.
2) No matter what the Branch Davidians might have done, the ATF took a stable situation with no immediate danger to anyone, and produced a gun battle that got four officers maimed for life, which in turn led to a siege that got 83 people killed.
The 'boo government live free or die' crazies ignore the first point, and the fact that it was a cult with some really weird gak going on, because they want to boo government.
And the people arguing against them ignore that it was a bungled and likely unnecessary raid, because they want to argue against the craziness of the above.
azazel the cat wrote: And do you want guys doing point/counterpoint when it comes to any other orders?
Are they lawful?
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yeah Az, there's a WHOLE section of international and military law that REQUIRES "point/counter point" for orders. Maybe you could go to a Canadian Forces base and shadow for a day or something like that, you might learn something about how the military actually works.
Was it lawful to go after the Branch Davidians? (answer: yes)
The point is, if the military were to go after the population, the guy mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon isn't going to be the target; it would be the guys holed up in a complex, like Koresh. And while that wasn't a military action, I really do not think the privates in the US army are trained to use their judgement more than the FBI.
Actually, burning people alive /isn't/ a lawful use of force, and there's long been questions and a pretty significant cover up by the FBI and ATF about the mess at the compound. I know folks in Waco, and they all tend to see the Federales as the bad guys in that situation.
Then the folks you know in Waco do not understand what the Davidians were (answer: a dangerous cult led my a murderous nutcase).
But you'll apparently believe whatever CNN tells you so why bother eh?
I like to think that you're better than trying to attack me personally.
Waco could have been handled better. Nobody is disputing that. However, Sebster has basically explained the situation thorugh a reasonable lens. The FBI and DEA handled it wrong, based on the nature of the situation (don't start an armed seige with apocalyptic crazies; that'd be like sending a black helicopter to pick up Alex Jones for an interview) but even the surviving Davidians themselves claim the fires were started accidentally (and not by the DEA). Koresh himself was killed by his own follower.
Seaward wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: To those who are presently or have been enlisted in military service:
1) When police came in the building, the Branch Davidians decided to open fire. Now, they were armed police, but they were police none the less. Regular folk don't open fire on the police. They surrender and deal with that in the courts.
.
That is a major point of contention actually. No one knows who opened fire first, and evidence that would be critical to determining who did conveniently vanished. Again, welcome to the magical world of cover ups and smear campaigns. There's plenty of evidence to suggest the ATF is full of gak here, the false allegations about a meth lab at the Mt. Carmel compound in an attempt to acquire military assets under the war on drugs for one. For the first shots, there's recordings of a 911 call from Mt. Carmel of one of the Branch Davidians begging for a cease fire from the agents, quotes include "That's them shooting". The most common thoughts on the first shots are the ATF "Dog Team" who were sent to kill all the dogs in Mt. Carmel's kennel or a negligent discharge by one of the ATF officers, which triggered a barrage of automatic gunfire from the ATF officers. Further once the ATF ran out of ammunition and a cease fire was negotiated by local LEOs, the Davidians allowed the ATF wounded and dead (16 and 4 respectively) to be removed. Even inexperienced shooters in a decent defensive position with rifles could have made the ATF feel serious hurt. They weren't approached by cops, they were approached by masked men with automatic weapons.
This is a photo of an ATF officer AT Waco, face masked, automatic weapon, tactical gear and his badge number's covered. If someone like that approached ME on the streets I'd be doing my damnedest to find a way to escape and call the cops to deal with HIM, and I sure as gak wouldn't surrender ANYTHING to that kind of guy. So yeah, 100 masked men with automatic weapons descend on your home and open up on you. Regular folk would shoot back if they had the option to instead of handing themselves over to these masked men who have proven twitchy and happy to shoot you.
“Already a couple of the faithful have sent in checks for a foundation memorial to the innocents who perished at the hands of the ninja at Waco. … I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as “ninja” … Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic." - Col Jeff Cooper
azazel the cat wrote: To those who are presently or have been enlisted in military service:
Why so discriminatory?
Huh? I don't understand.
If he wasn't being flagrantly discriminatory, it'd be, "To those who are presently or have been enlisted or commissioned in military service..." We'll ignore warrants, 'cause, why not.
azazel the cat wrote: To those who are presently or have been enlisted in military service:
Why so discriminatory?
Huh? I don't understand.
If he wasn't being flagrantly discriminatory, it'd be, "To those who are presently or have been enlisted or commissioned in military service..." We'll ignore warrants, 'cause, why not.
azazel the cat wrote: The FBI and DEA handled it wrong, based on the nature of the situation (don't start an armed seige with apocalyptic crazies; that'd be like sending a black helicopter to pick up Alex Jones for an interview)
That is a near perfect analogy.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That is a major point of contention actually. No one knows who opened fire first, and evidence that would be critical to determining who did conveniently vanished.
