Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

That's actually kinda encouraging.  Maybe they really do just want it to be on record, to avoid blackmail.
Also Jock totally merges with the black helicopter, it's all explained in these documents

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"The first two weapons we can easily get off the dead terrorists, so ask for the rocket launcher. Interestingly, Paul approves of this.. the idea that we are going to use it on people has obviously not entered into his darkest dream."

[RedKing]

Yeah, for the most part, the government doesn't give a fuck what you do as long as it's not illegal. And as long as enough people know about it that it can't be used to blackmail you.

Like my extramarital affair. If that was secret (and/or if I had lied about it and the Feds found out), that would be an immediate disqualifier. Since all my close friends and family (and y'all) know about it, it's deemed a non-issue. Which is probably part of why I'm so open about it. Don't want to give them any rope to hang me with, even if my clearance is currently inactive.

[Sheb]

At this point I guess its safer to only give clearance to people that are openly deviant, as theyll be much harder to blackmail even if they actually were hiding something else.

I for one welcome our new exhibitionist zoo-pedo-maso-sado-necrophile overlords.

[Calidovi]

theyll be much harder to blackmail even if they actually were hiding something else.

People still judge them if they're open about it.

[Sheb]

I was talking about the legitimate security concern of not wanting blackmailable people with security clearances. If you're open about it, people can't blackmail it for you. Itf it's well known you're a pervert deviant, people can't blackmail you with anything (that's not illegal at least). Which lead to the hiarious idea of intelligence agencies hiring only well known deviants.


"Look, you look like perfect spy material... But you're scoring too low on the deviance scale. Why don't you hump a dog dressed as a cheerleader and post the photo on FB?"

[Calidovi]

I was talking about the legitimate security concern of not wanting blackmailable people with security clearances. If you're open about it, people can't blackmail it for you. Itf it's well known you're a pervert deviant, people can't blackmail you with anything (that's not illegal at least). Which lead to the hiarious idea of intelligence agencies hiring only well known deviants.


"Look, you look like perfect spy material... But you're scoring too low on the deviance scale. Why don't you hump a dog dressed as a cheerleader and post the photo on FB?"

Oh, I see. Personally, it would not be a problem. But when dealing with others it'd probably incur the same "WTF" reaction.

Also, I found my future career.

[SalmonGod]

Chelsea Manning facing potential indefinite solitary confinement for a bunch of ridiculous shit.

[Strife26]

Cool. Hopefully someone loses the key.



Not like it really matters, the maximum charge for everything related to the UCMJ is extreme. It's not like we're going to put Bergdahl up against a wall and shoot him like we should, despite that being the appropriate penalty in the book for desertion in a time of war.

[Rolan7]

"Indefinite" solitary confinement is a ridiculous punishment for those charges.  There's no reason to torture someone like that, even a traitor.  Even if she's being uncooperative.  At least set a time, which she can count out by meals.

Besides, there's no law which calls for torturing traitors.  Because it's pointless and inhuman.  This is more evil than "enhanced interrogation", and that's saying a fucking lot.

[Strife26]

Indefinite isn't being used in the sense of a Count of Monte Cristo-eqsue sentence, it's being used in the sense of general disrespect, disorderly conduct, ect. not having a specified punishment length because they're all open ended offenses.  But nah, Chelsea is a great hero and all that who's being silenced by the man.

[Rolan7]

Yeah, it doesn't mean infinite.  I still don't feel comfortable with anybody being subjected to indefinite solitary.  It's cruel and unusual, and pointless.

I mean, you could make the argument that torturing traitors would discourage other traitors.  But then it ought to be public and visceral.  Put her on a podium in Time Square and lash her until she recants.  Make a spectacle of it!  Because if the purpose is to scare people out of "betraying" the country, it needs to be public to work.

Don't just torture her quietly, and pretend it's not torture - that doesn't help at all.  It's just vicious.

[Strife26]

It's not even being used in the context of indefinite "yeah, we'll let you out when we let you out" it's being used in the context of "there isn't a set stint in solitary for this shit. We'll figure it out in whatever the article 15 equivalent is once you're already in Leavenworth"


Personally, I'd be damn happy if I didn't have to read the name Chelsea Manning until her 35 year sentence is up, but that's hardly going to happen. Shit, I suppose the next thing will be a complaint out of Anders Breivik's book about her accommodations not being nice enough, though.

[EnigmaticHat]

It's not even being used in the context of indefinite "yeah, we'll let you out when we let you out" it's being used in the context of "there isn't a set stint in solitary for this shit. We'll figure it out in whatever the article 15 equivalent is once you're already in Leavenworth"

Yeah, when you piss off the government and then get thrown in solitary with no legal limit for keeping toothpaste past its expiration date, there's nothing to be afraid of there :/

I don't think anyone deserves the death penalty, I don't see why anyone deserves straight up torture (which is what any significant stay in solitary is).

[Tiruin]

Chelsea Manning facing potential indefinite solitary confinement for a bunch of ridiculous shit.

>_>
This isn't even reasonable...Dear goodness...
Even a psychological evaluation would be better [because all of this isn't even meritous of such punishments] (as in, poking at attitude--as the judgement here is bloody outrageous on her).

...How is all that valid by law there? Or...reasonable by law? Seems like a ton of assumptions being put in between and ending with a period labelled 'judgement'. o_O Solitary confinement doesn't even make sense at all.

[Frumple]

Yer makin' the assumption that the law in the US gives much of a shit about prisoners, tiru. That's an unfortunately poor assumption to make.