Chelsea Manning is a Hero (http://nusqueer.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/chelsea-manning-is-a-hero/)
August 23, 2013
Today's big news story is that Wikileaks leaker Pfc. Manning would like to live out the rest of her life as Chelsea, and is no longer Bradley, he or him.
Cue barrage of ignorant comments.
Jezebel has kindly put together a guide for How Not to React to News That Bradley Manning is Transgender, which catalogues the most common mistakes made by those in the news media today...
It ends with, "Don't read any comments on anything today. Trust me on this."
-------
I guess this has already been discussed and isn't exactly breaking news, just another link. ;)
Edited to comply with Posting news Articles & Quoting Guidelines (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,12805.msg94246.html#msg94246)
I am sorry, Marissa, but Manning is no "hero." She violated her oath, she violated the trust that was placed in her, and she is a convicted and admitted criminal.
Perhaps, one day, she can redeem herself.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 20, 2013, 03:06:28 PM
I am sorry, Marissa, but Manning is no "hero." She violated her oath, she violated the trust that was placed in her, and she is a convicted and admitted criminal.
Perhaps, one day, she can redeem herself.
I don't think there's anything honorable about wars. So no she's not a hero, no soldier is.
Edit: sorry if i seemed a little insulting or too snarky. I edited the post accordingly.
She is not the super criminal she is made out to be though. She just pissed off the USA that much.
Didn't mean to start a fight here, but that's how I see it, Jamie. You see it differently obviously. Not sure how her notoriety will affect the trans community but I think she deserves some support regardless. I guess history will be the final judge.
~ Mara ~
Quote from: ZootAllures! on September 20, 2013, 03:10:37 PM
I don't think there's anything honorable about wars. So no she's not a hero, no soldier is.
Edit: sorry if i seemed a little insulting or too snarky. I edited the post accordingly.
She is not the super criminal she is made out to be though. She just pissed off the USA that much.
That's an opinion and should be stated as such, you phrase it as fact.
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on September 20, 2013, 03:43:48 PM
That's an opinion and should be stated as such, you phrase it as fact.
Well sorry, but i'm only human and English is not my native tongue, and when it's late i may forget that some people want something to be phrased in a very specific way.
Actually, the coverage that bothered me the most was the sidebar in the Washington Post describing SRS in detail.
What has that got to do with Ms. Manning? Has she ever mentioned SRS? Further perpetuates the myth that transgender=SRS.
Quote from: ZootAllures! on September 20, 2013, 03:46:30 PM
Well sorry, but i'm only human and English is not my native tongue, and when it's late i may forget that some people want something to be phrased in a very specific way.
I don't know who you consider a hero, and you don't know who I consider a hero. Broadly stating that no soldier is a hero is a social faux pas.
he·roˈhi(ə)rō/noun1.a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.
"a war hero"
synonyms:brave person, brave man/woman, man/woman of courage, man/woman of the hour,lionheart, warrior, knight;
2.another term for submarine sandwich.
Further, instead of saying you're tired and blaming others for wanting to hear things a certain way, why don't you just try saying "Yeah, I was pretty rude back there?"
Quote from: Marissa on September 20, 2013, 03:19:47 PM
Didn't mean to start a fight here, but that's how I see it, Jamie. You see it differently obviously. Not sure how her notoriety will affect the trans community but I think she deserves some support regardless. I guess history will be the final judge.
~ Mara ~
I fully desire that Manning be allowed those natural and human rights that should be afforded to all people, even those in prison. I understand your position; however, "hero" (or "heroine") is a superlative that should be reserved for those who accomplish great things.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 20, 2013, 06:10:11 PM
I fully desire that Manning be allowed those natural and human rights that should be afforded to all people, even those in prison. I understand your position; however, "hero" (or "heroine") is a superlative that should be reserved for those who accomplish great things.
Thanks for the clarification. I respect your opinion even if I don't share it.
~ Mara ~
Quote from: ZootAllures! on September 20, 2013, 03:10:37 PM
I don't think there's anything honorable about wars. So no she's not a hero, no soldier is.
I have no problem with pacifism. In fact, I took an oath to defend my fellow citizens' right to enjoy peace, and to protect that right with my life, if necessary.
