It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.