[ExI] pussy riot case

[Kelly Anderson]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>
>> I love being the outlier. I am somewhat surprised that there isn't
>> anyone else here who thinks he is dangerous or irresponsible.
>
> I am having such fun with, am more absolutely captivated by, this
> Assange/Wikileaks business.
>
> Sorry to have to come down on the other side of this issue from you
> Kelly, but well, it's our fate.

Ok. But I don't have much time today to hold up my end of the argument... LOL

> So,... let's get it on.
>
>> Army Pfc. Bradley Manning swore an oath to protect his countries
>> secrets, then violated that oath. That's a little stronger expectation
>> of loyalty than "some"...
>
> In fact, he swore no such oath.  Rather he swore an oath to protect
> and defend the Constitution.  Then he found himself in a rather
> difficult situation: caught between his duty to obey orders (note
> important detail: ***lawful*** orders), and his duty report criminal
> behavior.
>
> He reported the crimes he saw -- Sunni detained by US forces being
> turned over to Iraqi forces (Shia) for torture and liquidation -- only
> to be told to shut up and go back to work helping to find and turn
> over more Sunni detainees.

I don't think Pfc Manning was all that particular about what he
leaked. He just grabbed everything he could as quickly as he could and
dumped it all. That this stuff was found in the mega dump is a bit
like saying, "Hey, I found some recyclable aluminum at the land
fill"...

> So he was faced with a seriously nasty choice, join in the
> criminality, or,... do something else.  He chose "something else",
> which was to blow the whistle on the criminality.

He may have felt compelled by particular acts to do what he did, but
he dumped a whole big bag of stuff.

> We each have our attitude towards what he did, but in the end it is up
> to a jury of his peers to decide the degrees of rightness and
> wrongness of his actions.  I would add that in a just world, the US
> civilian and military leadership should also stand trial alongside
> him, to see whether the "alleged" criminal acts that motivated Manning
> to act as he did, were in fact criminal and whether on that basis they
> rose to the level of justification for Manning's actions.

He's gonna go down. The military can't let it happen any other way.
Right or wrong.

> Sadly, Manning will not get a civilian trial -- until his case reaches
> the Supreme Court --the military will not recuse itself despite the
> self-evident fox-henhouse conflict of interest, and the leadership
> elite will never stand trial.  Which leads me to the conclusion that
> Manning will get the fairest political show trial the military can
> conduct, and spend most of his life in prison.
>
> I don' approve, but then, I'm a person of no importance.

You are a voter, the person who should have the most importance.

>> Assange himself is not guilty of treason in the sense that he has not
>> personally committed an offense against the country of his birth.
>
>> Nevertheless, he is guilty of promoting and enabling treason.
>
> The assessment of treason turns on the question of whether the US
> conduct witnessed in Iraq by Manning was criminal or not.  That's for
> a jury to decide.

I was speaking in general terms... that wikileaks is a conduit for treason.

> Now on to Assange.
>
>> He may be free under US law as I understand it to do what he is doing.
>> I hope so. But with freedom comes a certain amount of responsibility.
>> He has not exercised that, IMHO.
>>
>> The charge against Assange isn't so much "playing with people's
>> lives", but making all of civilization less safe by outing secrets
>> that might well be more safely kept behind closed doors. I've heard
>> his counter argument, and I simply disagree. As you know, I have
>> serious doubts about the good intentions of governments as a system,
>> and would love to take them all down a notch or two... I just think
>> Assange is taking the wrong approach to doing that. I think I actually
>> agree with his goals.
>
> As you state, this is your view.  Fair enough.
>
> My view is that the world is undergoing a paradigm change in the
> accessibility, ease of distribution, and problematic confidentiality
> of information.  Assuming there is no turning back, then some will
> fear the uncertain consequences of this new paradigm, and others will
> say "Bring it on, and let the chips fall as they may."  If things work
> out for the better, then those who feared the change will have been
> proven wrong.  If things go badly, then the radical transparency
> advocates will have been proven wrong.

I just don't see how it can end happily when behavior can only change
in the future, and information about the past remains unchangeable. If
everything the US government has done covertly over the past 50 years
were to come out all at once, it would be bad. Very very bad. It would
lead to shooting wars, economic wars, etc.

>> ... if privacy is guaranteed to individuals, then
>> why not to some extent extend the same privilege to corporations and
>> to governments.
>
> It appears that privacy for individuals has been cancelled.  But even
> if that were not the case, govts in the era of democracy (phony and
> corrupt though it may be) conduct the people's business and have no
> inherent right to keep the people's business secret from the people.

I understand why you think that way, but I think it violates common
sense to some degree. Do we really want to know what all the Jack
Nicholson characters are doing out there to protect freedom? I don't
know that we are really ready to handle the truth.

> Certainly, the govt could argue that privacy was necessary for govt
> effectiveness, but my experience suggests that leaders seek power and
> employ secrecy primarily to maintain or enlarge that power.  This is
> both an ancient truth and an ancient evil.  Modernity calls for its
> repudiation and disposal.

I don't like secrecy in politics, but I think it is useful militarily.

>> Assange clearly has balls the
>> size of Godzilla, and he was creative and courageous to create such a
>> dumping ground for the world's secrets. But it is also very clear that
>> he has ruined at least one life so far, that of Army Pfc. Bradley
>> Manning. If he hasn't damaged another single person, he clearly stands
>> partially responsible for the ruination of that young man's future.
>> And I can't support him if only for that one example.
>
> Classic case of blaming the victims.  Manning and Assange are both
> victims of lawless Washington.

We will see if Washington can do anything about Assange short of a
predator drone striking the Ecuadorian embassy... now that would be a
bit of a mess... LOL.

-Kelly