Print

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

[Urist is dead tome]

Hmmmm.... That does incriminate me.... This is a conundrum.

[Aqizzar]

Hmmmm.... That does incriminate me.... This is a conundrum.

No, it's not a conundrum.  You're just plain guilty.

See?  This legal stuff isn't supposed to be hard.  I ain't no fucking Perry Mason here.

[Urist is dead tome]

My pint here was I would be an unimaginative troll if I was only calling him an ass.

Hmmmm.... That does incriminate me.... This is a conundrum.

No, it's not a conundrum.  You're just plain guilty.

See?  This legal stuff isn't supposed to be hard.  I ain't no fucking Perry Mason here.

Never heard of Perry Mason man.

[SalmonGod]

So in the first, he starts fucking her, the condom breaks and he doesn't stop, so it's rape?

Yeah.  Condom breaks, they tell you to stop, you don't, it is no longer consentual.  You have crossed the line and you are now having non-consentual sex, also known as rape.  No means no, you douche.

In the second, they fuck, go to sleep in the same bed, he wakes up and fucks her again, so it's rape?

Yes, without a condom (which she previously said she didn't want to do), and he started while she was asleep (so she wouldn't stop him).  She *explicitly* denied consent to that act the previous night, and she was asleep in the morning and so she never changed to giving her assent.  It was nonconsentual sex.  Also known as rape.  Still following?

You're inventing a lot of context and characterization off the top of your head here that you don't honestly have any real awareness of.  Human relationships are much more complex than this.  "No" isn't always "NO I DEMAND YOU STOP THIS IMMEDIATELY!" 

For all you know it could have been "Oh god that feels good, but you really should stop.  I mean I'm on the pill anyway, but we really should be safe, but oh god please stop but don't!" *meets the other girl and goes to police* "I swear I told him to stop!"

Please keep in mind that I'm not saying that's how it was.  I don't know, and neither do you.  You're just damning a man because the word rape is involved.

Also keep in mind that supposedly the girls don't even want to press rape charges.  They only want to force him to come back and test for STDs.  This could be misinformation, but no more so than anything else in the reporting of this rabid tabloid event.

Yeah... being alone for that long is gonna drive almost anyone nuts.

But they're force-feeding him anti-depressants, so that makes it ok, right?!

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Edit:

That was also a case of soldiers thinking for themselves, and drawing their own conclusions. How about the soldiers that snap and start shooting their comrades?

How does that even make sense? Should civilian stop thinking for themselves too. They happen to shoot poeple from times to times, too.

Civilians thinking for themselves != soldiers thinking for themselves. Even if you want to count the Manning incident as a case of them coming to a "good" conclusion, how many more times do they decide it's best to abuse civilians or defect to the enemy? Isn't that the whole thing you're trying to avoid in the first place?

I see how that could have been easy to miss, since it was posted just hours before Urist is dead tome started trolling up the place, resulting in a massive shitstorm that buried it under several pages of derp.

Okay. I shouldn't have said that. But I would like to point out that I'm not a troll. I would have to be a pretty unimaginative troll to simply call Julian an ass. I should probably leave.

I didn't accuse you of being a creative troll. Your posts have been predominantly content-bare and inflammatory, and the two threads I've seen you start were even worse, having "blatant attempt to stir up a flamewar" written all over them.

[Urist is dead tome]

I'm not a troll. Christmas being too commercial? Since when is that a flamewar? Feminism? I think you have misconstrued my intentions. Dude. Keep in mind I am rarely serious on the internet.

[Mysteriousbluepuppet]

Heh, i don't think that the poor treatment of Manning is the worst thing in that story. The worstr is that people know what he suffering, that this is, under all law, illegal, and that apparently most people in the 'land of the free' don't give a damn when OTHER people have their basic human right striped for them.

This is sickening

[Urist is dead tome]

It's sick. There's no debating that. But who can do anything about it.

I have Emailed my congressman on this subject.

