- Apr 21, 2000
- 10,465
- 866
- 60
- Disclosures
- Gallien Krueger for the last 12 years!
He's going to be indicted in the US on spy charges. Judging by some of the posts in this thread, some of you are in for a rude awakening.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
WikiLeaks.
- Thread starter Deluge Of Sound
- Start date
- May 30, 2000
- 4,707
- 257
- Disclosures
- Creator of: iGigBook Sheet Music Manager
Assange, they will argue that he was in collusion or acting in concert with the leaker it's sort of like providing material support for terrorist.
Well I'm not finding any links that get any more definite than he "may" or "could" get indicted. Anyone got a 100% will yet?
No, it can be a flaw with the military, not it's one true flaw.
Alpha company's grunts need to trust Alpha company's fire team leaders, squad leaders, platoon leaders, and company CO in order for them to do their part to accomplish the task at hand. If you drill it into troops that they can question all their orders, the entire concept of a huge force of troops working in unison like one huge organism falls flat on it's face and it turns into chaos.
Not sure what you mean in your response, but basically I am saying that in order to having a functioning military they NEED to be obedient and can not question the people above them. Which means we need to hold the suits more accountable for what they approve in their policies.
And the flaw is, that these are people with hearts and minds, not robots. So its flawed by nature. People being FORCED to do something they may not agree with. The leadership is 100% responsible for the actions, based on the idea that the military and the people who serve are only to follow orders. While the troops who committed the hazing in Guantanamo are the one's looked at as the guilty, truth is they should not be as responsible as the people in charge of them. And if the leadership claims ignorant then we have a bigger issue.
WikiLeaks is just the beginning of a new era in information warfare. Truth is the Government can not always out pace the private sector in technology. Meaning cyber power will be in the hands of individuals. And the USA with its slumping economy and weak science and math students, the US will be knocked off the pedestal. Not completely, but for example, Japan seems to always be a year ahead in consumer electronics. So they may have something that can spy on our digital information that Americans and its government may have never heard of.
But with the Digital age upon us we all will be open to cyber attacks and will be spyed on with CCTV and satellite images. Privacy is a thing of the past.
But with the Digital age upon us we all will be open to cyber attacks and will be spyed on with CCTV and satellite images. Privacy is a thing of the past.
Here's a newsflash--if you want to keep something private, keep it off the internet.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,405
- 9,845
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
Incorrect. The military member cannot question a lawful, moral order. If an order is unlawful or immoral, it is the member's responsibility to question, and report such orders.
Wrong. They are 100% accountable for their actions because they were illegal actions. "I was following orders" is never a defense in cases like this. We are not trained to blindly follow orders.
Also, to say that they are being forced is inaccurate. Our military (the US's) is 100% volunteer force. No member is forced to commit illegal acts.
+1
I was going to point this out earlier, but didn't get around to it. Any member of the military knows what they're getting themselves into. They signed on the dotted line.
Perhaps 'forced' is too strong a word.... However, if a soldier were to suggest to her superior that her orders were illegal and/or immoral, something tells me that this would not be received warmly. And, having received no success, going higher up in command may be even worse. The military is not the place for freethinkers who think that all authority is fallible and ought to be questioned. There are many forms of coercion which do not employ physical force.
Further to the point, something to bear in mind is that, in free societies, governments are supposed to be accountable to the people (not vice versa). Thus, as our servants, their actions ought to be open to public scrutiny, whenever possible. Oddly, in recent years the trend has been moving in the opposite direction, where increasingly governments are spying on their citizens while simultaneously becoming more secretive and hiding their own actions from public view (a move toward fascism). Organizations like Wikileaks serve to swing this balance somewhat back the other way by providing freedom of information for citizens. A free press is also necessary to facilitate public access to this information. Those who seek to stop this are actually anti-freedom and anti-democracy.
Also, on the claim that people may be harmed by the leaks: This is a red herring which was also used to suppress the Pentagon Papers, but has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Further to the point, something to bear in mind is that, in free societies, governments are supposed to be accountable to the people (not vice versa). Thus, as our servants, their actions ought to be open to public scrutiny, whenever possible. Oddly, in recent years the trend has been moving in the opposite direction, where increasingly governments are spying on their citizens while simultaneously becoming more secretive and hiding their own actions from public view (a move toward fascism). Organizations like Wikileaks serve to swing this balance somewhat back the other way by providing freedom of information for citizens. A free press is also necessary to facilitate public access to this information. Those who seek to stop this are actually anti-freedom and anti-democracy.
Also, on the claim that people may be harmed by the leaks: This is a red herring which was also used to suppress the Pentagon Papers, but has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,405
- 9,845
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
And you're still wrong. There are many mechanisms built into the military precisely to combat this very thing. The chain of command is not all powerful in the military. You clearly know nothing about what it is to serve in the US Armed Forces, and I'd suggest to you to stop trying to act like you do - you're wildly off base.
I can't argue with you there - nor would I want to. I'd also been wondering if anyone could bring up a case where American lives had been put at risk specifically due to wikileaks.
What I wrote was in part based upon the experiences of the wife of a friend who was working in the Canadian military. In her case she had absolutely no success going through the chain of command regarding the unethical actions of a co-worker. No one was willing to "rock the boat". Eventually she chose to leave because the system was not set up for accountability.
I could never be in any military organization because I take no authority to be valid unless/until it has sufficiently justified its validity.
Still, the point about degrees of coercion still stands, from peer pressure to pressure from the command hierarchy. To suggest that soldiers are free to question the morality and legality of all orders which are given to them is not realistic. Although official channels may be available, I would hazard to guess that there is strong social and official pressure not to question authority. Otherwise, how else could a military force maintain cohesion?
A very wise person once told me. "What doesn't kill you will sometimes make you sick enough to wish you were dead."
Leaking classified information could very well make a country so sick that it cripples them for a very long time.
Although I hope to not take this thread too far away from the topic, I thought that this was relevant:
Link Removed
The article goes on to say that the above only applies to lawful orders. However, what recourse would a low-ranking individual have in questioning the legality of a superior's order during conflict, a circumstance where there is no practical way to seek the ruling of a higher authority on the legality of the order? Further, lawful does not imply ethical (and note that those in the highest offices have been known to "stretch" the definition of lawful so as to contravene the Geneva Conventions). Somehow I doubt that the battlefield is a place where a soldier is free to make a cogent philosophical argument regarding the unethical nature of her orders. After doing some reading on the topic, and given the harsh consequences for insubordination, I gather that any person in the military who refuses to obey the orders given them does so at their own peril.
Link Removed
The article goes on to say that the above only applies to lawful orders. However, what recourse would a low-ranking individual have in questioning the legality of a superior's order during conflict, a circumstance where there is no practical way to seek the ruling of a higher authority on the legality of the order? Further, lawful does not imply ethical (and note that those in the highest offices have been known to "stretch" the definition of lawful so as to contravene the Geneva Conventions). Somehow I doubt that the battlefield is a place where a soldier is free to make a cogent philosophical argument regarding the unethical nature of her orders. After doing some reading on the topic, and given the harsh consequences for insubordination, I gather that any person in the military who refuses to obey the orders given them does so at their own peril.