Thanks for the kick in the teeth to all those who serve their countries in good faith.
Oh, and if your command of English is so poor that you use it as an excuse when you openly insult people, then may I suggest that you take some language lessons so you can behave in a more civil and responsible way?
Recently, prior to pfc manning coming out, I've noticed transgender issues grabbing more positive headlines in the mainstream media than I feel it used to.
I fear that pfc manning will provide a tool for people working against LGBT rights to demonize transgender people.
Finally, I do not agree with calling pfc manning a hero as she made an oath and when potentially questioning activities of the US government, failed to seek proper channels that are intended to protect her from breaking that oath, in turn protecting the lives of US personnel and others.
Quote from: EllieLove on September 20, 2013, 11:54:31 PM
Recently, prior to pfc manning coming out, I've noticed transgender issues grabbing more positive headlines in the mainstream media than I feel it used to.
I fear that pfc manning will provide a tool for people working against LGBT rights to demonize transgender people.
Finally, I do not agree with calling pfc manning a hero as he made an oath and when potentially questioning activities of the US government, he failed to seek proper channels that are intended to protect him from breaking that oath, in turn protecting the lives of US personnel and their allies.
:police:
EllieLove, please do not miss pronoun people who identify as transgender, no matter what their circumstance may be.
Cindy
Global Moderator
Quote from: Cindy on September 21, 2013, 12:43:06 AM
:police:
EllieLove, please do not miss pronoun people who identify as transgender, no matter what their circumstance may be.
Cindy
Global Moderator
Edited. Thanks for notifying me
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on September 20, 2013, 05:04:01 PM
2.another term for submarine sandwich.
I think I could agree that Ms. Manning is a sandwich.
The other? No way. She has no integrity, which is something people entrusted with secrets need. There were proper channels to use for whistleblowing. I am personally convinced she acted out of spite against the military, which is quite the opposite of "hero."
I agree she is a hero, If you sit there and say how she's a traitor then your an apologist for hypocrites and war criminals and frankly your no better, as that is what she revealed. She never endangered anyone even her persecutors couldn't prove that. her crime was the embarrass the elite.
The US government criticised the Taliban time and again for gunning down children, first responders and journalists... and rightly so those are clear violations of the Geneva convention.
But the US and it's armed forces clearly are no better.
Quote from: pebbles on September 23, 2013, 01:48:44 AM
I agree she is a hero, If you sit there and say how she's a traitor then your an apologist for hypocrites and war criminals and frankly your no better, as that is what she revealed. She never endangered anyone even her persecutors couldn't prove that. her crime was the embarrass the elite.
The US government criticised the Taliban time and again for gunning down children, first responders and journalists... and rightly so those are clear violations of the Geneva convention.
But the US and it's armed forces clearly are no better.
+1 million cookies
I'm mixed on this and have often rocked back and forth on the issue. On the one hand, she exposed things that needed to get out and I'm happy that we are aware of the facts on the ground. She is a hero in the sense that she exposed terrible things that she hoped would enlighten the public. In that aspect, I'm with her. On the other hand, she released over 700,000 documents without having read all of the data. In my view, that's a bit reckless because it had the potential to do harm. At the end of the day, there is a reason some information is classified even if the government is secretive about a lot of things that should see the light of day. If she didn't know what was in every released document, then that is a bit careless despite her intentions to do good. While it didn't cause any measurable harm to anyone in this particular case. it had the potential to do so. Therefore, I do like that she took a stand to expose things that were clearly wrong, but I don't care for how she did it. For me, it's not about the leak, but how the leaks were handled. Regardless, no harm was done and she did expose things that should have been known, so I refuse to call her a traitor nor do I think she deserves the harsh sentence she received. I don't have the answers as this is complex situation, but my heart says to pardon her because she had good intentions, didn't hurt the U.S in a measurable way, and released things that should have seen the light of day.
Personally, this is why I believe Whistleblower reform would be helpful. Instead of having people act on their own, we could have a system with more checks and balances. Sure, the proper channels do exist and Manning neglected to attempt them, but many reports have shown the military can be vindictive against those who even use the channels; therefore, I understand her hesitance to try and go through it. However, a vigilante system is problematic and may have the potential to do harm. With a proper system, this can verify that the information being released is proper and wouldn't cause harm to anyone.
