Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

My own opinions:

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.

Oh well, here's hoping the whole country gets ticked off about this.

He was an old fat white dude who liked booze, french hookers and snuff, what do you expect? A chiseled jawline like Ahnuld?

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

Didn't you read? The "classified" FISA courts have ensured they have all the warrants they need to do whatever they want.

Huh, two pages to Godwin eh? That was kinda slow for OT

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.

For those interested in telling the U.S. Government to stop reading your dirty emails: https://optin.stopwatching.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.

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.

 azazel the cat wrote:

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.

 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)

Not being able to turn the key could land you in prison if you were in SAC back in the day. Little different then firing on your own people though.

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.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 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.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 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?

 sebster wrote:


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

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

. 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?

 sebster wrote:

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.

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?

I can't carry when I go to work, if there's a criminal case that has a force risk real cops (i.e. the FBI) can handle it.

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.

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.

"Here's 50 wins for us, no you can't see our sources or any form of evidence"

Allow me to amend myself, it's not useful for anything BUT cold weather gear.

Nope I said it was good cold weather, otherwise it's stupid.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

Quit reading my mind Jihadin

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.

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.