Print

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

[Drunken]

Just wanted to post this to contradict the people who are saying that private space exploration companies save the taxpayer money. They just remove representative oversight.

Having said that, Bradley Manning is a far more important issue in my opinion, and as that is where the current discussion is at, please don't let this post derail. Bradley Manning, and others who are held in US black sites including Gitmo are one of the greatest humanitarian issues facing the modern world. Not because the US situation is unique, such imprisonments are practised by many other governments, and have been throughout recorded history. I am not accusing the US of being a worse evil empire than any other. But the US is a comparatively healthy democracy. It would be far easier for the US population to stand up and put a stop to this kind of thing than it would be for the population of Russia, China, Syria, etc. If you are reading this in the US: This is not acceptable behaviour. I will accept my share of the responsibility for this as a citizen of the first world, but you must also accept yours. Make this an election issue, talk about it, protest, make sure people know what is happening. You were once proud of your nation, now it is becoming known for its torturers and its secret prisons. We can fix this, but we have to work at it.

I think the charges of "Aiding the enemy" are exactly right. The enemy are the civilian population of the world.

[SalmonGod]

He released at least 251,287 State Department cables. Cables that didn't reveal any illegal activity that I'm aware of. Cables that there was no way for him to screen and select from to make such a case even if there was one to be made. I believe the total charges against him involve close to 750,000 files.

That isn't whistle blowing. Even if a few of the files showed illegal activity or were otherwise defensible as whistle blowing (the Collateral Murder video being the only case I can think of, and that one isn't watertight) that isn't a defence for the scale or method of the leak.

You haven't paid much attention, I think.  The cables have revealed plenty of illegal activity.  Much of it was illegal foreign affairs that the U.S. was simply aware of.  It's had global impact.

And it's wrong to focus on the cables.  The Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs have been incredibly important.  I'm on my lunch break right now and won't be able to visit this thread again for another 5 or 6 hours, or I would put together more information.  Right now, I'll just point out one piece of information that I consider to be vital.

The U.S. military denied keeping any records of casualties from the beginning of the Iraq War all the way up to the Wikileak's release of the War Logs.  Under these circumstances, anyone among the public who didn't care to do their own research was free to believe that their boys were out shooting bad guys in the good name of peace, freedom, and democracy.  Anybody who paid attention knew better, but no solid evidence could be produced with finality in normal public discourse.  The War Logs revealed that the military did, in fact, keep casualty records.  This means the public was lied to about very important information that they had no logical reason to lie about but for the sake of saving face.  Not only that, but they revealed that, by the military's own record-keeping, over 60% of the war's casualties were innocent civilians (over 66,000).  Everybody understood that collateral damage happens in war, and an innocent civilian dies here and there.  After the release of the War Logs, everybody understood that killing civilians was actually the majority of what we'd been doing over there for 10 fucking years, and there was no possible way it could be denied any longer.

Public opinion is incredibly important in maintaining a war effort.  The pentagon papers are widely credited as being a major, if not the #1, factor in the end of the Vietnam War.  The nature of information in the War Logs is incredibly similar to those in the Pentagon Papers.

The correct response is that Ellsberg leaked a relatively narrow set of information directly related to extrajudicial actvities being conducted by the Pentagon. Manning just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and hoped something stuck out.

Really?  A narrow set of information?  In a sense, I suppose you could say that.  I don't think the distinction is as stark as you make it out to be, though.  Ellsberg grabbed (socially infiltrated and stole, really) basically every piece of classified political and military information he could regarding 22 years of history of relations between the U.S. and Vietnam.  It was over 7,000 pages of documents.  He focused more narrowly on one issue, but I don't think he was all that much more cautious about cherry picking only the safe or important bits.

Plus, Ellsberg has 100% supported Manning's actions, to the extent that he was arrested, at the frail age of 80, protesting outside of the brig where Manning was being held.

[alway]

Just wanted to post this to contradict the people who are saying that private space exploration companies save the taxpayer money. They just remove representative oversight.

Bullshit.
http://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html

Recent NASA estimates peg the shuttle program's cost through the end of last year at $209 billion (in 2010 dollars), yielding a per-flight cost of nearly $1.6 billion.

1.1 billion dollars is less than the cost of a single shuttle mission. SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch price is a mere $54 million. The Falcon 9 Heavy will be about twice that, but will have about twice the to-orbit payload as the shuttles. So, would you rather we have ~55k lbs to LEO for $1.6 billion or ~110k lbs to LEO for $100 million?