That line of argument doesn't work. Sure, the ATF could have shot first, they're busting in to an armed compound with assault rifles, if they see people drawing those guns in a threatening situation they're entitled to shoot to protect their lives. Point being, when cops come in, you don't draw guns against them unless you want a shoot out... which is a flat out crazy thing to ever try.
Now, note I'm not saying the police aren't to blame. They're to blame for thinking an armed raid was needed, and for then fething up the armed raid. But none of that removes a considerable portion of responsibility from the Branch Davidians - when you draw guns on police then there's going to be dead bodies, and most likely your own will be among them. Ignoring that just because your politics wants you to place all blame at the foot of the government is dodgy thinking.
They weren't approached by cops, they were approached by masked men with automatic weapons.
Masked men with automatic weapons and cops aren't mutually exclusive.
Regular folk would shoot back if they had the option to instead of handing themselves over to these masked men who have proven twitchy and happy to shoot you.
Use of the word 'descend' really mischaracterises the situation. It takes a straight up crazy person to confuse that policeman, mask and all, for anything other than a policeman. I mean, this happened in the 90s, SWAT and other forms of tactical police were hardly a foreign concept to people. I've seen a break down of the raid, and this idea you've assumed of unknown masked men breaking in for mysterious purposes is just nonsense. While the ATF planned simultaneous points of entry, there was still an agent at the front door, presenting the warrant - who was shot and killed for his efforts.
I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as “ninja” …
You should be. That is fething crazy.
Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic." - Col Jeff Cooper
Yeah, oh the shame of firemen and astronaughts.
Or maybe, you know, like lots of professions involving dangerous situations, there are lots of reasons for tactical police to cover their faces that have nothing to do with shame. I mean, for feth's sake.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That is a major point of contention actually. No one knows who opened fire first, and evidence that would be critical to determining who did conveniently vanished.
That line of argument doesn't work. Sure, the ATF could have shot first, they're busting in to an armed compound with assault rifles, if they see people drawing those guns in a threatening situation they're entitled to shoot to protect their lives. Point being, when cops come in, you don't draw guns against them unless you want a shoot out... which is a flat out crazy thing to ever try.
Now, note I'm not saying the police aren't to blame. They're to blame for thinking an armed raid was needed, and for then fething up the armed raid. But none of that removes a considerable portion of responsibility from the Branch Davidians - when you draw guns on police then there's going to be dead bodies, and most likely your own will be among them. Ignoring that just because your politics wants you to place all blame at the foot of the government is dodgy thinking.
So the cops start shooting after taking up defensive positions, they really haven't made any effort to negotiate, defenders grab guns and start defensive fire, protecting the innocents in the building, while desperately trying to reach THE POLICE to get these tax agents to stop trying to murder them all. Yup, goddamn certainly sounds like a straight up ambush to me, those poor pigs never saw it coming. Remember no other attempt to serve a warrant on the Davidian compound was ever made, no actually intelligence was considered, the ATF LIED to get air assets and other support, and went in guns blazing for no good reason at all. When Koresh knew the raid was coming, knew the ATF was sniffing around, had asked to speak to the lead agent multiple times, OFFERED to have them come down and check their paper work. They did everything they could for a peaceful situation, till armed officers began machine gunning their home.
I also find your inherent trust of law enforcement kinds disturbing Sebs, especially given the rampant examples of police and federal over reach here in the United States.
. While the ATF planned simultaneous points of entry, there was still an agent at the front door, presenting the warrant - who was shot and killed for his efforts
That never happened. On ANY time line of events. 70 odd guys in ski masks with machine guns rolled up in unmarked POVs, surrounded the place and shots rang out. Again what would you do?
Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic." - Col Jeff Cooper
Yeah, oh the shame of firemen and astronaughts.
Or maybe, you know, like lots of professions involving dangerous situations, there are lots of reasons for tactical police to cover their faces that have nothing to do with shame. I mean, for feth's sake.
If a cop has to cover his face in the pursuit of his duty, with a ski mask not a rebreather or a helmet like an astronaut or a fire fighter, which has NO PURPOSE BUT CONCEALING YOUR IDENTITY then YES you can absolutely call them out on it. If it's such a tactical benefit to wear a ski mask I'll have to call Marine Corps TECOM and ask why such useful equipment isn't included in our infantry training curriculum.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So the cops start shooting after taking up defensive positions, they really haven't made any effort to negotiate, defenders grab guns and start defensive fire, protecting the innocents in the building, while desperately trying to reach THE POLICE to get these tax agents to stop trying to murder them all. Yup, goddamn certainly sounds like a straight up ambush to me, those poor pigs never saw it coming.
I never said ambush. It doesn't have to be an ambush to be a really stupid set of decisions made by the Branch Davidians. Don't just throw in words like that, it makes a nonsense of trying to actually discuss this.
Remember no other attempt to serve a warrant on the Davidian compound was ever made, no actually intelligence was considered, the ATF LIED to get air assets and other support, and went in guns blazing for no good reason at all. When Koresh knew the raid was coming, knew the ATF was sniffing around, had asked to speak to the lead agent multiple times, OFFERED to have them come down and check their paper work. They did everything they could for a peaceful situation, till armed officers began machine gunning their home.