Seriously, I wish the debate on Manning could be placed into a more productive conversation. This shouldn't be so much about heroes and traitors more than it should be about us finding a way to hold our government accountable in a way that doesn't have the potential to jeopardize national security in any way. Nothing is clear cut. Furthermore, it's just as problematic to say those concerned about the implications that Manning's actions could have had are war criminals and hypocrites, as it is to say that Manning and her supporters are traitors for exposing those crimes. It's not a black and white issue and wish people could see the extent of the issue without needing to vilify or idealize the character in question and attack people with legitimate concerns on either side of the issue.
Quote from: pebbles on September 23, 2013, 01:48:44 AM
I agree she is a hero, If you sit there and say how she's a traitor then your (sic) an apologist for hypocrites and war criminals and frankly your (sic) no better, as that is what she revealed. She never endangered anyone even her persecutors couldn't prove that. her crime was the (sic) embarrass the elite.
The US government criticised the Taliban time and again for gunning down children, first responders and journalists... and rightly so those are clear violations of the Geneva convention.
But the US and it's armed forces clearly are no better.
According to the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949, these are who are "protected persons":
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.And ...
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.And ...
Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.LINK (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html)
Furthermore ...
Under customary law and the Third Geneva Convention (Art. 4), the guerrilla fighters of a Party to the conflict are entitled to combatant status, and therefore to prisoner-of-war status, only if they fulfill the following conditions: being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly, and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.LINK (http://74.6.116.71/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22geneva+convention%22+%2Bguerrilla&fr=yfp-t-122&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=%22geneva+convention%22+%2bguerrilla&d=4616515468201310&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=QcV9oEFdNzkzWX8xcqjRfjyqq4dV4X-6&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=NOhGihyuOFYo9ALLpXAbVQ--)
This thought is expanded here:
First, what does it take to qualify as a prisoner of war? Article IV of the Geneva Convention states that members of irregular militias like al Qaeda[, Iraqi insurgents, Taliban, Hamas, Hezzbollah] qualify for prisoner-of-war status if their military organization satisfies four criteria.
The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
[They do] not satisfy these conditions. Perhaps Osama bin Laden could be considered "a person responsible for his subordinates," although the cell structure of al Qaeda belies the notion of a chain of command. But in any event, al Qaeda members [and others like them] openly flout the remaining three conditions.
[Unlawful combatants] deliberately attempt to blend into the civilian population - violating the requirement of having a "fixed distinctive sign" and "carrying arms openly." Moreover, they target civilians, which violates the "laws and customs of war." I will go even further. When unlawful combatants hide and fight among those who should be considered considered non-combatants, they, in effect, militarize the civilians through the "fog of war."
If you are fretting over something like the Manning-leaked 12 July 2007 Baghdad helicopter strike, don't. It was entirely justified and sanctioned under the "laws of war" (see Article 28 above).
Perhaps Manning had a similar misunderstanding, which led to her criminal activities. Her actions diminish the credibility of the transgender community, in my opinion.
If you are going to call people "war criminals," then you need to know what you are talking about.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 23, 2013, 12:50:00 PM
When unlawful combatants hide and fight among those who should be considered considered non-combatants, they, in effect, militarize the civilians through the "fog of war."
Wow, Just Wow.
That's a very technical way of saying
"I can murder whoever I like."
Because that's tantamount to your Orwellian interpretation... What limitations are US forces subjected to when killing civilians under that reading?
Answer: None
I wonder if the rest of the world agrees with that interpretation.
Quote from: pebbles on September 23, 2013, 02:56:24 PM
Wow, Just Wow.
That's a very technical way of saying
"I can murder whoever I like."
Because that's tantamount to your Orwellian interpretation... What limitations are US forces subjected to when killing civilians under that reading?
Answer: None
I wonder if the rest of the world agrees with that interpretation.
Not at all. The reason the Geneva Conventions and the Protocols exist, is to protect non-combatants, and to ensure the humanitarian treatment of lawful combatants when they are captured or wounded.