[Drunken]

That 1.1 billion is just a single payment. That 209 you refer to was over decades. I can't tally up the total cost to the tax payer of the currently planned private programmes because I can't predict the future, but if you think in the next 50 years it won't add up to over 200 billion I politely disagree. Your argument is a strawman, you can't compare the two numbers and pretend that it means anything. Also as I pointed out  earlier the people pay for private corporations as well, it is just a question of whether your money goes to the taxman and then the space people, or to a retailer and then the space people. It is also a question of how much right the people have to the products and results, and how much control they have over the programme.

Edit: I am going to go back on what I said in the post before this, oh wait no I am not, I said one of greatest humanitarian issues facing the modern world. Well I think the top of that list is probably third world poverty, this is another thing we could have and should have dealt with decades ago.

Edit2 vvv: alway, I apologise for not reading your post more carefully before responding. I got lazy and that is unforgivable. I am still not convinced that your argument favours private vs public though. Do those costs you posted include R&D, manufacturing divided by craft life, launch facility construction, wages for all ground personnel etc. because the nasa shuttle numbers certainly do. Of course the answer to that is no, as many of those numbers are not yet known. All this is irrelevant anyway, the technology has advanced and if nasa was building those shuttles the launch costs would not be any different. Unless you are suggesting there is some incompetence of nasa scientists and engineers that does not exist in private companies.

[alway]

Read again: I was not comparing 209 to 1.1. I was comparing the $1.6 billion per launch cost of the space shuttle. That's the average 1-time cost which was incurred for each and every launch the shuttle performed. As opposed to $54 million for a Falcon 9 (half the capacity of the shuttle), or ~$100 million for a Falcon 9 Heavy (twice the capacity of the shuttle). Don't accuse people of straw-manning if you can't be bothered to read their argument.

[darkrider2]

I still have trouble accepting any arguments against NASA's spending as when you look at the numbers, our defense spending makes NASA looks like the change under my couch cushion.

[Osmosis Jones]

I still have trouble accepting any arguments against NASA's spending as when you look at the numbers, our defense spending makes NASA looks like the change under my couch cushion.

Neil Degrasse Tyson thinks the same. His justified rage over this point thus inspired Penny for NASA.

[Dutchling]

Arguing against NASA is like arguing against kittens. You  might be right, but you're always wrong.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hopefully NASA will get additional funding so they can continue their scramjet program. Once we have an economic scramjet getting material into LEO will be very easy, or at least so compared to using rockets.

[palsch]

You haven't paid much attention, I think.  The cables have revealed plenty of illegal activity.  Much of it was illegal foreign affairs that the U.S. was simply aware of.  It's had global impact.

Sorry, that was poor word choice on my part where the context wasn't clear.

None of the information in the Wikileaks cables contained illegal activity that would be legal justification for a whistleblower defence.

A part of this is due to the only illegal activity being revealed being overseas, and the cables in those cases amount to no more than two people swapping a text or email over rumours of a third person's drug taking. As a rule, if a leak can't result in a direct legal remedy then a whistleblower defence is near impossible. For some cables you can almost make a public interest defence, but even there it would be hard to press in US courts given the nature of the information exposed and method of it's exposure.


I just want to lay out very clearly my full view on this part of the case.

Given Manning's own statements, the evidence of the leaks themselves and everything else about this case, it does appear he has broken at least some of the laws he has been charged with.

Given his method of leaking he almost certainly doesn't qualify for whistleblower protections. For one thing he did not take the channels approved for such whistleblowers (contrast with Daniel Davis).

Some of the leaks certainly were in the public interest, broadly defined, and did a net good. However, due to the method and broad nature of the leaks it's hard to say that Manning served the public interest effectively. If I fire a hundred bullets indiscriminately downrange and two hit the target I can't point at those two and say I'm an effective marksman.

Similarly, given the scale of the leaks and the fact Manning didn't tailor them to a specific public interest, Manning is vulnerable to charges of releasing information that may assist the enemy. His willingness to release information indiscriminately means such a charge can be brought even if no such damaging information existed. I personally think he should be found not guilty of that charge, but this is more for mitigating circumstances than for a plain law reading of his actions.