And now you've gone from pointing out it is unknown who fired first, to just asserting that officers started machine gunning the complex.
I also find your inherent trust of law enforcement kinds disturbing Sebs, especially given the rampant examples of police and federal over reach here in the United States.
My fething what? Where in the feth does that even come from? Just... fething read what I'm fething saying.
I have said the ATF fethed up. Because they totally, 100% fethed up. The raid was not needed, compromised and poorly executed.
But what I am telling you is that it is still completely, 100% crazypants stupid to resist law enforcement when they come to your cult compound. Whether they look scary or not, the decision to fight the law means you are very likely to die. The decision to co-operate and let them raid your premises means you have a lot of legal avenues to challenge government actions.
That never happened. On ANY time line of events.
True, and my mistake. Not sure if I was thinking of another event, or an early mistaken claim from the story, but I should have checked it before looking it up.
70 odd guys in ski masks with machine guns rolled up in unmarked POVs, surrounded the place and shots rang out. Again what would you do?
Your assertion that it is impossible to distinguish guys in ski masks as either tactical police or crazy evil attackers is really weak. I mean, look at that guy you posted earlier. He sure is scary looking, but he's also really fething obviously a cop.
And it also makes no fething sense when we know the Branch Davidians knew of the raid ahead of time. OMG the law is coming, get your guns just in case. And now OMG there's masked gunman entering the compound, but who knows if they're those cops... better just shoot them just in case!
Come on.
If a cop has to cover his face in the pursuit of his duty, with a ski mask not a rebreather or a helmet like an astronaut or a fire fighter, which has NO PURPOSE BUT CONCEALING YOUR IDENTITY then YES you can absolutely call them out on it. If it's such a tactical benefit to wear a ski mask I'll have to call Marine Corps TECOM and ask why such useful equipment isn't included in our infantry training curriculum.
Are you seriously claiming balaclavas have no purpose but to cover your identity? No concept of protection from the kinds of explosions and the like that you see in combat? fething seriously?
And they're not used by military units because like much kit they've got plusses and minuses. For troops who might expect to be on patrol for many hours while unlikely to engage the enemy, they're far from ideal. For police who expect to engage in a raid in the next few minutes, and expect that raid to last maybe less than a minute, they make a lot more sense.
No, far more sensible to speculate that these troops wore them purely out of shame. Never fething mind that agents who died at Waco are publically listed, and many of them have come out since and written of their experiences. So by your claim they're shameful enough to cover their faces in the attack, but not so shamed that they wouldn't talk to the media about it afterwards. I mean, fething seriously, just think about what you're trying to claim here.
Balacavas serve no protective function PERIOD. Unless you're trying to keep warm, but since this is the middle of Texas in spring, I doubt they were worried about snow.
And I admit I misspoke above when I said the agents opened fire.
Thought for the day: Why the hell do tax agents have guns any way?
How do you live with that blatant abuse of the 2nd amendment I'll never know. (you know I'm not being serious)
Frankly on googling your question I found loads of whackjobs circlejerking each other on how your country is now owned by the ilerminitus and how only they know. Or something.
Real crazy stuff.
There's this statement apparently from the IRS
“As law enforcement officials, IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agents are equipped similarly to other federal, state and local law enforcement organizations. Special Agents receive training on the appropriate and safe use of assigned weapons. IRS Criminal Investigation has internal controls and oversight in place to ensure all law enforcement tools, including weapons are used appropriately,”
Yeah that's a bad idea, we need to reduce numbers of Federal LEOs, if a criminal investigation needs to be done call the FBI. Everyone else can just hand them the saw.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Balacavas serve no protective function PERIOD. Unless you're trying to keep warm, but since this is the middle of Texas in spring, I doubt they were worried about snow.
I was always under the impression balaclavas were there to conceal the officer's identities so that their families need not fear reprisals when dealing with criminal organizations (a commonplace tactic of Pablo Escobar)
Maybe south of the border, I've never heard of it here. The negative association of masked LEOs here in the states makes it pretty rare to my knowledge. At least with the guys I know any way. I'll ask one of the guys I know on a Gang Task Force if they use balaclavas for anything.
Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic." - Col Jeff Cooper
Yeah, oh the shame of firemen and astronaughts.
Or maybe, you know, like lots of professions involving dangerous situations, there are lots of reasons for tactical police to cover their faces that have nothing to do with shame. I mean, for feth's sake.
Fireman and astronauts are now warriors who "shed blood"?
Oh no KM...I'm not letting you off the hook.....Balacavas fall under Frazz (I agree with him) version with "Tacticool Gear"....its the intimidation factor or to some the laughter factor...mainly the laughter factor.....the guy looks all cool but huffing and puffing due to the noticeable spare tire around his waist
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Balacavas serve no protective function PERIOD. Unless you're trying to keep warm, but since this is the middle of Texas in spring, I doubt they were worried about snow.
