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.

We don't smile fondly on our Cold War days where the enemy of our enemy was our friend, whether or not our new friend was a homocidal dictator or not. The Cold War is over. We're past that, and pulling up photos from there still doesn't constitute an argument or evidence for your claims.

olympia wrote:I take everything back. The U.S. is a shining beacon of hope in a dark world...a defender of the weak and feckless.

The problem you seem to be exhibiting is that you seem to think it either has to be one of two extremes, and since you see nothing good then that must mean it is all bad. What you have here is a false choice fallacy. Like any country we have done some good things and we have done some not so good things, but the options aren't only polar opposites.

Frazzled wrote:So people who give up military secrets are heroes in your book? Not that state department crap but real military secrets? If so then you sir are a traitor.

I'm pretty sure Olympia is Irish, and so can't be a traitor.

...He did have an American flag by his name, so I assumed he was American. Of course, I'm American and I have a Union Jack by my name, so I guess we should've asked first...

Dual citizen

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So people who give up military secrets are heroes in your book? Not that state department crap but real military secrets? If so then you sir are a traitor.

I'm pretty sure Olympia is Irish, and so can't be a traitor.

Well if he applies himself he could be one day. If you make it they will come.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So people who give up military secrets are heroes in your book? Not that state department crap but real military secrets? If so then you sir are a traitor.

I'm pretty sure Olympia is Irish, and so can't be a traitor.

Well if he applies himself he could be one day. If you make it they will come.

I see he replied. My point stands then.

No, not so much, while dual citizens can be convicted of treason the punishment is much less severe; nominally being stripped of US citizenship, followed by removal to the other nation in question.

Also, it isn't treason to agree with the action of someone else who is committing, or has committed, treason.

dogma wrote:No, not so much, while dual citizens can be convicted of treason the punishment is much less severe; nominally being stripped of US citizenship, followed by removal to the other nation in question.

Also, it isn't treason to agree with the action of someone else who is committing, or has committed, treason.

Especially since the Constitution has a very, very specific definition of treason.

Article 3, Section 3 wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

I'm actually pretty sure no one can be convicted of treason in the Wikilieaks case. Even the Private neither waged war against the US, or helped out enemies deliberately. At most, he's guilty of espionage....

ChrisWWII wrote:

dogma wrote:No, not so much, while dual citizens can be convicted of treason the punishment is much less severe; nominally being stripped of US citizenship, followed by removal to the other nation in question.

Also, it isn't treason to agree with the action of someone else who is committing, or has committed, treason.

Especially since the Constitution has a very, very specific definition of treason.

Article 3, Section 3 wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

I'm actually pretty sure no one can be convicted of treason in the Wikilieaks case. Even the Private neither waged war against the US, or helped out enemies deliberately. At most, he's guilty of espionage....

I'm using traitor in the nonlegal but moral sense.

ChrisWWII wrote:We don't smile fondly on our Cold War days where the enemy of our enemy was our friend, whether or not our new friend was a homocidal dictator or not. The Cold War is over. We're past that, and pulling up photos from there still doesn't constitute an argument or evidence for your claims.

I wouldn't say that you're 'past that' now. You (and we, playing the role of Robin to your Batman) are pretty cozy with some questionable regimes.

Assange is a jumped up, self-important tit, but so far he hasn't done anything as bad as those lovely folks at Cryptome. They purposefully endangered people's lives by posting a list of alleged MI6 agents onto their site. Reckless and stupid.

Some things should be secret. Just because you disagree, doesn't mean you have the right to make it public. Secrets aren't 'bad' just because they're secret.

Yeah, treason is basically a political crime because the standard of evidence for conviction is simply ridiculous. You get convicted if someone with power doesn't like you, basically.

Of course, that dislike may, or may not, be legitimate.

Frazzled wrote:
I'm using traitor in the nonlegal but moral sense.

Legal citizenship is now a moral contract?

Someone cannot prefer one nation, but claim citizenship in another for the legal benefits that follow from doing so?

Albatross wrote:Assange is a jumped up, self-important tit, but so far he hasn't done anything as bad as those lovely folks at Cryptome. They purposefully endangered people's lives by posting a list of alleged MI6 agents onto their site. Reckless and stupid.

I had not heard about this.

I think that irresponsible behavior like that of Assange and others are going to be what gives "the man" the impetus to crack down on internet freedoms, personally.