Going back to the public interest defence, I'm afraid that even if such a defence could be made for specific leaks (as for, say, the Collateral Murder video or elements of the Afghan/Iraq war logs) it is unlikely it would be sufficient for legal defence. Ellsberg understood this back in the 70's. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Pentagon Papers were illegally released Ellsberg turned himself in and stated he was willing to face, "all the consequences of this decision." He was later released due to illegal and other improper behaviour by the prosecution, not due to any legal defence of the leak.

This is pretty important to recognise. Even when leaks are in the public interest they may not be legal. Acts of justified public disobedience do still come with legal penalties and even jail time. Committing a crime lots of people like doesn't mean the crime itself is (or should be) ignored by the state.

Further to all this, exactly what remedies and treatment Manning deserves really depends on his trial. If he comes out of it with an excessive punishment then Presidential clemency may be appropriate (which is what this whole debate was about).

[GreatJustice]

I still have trouble accepting any arguments against NASA's spending as when you look at the numbers, our defense spending makes NASA looks like the change under my couch cushion.

Just another reason to cut defense spending. Honestly, the US would be pretty safe even if the defense budget was shrunk to 50 billion (accounting for ends to the present US foreign military bases and wars).

Besides that, you guys do realize that NASA is basically just payrolling private companies to do its job these days, right? Either corporations and rich people go into space for fun and profit, or NASA gives piles of money to corporations and rich people to go into space for fun and profit.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Besides that, you guys do realize that NASA is basically just payrolling private companies to do its job these days, right? Either corporations and rich people go into space for fun and profit, or NASA gives piles of money to corporations and rich people to go into space for fun and profit.

Oh of course, it isn't like NASA ever does any R&D or tries to make economic scramjets or produces thousands of spinoff technologies or has a rover less than 48 hours away from landing on Mars at this very second or anything.

[darkrider2]

Besides that, you guys do realize that NASA is basically just payrolling private companies to do its job these days, right? Either corporations and rich people go into space for fun and profit, or NASA gives piles of money to corporations and rich people to go into space for fun and profit.

Oh of course, it isn't like NASA ever does any R&D or tries to make economic scramjets or produces thousands of spinoff technologies or has a rover less than 48 hours away from landing on Mars at this very second or anything.

@MSH <3

I don't see where the NASA hate is coming from. A lot of modern technology came from these guys. They help out one company getting a ship into space and suddenly they are just expecting everyone else to do their job for them?

[SalmonGod]

This is pretty important to recognise. Even when leaks are in the public interest they may not be legal. Acts of justified public disobedience do still come with legal penalties and even jail time. Committing a crime lots of people like doesn't mean the crime itself is (or should be) ignored by the state.

Further to all this, exactly what remedies and treatment Manning deserves really depends on his trial. If he comes out of it with an excessive punishment then Presidential clemency may be appropriate (which is what this whole debate was about).

Yeah, I've never been arguing that what he did wasn't illegal, just that I don't personally believe he is deserving of punishment.  Certainly not the mind and life-destroying sort of punishment that is long-term solitary confinement followed by prison time, let alone a life sentence.  But I'm an anarchist.  I recognize my perspective here is far different from most.  Laws are absolutes.  If they cannot be overruled by personal judgment and circumstances, then their universal application is guaranteed to result in negative consequences.

As for a presidential pardon, I personally believe his treatment has already justified it.  Studies have shown it takes only two months of solitary confinement to cause permanent psychological damage 100% of the time.  While I believe I've seen that he's no longer being held in those conditions, he was still subject to over a year of it before even being charged with a crime.  But Manning's well-being is secondary to me.  The #1 reason for me to call for a pardon is it would be the first act Obama has taken in the spirit of his original campaign, and that truly recognizes America's overwhelming frustration with corruption and secrecy.  It would be a strong enough act of good faith towards my values, my frustration with the status quo, and the kind of president I thought Obama was making himself out to be during his campaign, that I would actually re-evaluate my opinion of the guy.  I realize this reasoning is not shared by a majority and has about zero likelihood of happening, but most of my political opinions are that way and I'm kind of used to it.

[alway]

NASA's economic ROI is at the very least 200% of the money put into it, and that's using the most conservative estimates out there. So again, even ignoring everything else NASA does; putting aside planetary defense, inspirational value, national pride, and all the other 'soft' contributions made by NASA; even if we treat it the same as if it were some sort of government financial operation, it is STILL one of the most successful government programs in existence. That we give it as little as we do is, quite frankly, pants-on-head-retarded.