It protects from flames and hot gas. Which police forces have found, perhaps unsurprisingly, very common in close quarters fighting, especially when there's flash bangs getting thrown around.
Thought for the day: Why the hell do tax agents have guns any way?
Why was Treasury the guys who managed to put Capone and Mickey Cohen behind bars? Because your Federal Government is a confused warren of departments and bureaus competing in an endless turf war. And no, that isn't good, but if you're genuinely concerned about placing too much trust in your government, well that system must be preferable to a powerful, unified government with strong control over all its agencies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Yeah that's a bad idea, we need to reduce numbers of Federal LEOs, if a criminal investigation needs to be done call the FBI. Everyone else can just hand them the saw.
That's kind of funny, because comments like yours above were said during the Gangster Wars, when the FBI began arming itself and people complained that if armed men were needed local police should be called on.
Its perception KM...we rolled out the "Wire" wearing "Skull" bandana's under our Oakly Ballistic eyewear...we look tacticool along with tacticaly able to "opt out" a insurgent wearing man-jammies and a scarf wrapped around the top of their head. Besides a bakacava interfere's with how the ACH seats on ones head
Here in the States though.....if your on a "elite" federal response team.....and know your overweight.....no one will recognize you due to the bakacavas...
There in the former Soviet Union a bakaclava equates to a Chechen fighter...or Bos....or Kosovo fighter...if you were in the US military dealing with those chuckleheads...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Fireman and astronauts are now warriors who "shed blood"?
No, and that's a fine, fine piece of nitpicking. Well done.
Meanwhile, I'm just going to continue shaking my head at the sheer, balls to the wall stupidity of someone claiming that officers acting openly as recognised members of government agency must be ashamed of it because they wear gear designed to proect their faces on tactical ops.
I never wore my Bakaclava on tactical ops because it doesn't protect shiat and in case of a flash fire from explosion I rather not have a flammable item on my face or my troops face...I'm with KM on that on the serious side. Besides the fact its a cold weather gear its also very effective of masking your identity.
edit
To ensure I have this aim right
Meanwhile, I'm just going to continue shaking my head at the sheer, balls to the wall stupidity of someone claiming that officers acting openly as recognised members of government agency must be ashamed of it because they wear gear designed to proect their faces on tactical ops.
You seriously lack combat experience and you seriously lack a sense of humor.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Fireman and astronauts are now warriors who "shed blood"?
No, and that's a fine, fine piece of nitpicking. Well done.
Meanwhile, I'm just going to continue shaking my head at the sheer, balls to the wall stupidity of someone claiming that officers acting openly as recognised members of government agency must be ashamed of it because they wear gear designed to proect their faces on tactical ops.
I think KalashnikovMarine simply just prefers stripper cops.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Balacavas serve no protective function PERIOD. Unless you're trying to keep warm, but since this is the middle of Texas in spring, I doubt they were worried about snow.
It protects from flames and hot gas. Which police forces have found, perhaps unsurprisingly, very common in close quarters fighting, especially when there's flash bangs getting thrown around.
.
Have you ever seen cotton burn? I trained in CQC, have personally thrown all sorts of grenades, and I've never EVER had a situation where "Gee cloth on my face that obscures part of my vision and has the potential to light on fire would TOTALLY make this better"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I never wore my Bakaclava on tactical ops because it doesn't protect shiat and in case of a flash fire from explosion I rather not have a flammable item on my face or my troops face...I'm with KM on that on the serious side. Besides the fact its a cold weather gear its also very effective of masking your identity.
edit
To ensure I have this aim right
Meanwhile, I'm just going to continue shaking my head at the sheer, balls to the wall stupidity of someone claiming that officers acting openly as recognised members of government agency must be ashamed of it because they wear gear designed to proect their faces on tactical ops.
You seriously lack combat experience and you seriously lack a sense of humor.
Getting an idea someone thinks a flashbang is thrown to detonate at shoulder height instead of on the floor.
How not to use a flashbang but notice it was toss on the floor by arm movement
Proper use of a flashbang is its thrown on floor like your trying to skip it. Its a distraction, draws attention to the bouncing baby boomer and goes off. Now your ears are ringing, your "spot" seeing and a bit confused from a mild concussion you just received. The flashbang is capable of setting off volatile fumes since one never knows whats on the floor in a room its best to play it safe. Before you jump...everyone goes in on a flashbang detonation
A basaclava is more a hinderance. Everyone entering a room much prefer 100% visual. No one wants to shoot a buddy or a innocent bystander for a thread from the bakaclava that's at the corner of your eye that gives an effect someone carrying. Most man-jammies are whitish and something small and black stands out. The possibility of shooting a bystander has increased.
Jihadin wrote: I never wore my Bakaclava on tactical ops because it doesn't protect shiat and in case of a flash fire from explosion I rather not have a flammable item on my face or my troops face...I'm with KM on that on the serious side.