Albatross wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:We don't smile fondly on our Cold War days where the enemy of our enemy was our friend, whether or not our new friend was a homocidal dictator or not. The Cold War is over. We're past that, and pulling up photos from there still doesn't constitute an argument or evidence for your claims.

I wouldn't say that you're 'past that' now. You (and we, playing the role of Robin to your Batman) are pretty cozy with some questionable regimes.

Assange is a jumped up, self-important tit, but so far he hasn't done anything as bad as those lovely folks at Cryptome. They purposefully endangered people's lives by posting a list of alleged MI6 agents onto their site. Reckless and stupid.

Some things should be secret. Just because you disagree, doesn't mean you have the right to make it public. Secrets aren't 'bad' just because they're secret.

I'm glad you quoted this, because its sort of a ridiculous comment.

If we really cared about who was in power in the states with which we dealt, the majority of our foreign oil wouldn't come from Africa and South America.

Hell, we wouldn't even use foreign oil, because its basically a cancer on any attempt at democratization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I think that irresponsible behavior like that of Assange and others are going to be what gives "the man" the impetus to crack down on internet freedoms, personally.

Yup.

Monster Rain wrote:I think that irresponsible behavior like that of Assange and others are going to be what gives "the man" the impetus to crack down on internet freedoms, personally.

In all honesty that's what I'm most worried about. Assange and his ilk causing enough problems that give the government an excuse in order to clamp down on the Internet. It'll be hard to do, but they'll definitely try.

And Albatross, yeah...our dark days aren't 100% behind us, and we do back some questionable regimes, but the days when we support ANYONE who didn't like the Soviets regardless are past. Now we only back anyone who sells us vital resources.

Well, and those regimes that oppose radical Islam; eg. Egypt.

Ahtman wrote:

Albatross wrote:Assange is a jumped up, self-important tit, but so far he hasn't done anything as bad as those lovely folks at Cryptome. They purposefully endangered people's lives by posting a list of alleged MI6 agents onto their site. Reckless and stupid.

I had not heard about this.

Wiki wrote:Cryptome hosted documents, consisting of over 54,000 files, include suppressed photographs of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, lists of people believed to be MI6 agents, detailed maps of government facilities (based on publicly available mapping and aerial photography), and 4,000 photos of the Iraq War killed and maimed.

Charming.

Also, it looks like they've published a pretty detailed expose of MI6's internal structure and methods. The owners of this site are American, by the way.


Which is quite interesting.

Im fething glad I dont work for MI6.

Or Chomper the Gator. He doesn't work for them either.

Frazzled wrote:So people who give up military secrets are heroes in your book? Not that state department crap but real military secrets? If so then you sir are a traitor.

you a meen old fart. Plz 2 get off MY lawn!

I just wanted to post something random.



I think a great way to sum this whole thing up is, if someone shot GW Bush in the face, I'd buy them a beer and then help the cops tackle them....figuratively. Being morally right does not mean that you are legally correct. Separate issues are separate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DEUS VULT wrote:
Berkeley is a beautiful city with a lot of great people and the best public University in the country and possibly the world. Its also largely batsh!t crazy.

Its OK I guess. The road system was designed by a psychopath, and the constant political circus is...entertaining. Definitely a town made up of the "intellectual elite", plus they have a nuclear test lab in the middle of a major city. lolhippies

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I think a great way to sum this whole thing up is, if someone shot GW Bush in the face, I'd buy them a beer and then help the cops tackle them....figuratively. Being morally right does not mean that you are legally correct. Separate issues are separate.

You know that makes you sound kind of coockoo...

Yeah, you crossed a line into crazy talk there Pete.

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, you crossed a line into crazy talk there Pete.

Crazy because I would be OK with someone shooting a guy? Pft, LOTS of people I'd like to see shot.

Peter Wiggin wrote:[

DEUS VULT wrote:
Berkeley is a beautiful city with a lot of great people and the best public University in the country and possibly the world. Its also largely batsh!t crazy.

Its OK I guess. The road system was designed by a psychopath, and the constant political circus is...entertaining. Definitely a town made up of the "intellectual elite", plus they have a nuclear test lab in the middle of a major city. lolhippies

True. My memories may be a bit skewed as I last patrolled those streets on a sick Huffy BMX

Monster Rain wrote:I think that irresponsible behavior like that of Assange and others are going to be what gives "the man" the impetus to crack down on internet freedoms, personally.

Yep, this is a huge potential opportunity for the FCC to try to control internet bandwidth, it almost happened earlier this year. I don't like traiterous activities but, I err to the side of liberty.