[Phmcw]

Edit:

That was also a case of soldiers thinking for themselves, and drawing their own conclusions. How about the soldiers that snap and start shooting their comrades?

How does that even make sense? Should civilian stop thinking for themselves too. They happen to shoot poeple from times to times, too.

Civilians thinking for themselves != soldiers thinking for themselves. Even if you want to count the Manning incident as a case of them coming to a "good" conclusion, how many more times do they decide it's best to abuse civilians or defect to the enemy? Isn't that the whole thing you're trying to avoid in the first place?

Civilians thinking for themselves = soldiers thinking for themselves. If a civilian have a determined course of action (firefighter, policeman, Doctor,...) and goes agaisnt it, he'd beter have a damn good reason. If a soldier goes against orders, he'd better be able to prove that his course of action are the best and that the order are innaceptable.
As far as I know, it's widely accepted, even by the millitary.
http://www.oboulo.com/droit-desobeissance-fonctionnaire-30180.html

[RedKing]

Manning's actions were unprecedented.  His treatment is inhumane, but it's hard to know WTF to do with him or what to charge him with since it just hasn't happened before.  They want to get it right the first time.

Daniel Ellsberg, a military-industrial-complex wonk, released Top-Secret documents on the conduct and strategy of the Vietnam War to the New York Times.  He was the first U.S. citizen ever tried by the Federal government for publicly "leaking" documents for its own sake, as opposed to conducting espionage for a foreign agency.  The long and eventual outcome concluded that the Times had the right to publish what it was freely handed, and Ellsberg was found innocent by reason of mistrial because the FBI repeatedly violated Fourth Amendment statutes trying to obtain evidence to use against him.

The scale and method may be unprecedented, but the legal quandry itself is only slightly complicated by the fact that Manning is a serving member of the military.

I appreciate the comparison, but there's a fundamental difference between Ellsberg's leak and Manning's leak. Ellsberg was releasing documents which were narrowly focused and consisted mostly of policy debates behind the scenes. He wasn't releasing the coordinates of every firebase in South Vietnam, or technical specs on US Air Force assets in-theater, he was releasing internal memos showing that a significant portion of the Pentagon upper brass knew the war was becoming unwinnable. Some of those discussions contained classified strategic info such as tonnage of ordnance dropped on various areas, and the fact that we'd expanded the war illegally into Laos and Cambodia, but those were germane to the discussion.

If Manning's leak had been restricted to a couple of incidents/thematic problems (such as the firing on civilians or airstrike on friendly forces), I would be in support. Those are failures of command that need to be brought to light and addressed. But he didn't stop there, nor did he use the judgement to weed through the data and find the truly "bad" things that needed to be brought to light. No, he took the lazy and dangerous route and just bulk-copied masses of data and handed it over to Assange, who also took the lazy route (albeit, it's partly because of the Wikileaks model that they don't edit what they're given) and released the entire data dump.

Frankly, it's akin to napalming the village to save the villagers, IMHO.

And of course, Ellsberg was a private citizen. Manning took an oath of allegiance and an oath of trust, and breached both.

[Mipe]

Manning is still a human being. That human rights convention mean anything to you?

Hell, even murderers get the right to defend themselves.

[Bauglir]

Edit:

That was also a case of soldiers thinking for themselves, and drawing their own conclusions. How about the soldiers that snap and start shooting their comrades?

How does that even make sense? Should civilian stop thinking for themselves too. They happen to shoot poeple from times to times, too.

Civilians thinking for themselves != soldiers thinking for themselves. Even if you want to count the Manning incident as a case of them coming to a "good" conclusion, how many more times do they decide it's best to abuse civilians or defect to the enemy? Isn't that the whole thing you're trying to avoid in the first place?

Soldiers that do those things in violation of orders should be tried for doing those things, not for violating orders.

[RedKing]

Manning is still a human being. That human rights convention mean anything to you?