If you're with KM, then you think that the ATF was ashamed enough to hide their faces on the raid they were about to undertake, but also leaked the raid to the media...
Besides the fact its a cold weather gear its also very effective of masking your identity.
Oh come on. The ATF fething leaked the raid to the media. There's plenty of criticism due to the ATF for the raid, that should have been a drastic last step taken extremely seriously, as a PR op.
Instead we've crazy nonsense about how the soldiers involved were ashamed of the operation, because they wore balaclavas. fething seriously, this is straight up crazy fething bs nonsense.
You seriously lack combat experience and you seriously lack a sense of humor.
My sense of humour ends when people post insane bs, and other posters wander in largely agreeing with it.
And I need exactly zero seconds of tactical combat to know that the soldiers undertaking it aren't wearing masks out of shame. All that requires is a functioning brain. Now, whether an officer might wear it because he thinks it will protect minor threats, or just because it looks cool, I don't much care. But crazy ass nonsense should be called out, everytime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Have you ever seen cotton burn? I trained in CQC, have personally thrown all sorts of grenades, and I've never EVER had a situation where "Gee cloth on my face that obscures part of my vision and has the potential to light on fire would TOTALLY make this better"
Well then, obviously the only conclusion is deep shame on the part of the tactical officer. Uh huh. Yep. Perfectly fething sensible conclusion to draw, over a raid in which the fething ATF leaked the damn thing to the media beforehand.
That was a quote from Col. Jeff Cooper about masked men in general. Not sure why you're elbows deep in your donkey cave over this.
Personal statement though? If they aren't ashamed they damn well should be. Which would explain the multiple cover ups by multiple agencies including the FBI, agents changing their testimony from what they told reporters compared to what they said on the stand, you know stuff like that. A deep sense of personal regret for their absolute failure as a laughable excuse for a law enforcement officer would be excellent, but no one got fired or investigated and they're probably drinking beer with Lon Horiuchi instead. Interestingly the latter was also at Waco.
What? Can't tell the officer that KM posted a bit wee heavy? That's not body armor he is wearing....its a Mollee Vest. If he was wearing body armor then it should have been on top of his jacket. That looks like a nylon material jacket under the Mollee Vest. That's a no go. I do believe the fed has a similar standard of Height and Weight. If the officer knows news crew are going to be around filming live and he knows he's "questionable" on being close to popping tape. He throw on the Bakacava to mask his identity from his Chain of Command to avoid to be called in to make height and weight standards as long as possible to buy himself time to lose the excess weight. I do the same damn thing to till operation execution. Hey if your thinking I'm all out bashing the Feds rapid response teams its all good. Nothing but rivalry. So call it BS or whatever you like but it still stands. You Lack Combat Experience, You Lack a good sense of humor. You lack the understanding of friendly rivalry. You also do not know as most here don't that these teams train with 160th right? In fact quite a few of these team members on the fed side are former SPECOPS and/or high speed grunts. NSDQ and brush up a bit more on the US Military
Hahaha. That guy should be ashamed for his merciless repeated assaults on the local doughnut place that is true. Jihadin the guy pictured is a regular ATF fed, not one of the high speed/low drag types from HRT or the other Federal Tac teams.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:That was a quote from Col. Jeff Cooper about masked men in general. Not sure why you're elbows deep in your donkey cave over this.
Did someone really claim that balaclavas protect against "fire and hot gas" and then go on to insult other people's intelligence? That person having exactly zero experience while the people he was informing about the magical properties of balaclavas had quite a lot?
Again, we have been totally sidetracked into nonsense and absurdity. Who really cares that much about Balaclavas when we are taling about surveillance programs?
Here is the question, "Even though the NSA secret spying programs stopped 50 terrorist attacks, including one on the NYSE; is it still a good use of NSA resource or in in the best interests of US citizens?"
Easy E wrote: Again, we have been totally sidetracked into nonsense and absurdity. Who really cares that much about Balaclavas when we are taling about surveillance programs?
Letting absurd claims pass has never been a strong point of this board.
Here is the question, "Even though the NSA secret spying programs stopped 50 terrorist attacks, including one on the NYSE; is it still a good use of NSA resourceor or in in the best interests of US citizens?"
Actually there are balaclavas designed to protect from fire.
It would depend entirely on what type of balaclavas the officers were using. Your common everyday one would not exactly be helpful, for example, and from the picture shown that doesn't look like a fire resistant one. I don't actually know though, because I didn't make it or happened to be there.
Suggesting they wore them out of shame is hilarious though.
At most I would hazard it could protect against minor scrapes, and it's mostly for protecting the identity of the officer and family against retribution.
Careful Dwhitey. Might get Sebster to go off on you. If so take the money and run with it. Couple of us did just to get him all full of piss and vinegar and self righteous.
At most I would hazard it could protect against minor scrapes, and it's mostly for protecting the identity of the officer and family against retribution.
Often there are agents who work undercover who double as door kickers on some of these ops. They will tend to wear them to protect identity.
But....