The reason guerillas, insurgents, spies, and other types of unlawful combatants are condemned in the Conventions, is precisely because they put protected persons at risk. When, for instance, an Hamas terrorist fires a missile at Israel, from a school playground in Gaza, the terrorist makes the playground a target.
Also, "murder" requires evil intent. It is never murder to kill lawful or unlawful combatants who are capable of resisting. Civilians also have the positive obligation to depart a war zone. A population that clothes, feeds, and arms unlawful combatants are themselves belligerents.
If you are a humanitarian, then you too should condemn the unlawful actions of al Queda, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, etc, who endanger the innocent. You really should read up on the Conventions so that you understand the issues.
EDIT: Let me add that I respect your pacifist point of view. I believe, however, your rhetoric is misguided.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 23, 2013, 03:23:46 PM
Not at all. The reason the Geneva Conventions and the Protocols exist, is to protect non-combatants, and to ensure the humanitarian treatment of lawful combatants when they are captured or wounded.
The reason guerillas, insurgents, spies, and other types of unlawful combatants are condemned in the Conventions, is precisely because they put protected persons at risk. When, for instance, an Hamas terrorist fires a missile at Israel, from a school playground in Gaza, the terrorist makes the playground a target.
Also, "murder" requires evil intent. It is never murder to kill lawful or unlawful combatants who are capable of resisting. Civilians also have the positive obligation to depart a war zone. A population that clothes, feeds, and arms unlawful combatants are themselves belligerents.
If you are a humanitarian, then you too should condemn the unlawful actions of al Queda, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, etc, who endanger the innocent. You really should read up on the Conventions so that you understand the issues.
and the us military.
Quote from: ZootAllures/BlackNapkins! on September 23, 2013, 03:34:12 PM
and the us military.
Not so. In the recent conflicts the US Military has conducted itself within the scope and parameters of the Conventions.
They are in compliance with the Laws of War.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 23, 2013, 03:36:12 PM
Not so. In the recent conflicts the US Military has conducted itself within the scope and parameters of the Conventions.
They are in compliance with the Laws of War.
that's what they say, but probably not what they actually did.
Conventions or not, the Apache attack was shameful in my opinion. There is a reason the government wouldn't respond to Reuters request for further information on the incident. It may or many not be illegal, but I think there is a good reason for the public to be outraged by some of the military's actions. Having said that, it's not right to put the U.S. government in the same camp with al-queda, the taliban or hamas. One may hate the drone wars, but at the very least they are targeted strikes at terrorists as opposed to random attacks on civilians. Still, there has been too much civilian causalities in the cross fire and we are responsible to hold our government accountable for perceived wrongs and voice our disapproval.
I honestly think Manning was treated unfairly and didnt recieve the attention and support deserved because everyone was focusing on the Martin/Zimmerman nonsense. But just because you can relate to someone doesn't make them a hero. It's the same thing with Brandon Teena who is revered by ftm's to be some transgender deity when in reality he was a terrible person who lied, cheated, stole, and hurt everyone around him.
So no, I can't say Manning is any kind of hero. I'm sure the dictionary definition has been posted in this thread already, and Manning would certainly not fall under it.
In other Whistleblower news...
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/23/breaking_ex_fbi_agent_pleads_guilty_to_major_leak/singleton/
I think this is relevant because there has been a large discussion over the role of whistleblowing and it's possible justification and further implications. I'll be interested to learn more once the story continues to break.
Here is a more in-depth article on the breaking story. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/23/225491628/former-fbi-agent-to-plead-guilty-in-leak-case
I should note, it's more a leak story than a whistleblower one, but many of the talks about leaks can perhaps add to the overall conversation.
Quote from: learningtolive on September 23, 2013, 03:50:59 PM
Conventions or not, the Apache attack was shameful in my opinion. There is a reason the government wouldn't respond to Reuters request for further information on the incident. It may or may not be illegal, but I think there is a good reason for the public to be outraged by some of the military's actions. Having said that, it's not right to put the U.S. government in the same camp with al-queda, the taliban or hamas. One may hate the drone wars, but at the very least they are targeted strikes at terrorists as opposed to random attacks on civilians. Still, there has been too much civilian causalities in the cross fire and we are responsible to hold our government accountable for perceived wrongs and voice our disapproval.
