It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whistleblowers

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
Whistle blower laws are a joke. They claim to protect those who speak up when they see something wrong, but always seem to find a way to persecute them. If people were truly protected under those laws, I believe we would see more coming forward with some pretty damning evidence. I don't think they should be allowed to expose information that would put lives in danger, but when it comes to corruption, political/corporate manipulation and just plain wrong doings, turn'em loose.


not really a joke....
abcnews.go.com...
www.justice.gov...
www.rollingstone.com...
online.wsj.com...
the program seems to be moving along nicely




posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
Just FYI pronouns and language in general are not based on science and facts. But feel free to use superficial non scientific understanding of biology to justify your prejudice. Facts are only facts when you believe they are and it's clear what your beliefs are on this topic


Just because you appear to bow to the politically correct argument on the topic doesn't make your opinion any more correct--actually, pronouns (if you know their definitions) are related to gender, which is related to sexual organs, which is related to biology, which is a science. I promise--I've looked it all up many times in the medical dictionaries that I have here at my house.

I don't have a prejudice on this topic, whether you want to accept that truth or not, but don't muddy the conversation with your garbage argument--all it does is ignite a fire that wasn't lit in the first place. But thanks for your "FYI" on the topic, even though you're absolutely incorrect--you do realize that your stance on the topic is based on using superficial non scientific understandings, right?

This may just be a disagreement based on semantics, but I would argue at least one of us is based on an accurate use of language (psst...and it's not you). In the future, please save your baseless accusations of prejudice for someone who you know for a fact is--you don't know me, so don't make up bullsh*t on here like you do.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

You missed the details in my comment that were necessary to understand. I'm not going to hold your hand through my comments, but I think you may need to re-read it, because even though I did compare theses specific whistleblowers to being the Empire, there was an explained reason as to why--you missed it. That's not my fault.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: AgentShillington

You missed the details in my comment that were necessary to understand. I'm not going to hold your hand through my comments, but I think you may need to re-read it, because even though I did compare theses specific whistleblowers to being the Empire, there was an explained reason as to why--you missed it. That's not my fault.



Death Star Politics isn't a counter to my point, it supports it. The "empire" in my point is actually the whistleblower who does a massive dump of information without consideration for the roofers who will get shot up. The Service Members can't possibly, consciously be expected to consider the possbility of people like Manning being in their ranks when then join the military, so to imply via Death Star Politics that they should have been able to consider the risk and back out is inaccurate.


No, I understood your point. You seem to be under the impression that Service Members are too naive to understand that they are part of the military and as such are always considered valid targets of aggression and espionage. I understand you, I simply think you are wrong.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington
No, I understood your point. You seem to be under the impression that Service Members are too naive to understand that they are part of the military and as such are always considered valid targets of aggression and espionage. I understand you, I simply think you are wrong.


You can think I'm wrong all you want, but again, I never said Service Members are too naive at all, I said...here, let me get the quote that you quoted from...hold on...oh, here we go:


The Service Members can't possibly, consciously be expected to consider the possbility of people like Manning being in their ranks when then join the military, so to imply via Death Star Politics that they should have been able to consider the risk and back out is inaccurate.


I do concede that people of the 2014 military may think about things like this, but when I joined up in 1998, there was zero reason for that to even cross my mind, and it's absolutely not something they discuss during recruitment, basic training (unless they've drastically changed their OPSEC classes), advanced individual training, or while anyone I know in the Army was active and on the job. Hell, even the guys I knew in 5th Special Forces Group on Fort Campbell didn't discuss that stuff. I work with a friend who was in military intelligence and deployed to the ME, and even he had no concerns about stuff like this happening at the time.

So, you can continue to think I'm wrong all you want, but my point was that you can't realistically expect the concern of whistleblowers to be on the minds of recruits as they enter the military, let alone it be in the forefront of their thought process. But, if you've never been in the military, I wouldn't expect you to understand, as it's easy to sit on the sidelines and think, but it's another to be a part of the experience--good or bad--and understand what goes through your mind when joining up.

Also--and I know this sounds made up, so trust me if you want--I read much of the transcripts from the Manning trial because I was proof-reading for my wife who typed the transcripts (we met in the Army, both paralegals, she became a court reporter), so trust me when I say that there are a lot of details most don't understand that make Manning's actions pretty inexcusable (speaking as a former Soldier and military paralegal). Just like you expect recruits to understand the repercussions of joining the military, Manning also knew that he was breaking the law when doing what he did, so responsibility lies with him, too.
edit on 24-11-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide




However I'll put Assange aside, as I have mixed feelings about him and focus on Snowden. What did Snowden really tell us? In actuality it was very, very little. His leaks did substantiate what many, many people already suspected and were discussing - but his "revelations" did not add much to the discussion other than verifying what was already in the wild.



I don't get you people. What has he given us ????


CONFIRMATION. Having spent a couple of years on ATS...the value of conspiracy confirmation becomes very clear.

Unless there is "official" confirmation...everything is a "conspiracy"...and it's ...crazy.

For me...Snowden, Manning and Assange...are heroes. Just check out their lives today.

One is imprisoned, the other is locked up in an embassy, and the third is on the run and will always be looking over his shoulders. Whether some agency or a lone nut...who thinks like many of you on ATS that he is a traitor...will be after him for the remainder of his life. Snowden will never be able to set foot in the US, unless in line for an execution.

Heroes in my book.

You claiming that they brought nothing...huh...I guess you'd rather be speculating about conspiracies on the internet than confirming them and exposing the guilty.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I do concede that people of the 2014 military may think about things like this, but when I joined up in 1998, there was zero reason for that to even cross my mind, and it's absolutely not something they discuss during recruitment, basic training (unless they've drastically changed their OPSEC classes), advanced individual training, or while anyone I know in the Army was active and on the job. Hell, even the guys I knew in 5th Special Forces Group on Fort Campbell didn't discuss that stuff. I work with a friend who was in military intelligence and deployed to the ME, and even he had no concerns about stuff like this happening at the time.


Discussing espionage is bad for morale. I totally believe you that recruitment officers aren't giving accurate information to recruits, I've experienced that first hand myself, but to suggest that no one in the military is concerned about espionage, and that they are not aware that they are active targets at all times from enemies both foreign and domestic is naive on your part.


Just like you expect recruits to understand the repercussions of joining the military, Manning also knew that he was breaking the law when doing what he did, so responsibility lies with him, too.


Rebellion is always against the law, which is why I placed Manning as the Rebels in my analogy.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

We'll agree to disagree concerning your interpretation of my comment. It's gone on longer than it should have, anyhow.

Best Regards.

(and like I said, if you've never been in the military--a fact about you I don't know--then you wouldn't truly understand what goes through the minds of Service Members)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join