Having been issued poly propylene ones, and ones made from nomex, I can assure you poly pro melting into your flesh would be a bad thing and very much NOT any protection against fires.
Nomex flight uniforms are good for "Flash Fire" Your goal though if in a aircraft which a flash fire has occur is to out run the crew chief and the pilots. Even though your MULTICAM is FR the thing will still go up in flames in a sustain fire situation. Also your a bit more motivated to get out and away from a vehicle, aircraft, or rotary wing aircraft. You are in fact carrying a lot of ammo, pyro, frags, maybe some flashbang....someone carrying 20mm grenade rounds for the 204...its quite unhealthy to stay in prolong heat situation. Lets not also forget your wearing ballistic eyewear, metal dog chain around your neck or in your right front pocket or rear right pocket.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That was a quote from Col. Jeff Cooper about masked men in general. Not sure why you're elbows deep in your donkey cave over this.
Because you said something ludicrous, and I want you to realise that.
Personal statement though? If they aren't ashamed they damn well should be.
Are they wearing masks because they are ashamed, or because they should be ashamed? Are you suggesting it isn't shame that makes them put on masks, but the shame they ought to be feeling that makes them put the masks on?
Which would explain the multiple cover ups by multiple agencies including the FBI, agents changing their testimony from what they told reporters compared to what they said on the stand, you know stuff like that.
Didn't they put the masks on before that happened? So now the shame is travelling through time, as well?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: What? Can't tell the officer that KM posted a bit wee heavy? That's not body armor he is wearing....its a Mollee Vest. If he was wearing body armor then it should have been on top of his jacket. That looks like a nylon material jacket under the Mollee Vest. That's a no go. I do believe the fed has a similar standard of Height and Weight. If the officer knows news crew are going to be around filming live and he knows he's "questionable" on being close to popping tape. He throw on the Bakacava to mask his identity from his Chain of Command to avoid to be called in to make height and weight standards as long as possible to buy himself time to lose the excess weight. I do the same damn thing to till operation execution. Hey if your thinking I'm all out bashing the Feds rapid response teams its all good. Nothing but rivalry. So call it BS or whatever you like but it still stands. You Lack Combat Experience, You Lack a good sense of humor. You lack the understanding of friendly rivalry. You also do not know as most here don't that these teams train with 160th right? In fact quite a few of these team members on the fed side are former SPECOPS and/or high speed grunts. NSDQ and brush up a bit more on the US Military
You haven't read this conversation. I never attempted to defend the ATF, or the subsequent FBI response. If you'd read the conversation, you'd have noted I said the raid pointless, compromised and terribly executed.
I am simply commenting on a politically driven comment that masks were worn only because of the personal shame of the agents... which was a fething stupid comment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Did someone really claim that balaclavas protect against "fire and hot gas" and then go on to insult other people's intelligence? That person having exactly zero experience while the people he was informing about the magical properties of balaclavas had quite a lot?
Yes, because that is a design feature of many balaclavas. One doesn't need combat experience to know, merely the ability to read the manufacturer's tag.
Anyhow, I thought you had me on ignore, since you claimed that US murder rates were due to crimes, and I gave you the FBI figures that disproved that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Suggesting they wore them out of shame is hilarious though.
You'd think that, wouldn't you?
I mean, I laughed a lot when I read it, and then I tried to explain to the person who suggested it why it was such a silly thing to say. Then some other people, for reasons I haven't really got my head around, came to the defence of that stupid, stupid idea.
To you Sebster just to you. We rag on them quite a bit as they do on us. Welcome to "Camaraderie" but like I said before. I'm just going to feed into whatever perception you have on us in the US military. In a fun way. Because not only the chubster would possible get shot but he be suffering from 2nd degree burns from the Nylon Jacket...not including the debries from the jacket that melted inside him to. Besides it seems Delta Force initiated the combat portion...a elite US ARMY combat force was seem to be lead on that attack Pres Clinton avoided a situation. Also seem Hillary order the Coup De Grace to the remainder of the Brach Davidian
Jihadin wrote: To you Sebster just to you. We rag on them quite a bit as they do on us.
Of course, and I read the fat stuff and laughed, but didn't contribute because I didn't have anything to add to that part of the conversation.
None of which has anything to do with honest to god, made not in jest but with complete seriousness claim that tactical police wear balaclavas because of the shame of being tactical police. It wasn't made to rag on someone in a joking way.
I mean, here is the original claim;
"Already a couple of the faithful have sent in checks for a foundation memorial to the innocents who perished at the hands of the ninja at Waco. … I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as “ninja” … Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic." - Col Jeff Cooper "
That isn't ragging... that's being crazy.
I'm just going to feed into whatever perception you have on us in the US military.
What perception is that? What are you talking about?
Da Boss wrote: My perception is that being in some way affiliated with the US military makes you an expert on every relevant field in any argument.
No, but I would say it does tend to make us at least slightly more knowledgeable on issues related to the military than an office manager from down under.