Shameful and unlawful are two different things. War is shameful (but some wars displaced murderous tyrants). Dropping atomic bombs were shameful (but they likely saved many more lives than they took).
By far and away, most of the "civilian" casualties in Iraq have come from secular Sunni vs Shi'a violence.
When an American soldier has been accused of crimes in these war zones, they have been tried by a military court. Who provides justice for the gassed Kurds, the Taliban atrocities, and al Qaeda terrorism? How are they held accountable?
Quote from: Jamie D on September 23, 2013, 04:47:14 PM
Shameful and unlawful are two different things. War is shameful (but some wars displaced murderous tyrants). Dropping atomic bombs were shameful (but they likely saved many more lives than they took).
By far and away, most of the "civilian" casualties in Iraq have come from secular Sunni vs Shi'a violence.
When an American soldier has been accused of crimes in these war zones, they have been tried by a military court. Who provides justice for the gassed Kurds, the Taliban atrocities, and al Qaeda terrorism? How are they held accountable?
On your first point, I can agree. Nonetheless, we still have a right to call out what we see as wrong.
On your second point, I didn't claim otherwise.
Lastly, I'm not defending any extremist group. I specifically stated that the U.S should not be lumped into that category even if you don't care for all of our actions. Our intent is different and we do have laws procedures to address the wrongs; although, I don't always feel they are used. I don't know why you would ask me why you would ask about who holds the extremists accountable when I argue there is an important distinction. In any case, I could care less about who holds them accountable as long as they are prevented from harming more people in this world. As for the U.S. this is my government and I have the right to raise my voice when I see a wrong. Furthermore, I don't want my moral compass to be guided by the fact that we are at least better than the terrorists. They may act like animals, but that doesn't mean we should either. I'm not saying we are acting in that way, but that's why it's important for there to be a form of redress for the wrongs and we should raise our voice when we don't believe they have worked. Please don't take what I say as the U.S is the same as monsters as the al-Queda. That is far from my view even if I don't agree with everything our military does. It's not always your either with us or with the terrorists.
The problem with some of the earlier posts, is that the poster tried to draw a moral equivalency between the lawful actions of a trained military, and the immoral and lawless actions of terrorists.
Quote from: learningtolive on September 23, 2013, 05:05:49 PM
Furthermore, I don't want my moral compass to be guided by the fact that we are at least better than the terrorists.
Exactly. Jamie, your arguments seem to largely rely on pointing out how the U.S. military is not as bad as the terrorists. Being not as bad as others doesn't mean you're not behaving badly. It seems to rely on George Bush reasoning, i.e. "You're either with us or your with the terrorists." and I just don't buy into that false dichotomy.
One of the main reasons I applaud Manning's action is that our government (I'm American too) has become too adept at sidestepping checks and balances that were intended since the American Revolution. How can the American people (or any people for that matter) ensure that groups of elite individuals don't pass the point where necessity falls away and atrocity comes into play if those groups can operate in complete secret?
We have absurd levels of 'National Security,' and levels of classification without unbiased oversight. There are cases where information really does need to be kept secret, but I would bet that they make up less than 1% of the documents that are classified.
Potential embarrassment is not a sufficient reason for classifying information IMHO. I really think it should be a criminal act to mark a document 'top secret' without sufficient evidence that it poses a threat. I can't spell out exactly what level of evidence is necessary; it would probably take a group of experts a significant amount of time to make that call, but I think it's time to reclaim governmental oversight from the military-industrial oligarchy. We need much more transparency!
Transparency is needed for citizens to be well informed and I appreciate more info even if it comes from so called whistle blowers.
The Iraq war was an illegal invasion based on lies and an unwarranted occupation of a sovereign nation. We owe them an apology IMO.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who have experienced the horrors and waste of war would revisit it for "a cause" with the blood of their children.
War is not the answer it is the enemy. Does killing for peace really make any sense?
Quote from: Tessa James on September 23, 2013, 08:07:46 PM
Transparency is needed for citizens to be well informed and I appreciate more info even if it comes from so called whistle blowers.