Hell, even murderers get the right to defend themselves.

In the US civil system, murderers are regularly incarcerated for a year or more before they come to trial. It takes time to gather all the evidence and build your case. In a situation like this, they're still trying to figure out just how badly this guy screwed them before they decide how severely to nail him.

A lot of this is about damage control, but it's also about figuring out if Manning was just a lone wolf with a bleeding heart and an enormously bad sense of judgement, or if he had co-conspirators somewhere in the ranks who still have SIPR access. And yes, it will also partially be about making an example of him to anybody who's thinking about pulling such a stunt in the future.

[Outcast Orange]

I appreciate the comparison, but there's a fundamental difference between Ellsberg's leak and Manning's leak. Ellsberg was releasing documents which were narrowly focused and consisted mostly of policy debates behind the scenes. He wasn't releasing the coordinates of every firebase in South Vietnam, or technical specs on US Air Force assets in-theater, he was releasing internal memos showing that a significant portion of the Pentagon upper brass knew the war was becoming unwinnable. Some of those discussions contained classified strategic info such as tonnage of ordnance dropped on various areas, and the fact that we'd expanded the war illegally into Laos and Cambodia, but those were germane to the discussion.

If Manning's leak had been restricted to a couple of incidents/thematic problems (such as the firing on civilians or airstrike on friendly forces), I would be in support. Those are failures of command that need to be brought to light and addressed. But he didn't stop there, nor did he use the judgement to weed through the data and find the truly "bad" things that needed to be brought to light. No, he took the lazy and dangerous route and just bulk-copied masses of data and handed it over to Assange, who also took the lazy route (albeit, it's partly because of the Wikileaks model that they don't edit what they're given) and released the entire data dump.

Frankly, it's akin to napalming the village to save the villagers, IMHO.

And of course, Ellsberg was a private citizen. Manning took an oath of allegiance and an oath of trust, and breached both.

Wait what?

"He wasn't releasing the coordinates of every firebase in South Vietnam, or technical specs on US Air Force assets in-theater"

When did that happen?

I thought we've already been over this stuff thoroughly.
Wikileaks did just about the opposite of what you say.
They have only released a small percentage of the information they have,
 and most of it was combed heavily for sensitive information before it was released.

[RedKing]

I appreciate the comparison, but there's a fundamental difference between Ellsberg's leak and Manning's leak. Ellsberg was releasing documents which were narrowly focused and consisted mostly of policy debates behind the scenes. He wasn't releasing the coordinates of every firebase in South Vietnam, or technical specs on US Air Force assets in-theater, he was releasing internal memos showing that a significant portion of the Pentagon upper brass knew the war was becoming unwinnable. Some of those discussions contained classified strategic info such as tonnage of ordnance dropped on various areas, and the fact that we'd expanded the war illegally into Laos and Cambodia, but those were germane to the discussion.

If Manning's leak had been restricted to a couple of incidents/thematic problems (such as the firing on civilians or airstrike on friendly forces), I would be in support. Those are failures of command that need to be brought to light and addressed. But he didn't stop there, nor did he use the judgement to weed through the data and find the truly "bad" things that needed to be brought to light. No, he took the lazy and dangerous route and just bulk-copied masses of data and handed it over to Assange, who also took the lazy route (albeit, it's partly because of the Wikileaks model that they don't edit what they're given) and released the entire data dump.

Frankly, it's akin to napalming the village to save the villagers, IMHO.

And of course, Ellsberg was a private citizen. Manning took an oath of allegiance and an oath of trust, and breached both.

Wait what?

"He wasn't releasing the coordinates of every firebase in South Vietnam, or technical specs on US Air Force assets in-theater"

When did that happen?

I thought we've already been over this stuff thoroughly.
Wikileaks did just about the opposite of what you say.
They have only released a small percentage of the information they have,
 and most of it was combed heavily for sensitive information before it was released.

But Manning didn't. And Assange is threatening to do pretty much that.