Seaward wrote: No, but I would say it does tend to make us at least slightly more knowledgeable on issues related to the military than an office manager from down under.
Sure. Until someone claims that tactical police only wear balaclavas out of a deep shame over the job they're doing. At which point a person could be a bubble boy who's never seen the sun to know that's a crazy claim.
From there we can speculate about why other people with combat experience might wander in to criticise that person for speaking on the subject, while never actually trying to defend that original crazy claim. In some cases it might just be protecting what they see as one of their own, or a subject that others should not talk about, in others it might be because... well I don't know, maybe because that person had a big sad in a gun control debate after I gave them figures disproving their poorly researched claims. But I'm just guessing here, it could be anything, really.
sebster wrote: Sure. Until someone claims that tactical police only wear balaclavas out of a deep shame over the job they're doing. At which point a person could be a bubble boy who's never seen the sun to know that's a crazy claim.
It's not quite claiming that untreated cotton has magical protective powers and that's why they're worn, but it's likely not the case for most situations, no.
It would give much deeper "dull" black. First time I went wearing FR uniforms its not fun when you develop a rash in your crotch till your skin gets use to it. Lidocaine cream is your friend....and long hot shower popping zits on inner thighs. Besides in actually. Since I'm guessing the guy head is cold...if that pic was from Feb when Branch Davidian went down. Its a no brainer. If he left it on when all the excitement was happen and left it on then that's a chucklehead move. First thing I be taking off so I can freaking breath and not have tunnel vision. Just seem though he was walking around
Seaward wrote: It's not quite claiming that untreated cotton has magical protective powers and that's why they're worn, but it's likely not the case for most situations, no.
Which is running on the assumption that balaclavas are only ever made out of cotton, which is, well, kind of stupid.
And likely not the case for most situations? So you're saying there are some tactical police out there who don balaclavas for no reason than a deep personal shame over their professions? That's... just... I mean, I know you picked your side years ago and believe thinking is the enemy of loyalty, but god damn it man, listen to yourself.
sebster wrote: Which is running on the assumption that balaclavas are only ever made out of cotton, which is, well, kind of stupid.
You were talking about Waco and the ones worn by the ATF when you made the assertion that, somehow, some way, they protect against "fire and gas." You're welcome to claim you were talking about somebody else's balaclavas, I guess, but I doubt anyone would buy it. I realize you talked out of your ass and are now trying to walk it back, and I'm even inclined to let you, since you're generally so ill-informed on this sort of thing, but not if you're going to keep digging your own hole.
And likely not the case for most situations? So you're saying there are some tactical police out there who don balaclavas for no reason than a deep personal shame over their professions? That's... just... I mean, I know you picked your side years ago and believe thinking is the enemy of loyalty, but god damn it man, listen to yourself.
Not entirely sure what "tactical police" are, but ATF wannabe door kickers generally wear them for intimidation. I'll eagerly await you telling us how they're also bulletproof and capable of summoning dragons, though.
Jihadin wrote: Well...sliding on a Balaclava is a bit faster then say...making T-Shirt Ninja....most cases...your shirt armpit winds up around your face and nose...
Old Spice Swagger deodorant, my friend. Makes it all worth it.
Seaward wrote: You were talking about Waco and the ones worn by the ATF when you made the assertion that, somehow, some way, they protect against "fire and gas." You're welcome to claim you were talking about somebody else's balaclavas, I guess, but I doubt anyone would buy it.
"Balacavas serve no protective function PERIOD." "It protects from flames and hot gas."
I realize you talked out of your ass and are now trying to walk it back, and I'm even inclined to let you, since you're generally so ill-informed on this sort of thing, but not if you're going to keep digging your own hole.
All I ever wanted to do was point out to a poster that his claim that the ATF showed deep shame, and this was evidenced by their need to conceal their faces was crazy. Whether the actual reason was for a slight amount of protection from hot gas and really minor shrapnel, or just because they want to look cool, or because they fear reprisal, I don't really care. I suspect it's probably a combination of the first two in some amount in the US, with the last option being the most important in more disfunctional parts of the world.
The greater point being, of course, that the original assertion that such officers must be ashamed of what they do and this can be evidenced by their choice of headgear is completely nutty.
Not entirely sure what "tactical police" are, but ATF wannabe door kickers generally wear them for intimidation. I'll eagerly await you telling us how they're also bulletproof and capable of summoning dragons, though.
So now you're just walking away from that vague bit of nonsense about shame being 'likely not the case for most situations'? Can't come to admit that my original point was right and that the claim about balaclavas being due to shame was 100% crazy nonsense, but can't pretend that the point was even slightly right... so instead you're just going to try and ignore it?
Well, I can't say that's anything but same old Seaward nonsense.
Oh, and tactical police is a general term used in some places around the world to describe police units that engage in tactical operations like hostage rescue and counter terrorism. I'm guessing people use it because the official names of these units, like police tactical group and police tactical unit is too wordy, and SWAT is too American.
sebster wrote: "Balacavas serve no protective function PERIOD."