The Iraq war was an illegal invasion based on lies and an unwarranted occupation of a sovereign nation. We owe them an apology IMO.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who have experienced the horrors and waste of war would revisit it for "a cause" with the blood of their children.
War is not the answer it is the enemy. Does killing for peace really make any sense?
There's an anti-war thread in Politics, we figured out that depending on your source, all of humankind has generated somewhere between eight to two hundred years of peace. Humans always have, and likely will, always fight.
Killing for peace in the name of 300,000,000 people is difficult to justify. Even if the majority of those 300,000,000 people agree with you, some don't. Killing for peace in your own name or in the name of a group that is in unanimous agreement may be justifiable (self defense or the defense of others who cannot defend themselves).
I am pretty sure no one said it's okay to kill people without just cause, but sometimes there's little options otherwise than to go to war (hey, it would've been nice if King George just said "okay America, go free, I support your Independence" or if the South said "okay, let's all work together, and we're willing to give up slavery"). I am not saying that I completely agree with the recent wars, or that I totally agree with all the decisions the US government has ever made. I feel awful when innocent civilians get hit in cross fire and so on. The fact is that all wars (justified or not) get messy, and innocent people on both sides get killed. Soldiers who don't have the proper support and mental health services can do awful things (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/soldier-gets-life-without-parole-in-deaths-of-afghan-civilians.html?_r=0).
I do think it's unfair to make all soldiers, or anyone who isn't a 100% dedicated pacifist out to be complicit in war crimes, or to not be a moral person. Transparency is good, and it can help us make our military better, though like every action a person does, leakers/whistle blowers need to take steps to ensure there's no (or little) negative impact on innocents. (and yes, I know no one got hurt from Manning's disclosures, I am speaking in general here, if Manning could do it, so can and likely will other soldiers). Sometimes if there's something you feel strongly about, to you, it's worth it to go to prison. There's some things I think I'd willingly go to prison for. The next person who makes disclosure might not be as good-intentioned as Manning seemed to have been, and the repercussions could be very serious depending on what the next person releases and to whom. (The military does need to smarten up though about who they let near classified information, as well as other government agencies, if they want to prevent more leaks.)
Definitely would not call her a hero. I think she went about it the wrong way and took matter into her own hands. Despite having the best intentions, she still went about it in a way that could have potentially harmed a great deal of people if it had been just a tiny bit different. You do things in certain ways, because in order to preserve life and the balance of things, you must do them that way. The government keeps tons of secrets and some are considered to be important as a secret because of some small detail, that we don't realize is best kept that way. Even a line of a sentence can get someone killed if someone read it the wrong way. "Loose lips, sink ships" and all that.
I don't agree with a lot of things the military has done, but those who do them in the US, have a better track record of being held accountable for their crimes. As far as I see it, some people are calling her a hero for simply coming out as transgender after the fact and forgetting about the crimes that she did commit. Almost as if to say, its ok to break the law and endanger people, because you know, we are behind you coming to grips with your real gender and doing what you can to align your body in the right way.
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on September 23, 2013, 08:20:33 PM
There's an anti-war thread in Politics, we figured out that depending on your source, all of humankind has generated somewhere between eight to two hundred years of peace. Humans always have, and likely will, always fight.
Devlyn i admire your support of those who have served. Individual soldiers do not start wars. My intention here is to speak to the collective responsibility we have for living in a cooperative, collaborative and peaceful world. We really only have a small slice of human history that has any written record. Many researches speculate, with some evidence, that there was a thousand+ year era when peaceful human coexistence reigned on earth. War is not part of every culture and modern warfare kills many times more civilians than soldiers. Warfare could now lead to our extinction and that of thousands of neighboring species. It is the ultimate threat by our own hand.
We can fight for any number of good reasons and I want us to fight for justice, civil liberties and to know the truth. We can do that without killing. As trans people we may have a particular inside look at what a lifetime of hiding the truth does for us. Secrecy can seriously erode our ability to be informed citizens. Do we really need to spend millions to spy on everyone? Does that foster trust?