"It protects from flames and hot gas."
They really don't, though, unless they're specially designed. As has been painstakingly pointed out to you.
All I ever wanted to do was point out to a poster that his claim that the ATF showed deep shame, and this was evidenced by their need to conceal their faces was crazy.
Countering with something equally nonsensical probably wasn't the way to go.
So now you're just walking away from that vague bit of nonsense about shame being 'likely not the case for most situations'?
Nope. I still very much think shame is likely not the case in most situations.
Can't come to admit that my original point was right and that the claim about balaclavas being due to shame was 100% crazy nonsense, but can't pretend that the point was even slightly right... so instead you're just going to try and ignore it?
You'd have been right if you'd left it at that, rather than doing what you always do and deciding you're an expert on a topic you know remarkably little about.
Seaward wrote: They really don't, though, unless they're specially designed. As has been painstakingly pointed out to you.
Yeah, and that's what I replied to. I mean, read what I just quoted to you.
Countering with something equally nonsensical probably wasn't the way to go.
Equally nonsensical? Equal?
A suggestion that there might be a protective component, compared to the suggestion that it's worn out of a personal shame due to being in a tactical police unit? Both things 'equally nonsensical'?
I mean, I know you're all butthurt because in the past I've pointed out factual errors in your arguments, and because you're the kind of guy you are, instead of just learning something and moving on, we've ended up in these weird pissing contests, but this is a fething strange to pick to try and score some points back.
I think you're misinterpreting the quote a little Sebs. What the Colonel is suggesting is not shame from being in a tactical police unit, (though the man pictured isn't, he's just a regular ATF agent) it's the concept that if you are concealing your identity, you are usually up to no good, and that as a soldier, or law enforcement officer you should have no reason to conceal your identity or hide your face in the discharge of your official duties, and if you do conceal yourself it can be inferred that, like the other masked men running around that you're up to no good, or doing work that you would in some way be shamed by enough that you don't want your face or name attached to it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I think you're misinterpreting the quote a little Sebs. What the Colonel is suggesting is not shame from being in a tactical police unit, (though the man pictured isn't, he's just a regular ATF agent) it's the concept that if you are concealing your identity, you are usually up to no good, and that as a soldier, or law enforcement officer you should have no reason to conceal your identity or hide your face in the discharge of your official duties, and if you do conceal yourself it can be inferred that, like the other masked men running around that you're up to no good, or doing work that you would in some way be shamed by enough that you don't want your face or name attached to it.
You're splitting hairs, there. I mean, balaclavas are worn regularly by these units in their operations, not just at Waco. So if it isn't the shame of being in a tactical unit, then it must be the shame of undertaking the operations commonly performed by police tactical units...
None of which makes any sense when you look at the actions of the ATF in the lead up to Waco. They leaked it to the media beforehand, because they wanted media attention. Which says a lot of bad things about the competence of the ATF, but doesn't suggest any measure of shame.
Except balacavas are not common issued equipment any where that isn't cold, nor is taping off your badge's ID number which is actually against regs in many police units. We just explained to you in detail that balacavas are not in common use as protective equipment, and I'd say that's especially true in the United States, there's an inherent distrust or distaste for masked men here that aren't billionaires with their own private arsenal (but it's okay because Bruce Wayne doesn't exist).
I also think you's misconstruing the ATF's contact with the Herald Tribune, that wasn't an intentional "leak" so much as a "We're doing stuff, stop publishing your editorial attack ads", that's the process of tying down loose variables, if they had wanted media attention they would have brought a no gak news crew with them. Which actually might have been a net positive when you think about it. Camera footage would probably lay most of the controversy to rest.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Except balacavas are not common issued equipment any where that isn't cold, nor is taping off your badge's ID number which is actually against regs in many police units. We just explained to you in detail that balacavas are not in common use as protective equipment, and I'd say that's especially true in the United States, there's an inherent distrust or distaste for masked men here that aren't billionaires with their own private arsenal (but it's okay because Bruce Wayne doesn't exist).
So the conclusions is the inherent shame of raiding the complex? I mean, come on, this has gone on so long...
I also think you's misconstruing the ATF's contact with the Herald Tribune, that wasn't an intentional "leak" so much as a "We're doing stuff, stop publishing your editorial attack ads", that's the process of tying down loose variables, if they had wanted media attention they would have brought a no gak news crew with them. Which actually might have been a net positive when you think about it. Camera footage would probably lay most of the controversy to rest.
No, there was a direct tip made that the raid would be that morning, prompting a camera man to go looking for the compound, which led to the Davidians being tipped off about the raid. Exactly who made the leak, and why the tip was made has been the source of endless speculation, of course.
And I have no idea what you're talking about with 'camera footage would have probably lay most of the contraversy to rest'. There was footage. It was all over the news. It happened because a camera man was there, filming the events (a different one than the guy who accidentally tipped off the Davidians).
forgot to mention when my GF/current wife would let me drive...I would drive like I was back in the "Box"