If the truth was known about the Gulf of Tonkin incident we might have avoided that tragic war in VietNam. If the truth was known about the non existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction we might have skipped that invasion too? Governments derive legitimate power from the consent of the governed. I feel it is our responsibility to speak truth (as best we can determine it) to power or take it back.
Thank you Chelsea Manning for helping us know more of the truth. Best of luck with your transition.
Quote from: dalebert on September 23, 2013, 05:26:11 PM
Exactly. Jamie, your arguments seem to largely rely on pointing out how the U.S. military is not as bad as the terrorists. Being not as bad as others doesn't mean you're not behaving badly. It seems to rely on George Bush reasoning, i.e. "You're either with us or your with the terrorists." and I just don't buy into that false dichotomy.
I tend to see things in more black & white terms. Moral rights and moral wrongs. Derived from our natural rights. I largely reject moral relativism.
It has nothing to do with moral relativism. They can be doing immoral things and the U.S. military can be doing other things that are also immoral, maybe not as bad, but it doesn't make them good or even acceptable. Just because two sides are fighting doesn't mean one side must be clearly right and one side clearly wrong.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Most things are pretty gray in the big picture. Microscopically you can narrow some acts down to being goood or bad. Of course it all depends on your personal set of morals and beliefs.
Quote from: dalebert on September 24, 2013, 08:11:44 PM
It has nothing to do with moral relativism. They can be doing immoral things and the U.S. military can be doing other things that are also immoral, maybe not as bad, but it doesn't make them good or even acceptable. Just because two sides are fighting doesn't mean one side must be clearly right and one side clearly wrong.
I agree that could be a case. I disagree that is the case. In the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq (the conflicts Manning felt motivated to highlight), there were some clearly bad people involved (i.e. the Taliban, Saddam Hussein's regime, etc)
Our enemies are our friends and innocence does not exist
I'm not buying into any of the debate. I'm certainly not qualified to comment on Ms Manning. But I do find the hypocrisy of Nations to be stunning.
Including my own BTW.
The Taliban were once USA allies. The CIA overthrew legitimate democratically elected governments. The English raped and pillaged the world to forge its Empire. The Australians have dominated Asia as it wished - and had a White Australia policy and slaughtered the Aboriginal population.
We better not discuss slavery or the fate of the Native American Aborigines.
The Dutch, Spanish, French and Germans have invaded countries to loot them. As have Russia, China, Japan, Italy.
Anyone I've left out? Probably - of course I have!
There is no such thing as 'right' among countries, there is only expedience. And the conqueror is always in the right and has the gods on its side.
That is what humans are.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 25, 2013, 12:02:29 AM
I agree that could be a case. I disagree that is the case. In the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq (the conflicts Manning felt motivated to highlight), there were some clearly bad people involved (i.e. the Taliban, Saddam Hussein's regime, etc)
I disagree. You don't either have to be "either with us or with the terrorists". When I was a kid, I opposed the Iraq War very vocally. It wasn't because I sided with Saddam, but I disagreed with the administration and was concerned about the implications of an invasion. Saddam was a horrendous person that deserved everything he got; however, I don't feel the U.S. planned this well or thought about what occupying Iraq would mean. Quite frankly, I think my concerns were proven right and many Americans would feel the same. Does that mean that most of us are with the terrorists? So, yeah I disagreed with both sides and would vigorously disagree that my opposition to the war has anything to do with showing support for the other side. I love my country, but I have a right to disagree with some of it's actions. A true patriot and good citizen is one who stands up for what they believe in. If this is to be a true democracy, then various voices should be heard without being castigated. No one should be reprimanded for not agreeing with every action of their government.. Saying "you're either with us or with the terrorists" does just that; and in the process, it undervalues both democracy and the foundation of this country.
By the way, even if you believe things are black and white, the U.S does not. Like most nation-states, the U.S cares about their individual interests and sometimes will go to questionable lengths to promote it. Remember, Saddam wasn't always an enemy of the U.S as he once had friendly ties. There are countless dictatorships and authoritarian regimes that America has backed in the name of national security and general interests. Some of these dictators have been linked to serious human rights abuses and other shady practices. Plus, the CIA has been actively involved in the past with overthrowing democratically elected governments for US interests. The world isn't black and white nor is it viewed that way by America or any other nation state. Things are much more complex.
P.S. I feel weird associating the Iraq War with fighting terrorism, since the war really wasn't about that issue at all. Sure, there were insurgents in the aftermath of the invasion, but the issue was about Saddam's regime and the stability of Iraq.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 25, 2013, 12:02:29 AM
I agree that could be a case. I disagree that is the case. In the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq (the conflicts Manning felt motivated to highlight), there were some clearly bad people involved (i.e. the Taliban, Saddam Hussein's regime, etc)
You keep making that argument, and I'm not denying it, but it has no bearing on the acceptableness of the actions of the U.S., unless your argument is that they were SO bad that ANY action on the part of the U.S. military was justified AND worthwhile to do regardless of the harm done, but good luck convincing me of that.
I don't know why people keep throwing the words hero and heroine around. A hero or heroine is someone that does something brave for the good of others. What Chelsea Manning did was reckless. At least that is what I think for the most part. Secrets are never a good thing. They do more harm than good. Governments like to keep secrets and rather than explain why they have them when they come out, they choose to act all defensive and persecute those responsible for leaks.
Jamie, I disagree that Chelsea's actions diminish the transgender community's credibility simply because she was in the news. She acted alone. What she did has no bearing on any other trans person in the world. But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions, right? That's yours and this is mine. ;) Thing is, you and I see things more or less the same. You see things in black and white and I'm a realist. We should so form a group!! :D
I'm tired of the news, it's always doom and gloom. This country is fighting that country. That guy can't find a soap box big enough to stand on. Where have all the feel good stories gone?!
Chris
Chelsea Manning Doesn't Want Anyone To Speak For Her While In Prison
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/chelsea-manning-doesnt-want-anyone-to-speak-for-her-while-in
Author: Jessica Testa Source: BuzzFeed via The Guardian
In a statement published by the Guardian on Wednesday, Chelsea Manning expressed disappointment with the "substantial disconnect" between her and those representing her in the outside world.
"It's not terribly clear to me that my actions were explicitly done for 'peace,'" she wrote in a statement after discovering a peace award was accepted on her behalf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Manning rejects 'pacifist' label in first statement since sentencing
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/09/chelsea-manning-not-a-pacifist
Author: Ed Pilkington Source: The Guardian
Chelsea Manning, the WikiLeaks source formerly known as Bradley Manning, has expressed intense unhappiness at the public profile that is being presented about her, warning that a false impression is being given to the outside world that she is an anti-war pacifist and conscientious objector.
Rather, she sees herself as a "transparency advocate" who is convinced that the American people needs to be better informed.
--------------------------------------
While these aren't Opinions & Editorials, I thought they related to this topic.
Hey folks, there are former soldiers and airmen here, OK? Two in this topic alone, are we not family anymore? Be nice.
Quote from: Jessica Merriman on October 10, 2013, 09:20:37 PM
Hey folks, there are former soldiers and airmen here, OK? Two in this topic alone, are we not family anymore? Be nice.
My brother-in-law is an Airman and I come from a family with a military history. I appreciate your service Jessica. :)
Quote from: Jessica Merriman on October 10, 2013, 09:20:37 PM
Hey folks, there are former soldiers and airmen here, OK? Two in this topic alone, are we not family anymore? Be nice.
I have no problem with soldiers in any form. If my comments about anything was taken as such, then I apologize. Soldiers aren't to be blamed for the decisions of the generals or the civilian leadership. Still, it's okay to disagree with the policy makers and speak up about it, if you disagree with their decisions. That's the American way, and I know many of the people that are standing up for past policy decisions are openly critical towards the current civilian leadership in every single form. So, disagreeing with military policy or policy decisions, isn't really tantamount to being anti-soldier. Though, I do see some comments that are and in no way do I endorse those views.
Besides not wanting to offend soldiers, I wouldn't want to get on Devlyn's bad side, lol. She's whipped me into shape before (and still does), so I try to avoid her wrath as best as possible, lol. ;)
What's long and hard and full of seamen?
I was stationed on a submarine in the Navy.