Mixed Verdict For The Traitor Manning....

[Joe Guy]

My employer catches me sleeping on the job. He can rightly say that I "betrayed his trust" that I would be working the hours he was paying me for. That makes me a traitor? I sign my name to a loan agreement, having no intention of paying it back, thus "being false to an obligation or duty". That makes me a traitor?

The word traitor is a political term mostly used to describe situations where there is potential danger to one country caused by someone who gives its classified information to another country.

If you want to call someone who sleeps on the job a traitor to his employer you would be technically correct but there are better terms to use.

Do I really need to explain that to you? You must have decided that sharing top secret information from your country with another country that puts your country at a dangerous disadvantage is not such a bad thing.

[Scooter]

I see a world of difference between disagreeing with a President's policy and stealing and releasing 735,000 classified documents, many of which revealed sources and methods of on going operations putting numerous military and civilian lives at risk.

Just as there is a world of difference between releasing classified documents and "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

The word traitor is a political term mostly used to describe situations where there is potential danger to one country caused by someone who gives its classified information to another country.

It is "mostly used" in that way, is it? Do you have research on all of the uses of the word "traitor" throughout history, or even in the past ten years, that supports that assertion?

And I wasn't aware that Wikileaks (which is the entity to which Manning released the information) was a "country". But even assuming that making it available on Wikileaks equals "giv[ing]...classified information to another country", your definition does nothing to distinguish Manning's actions from those of the mainstream press, who reproduced the contents of the documents and who therefore also "[gave]...classified information to another country". Are the NY Times, the Washington Post, all of the TV networks, etc. also "traitors"?

If you want to call someone who sleeps on the job a traitor to his employer you would be technically correct

I do not wish to do any such thing. But the fact that you would consider it correct to expand the definition of "traitor" in such a manner makes the word devoid of any real meaning.

You must have decided that sharing top secret information from your country with another country that puts your country at a dangerous disadvantage is not such a bad thing.

Why do you feel the need to mischaracterize what I said in such a manner? Do you operate from such a black and white perspective that to say Manning's actions did not rise to the level of treason is the same as exonerating him of all wrongdoing?

[Joe Guy]

The word traitor is a political term mostly used to describe situations where there is potential danger to one country caused by someone who gives its classified information to another country.

It is "mostly used" in that way, is it? Do you have research on all of the uses of the word "traitor" throughout history, or even in the past ten years, that supports that assertion?

Yes.

And I wasn't aware that Wikileaks (which is the entity to which Manning released the information) was a "country". But even assuming that making it available on Wikileaks equals "giv[ing]...classified information to another country", your definition does nothing to distinguish Manning's actions from those of the mainstream press, who reproduced the contents of the documents and who therefore also "[gave]...classified information to another country". Are the NY Times, the Washington Post, all of the TV networks, etc. also "traitors"?

After Wikileaks put the information out there it was no longer a secret. Reporting on it after the fact is not the same as finding and making classified information available

...the fact that you would consider it correct to expand the definition of "traitor" in such a manner makes the word devoid of any real meaning.

It wasn't my decision to define traitor as betraying another's trust or being false to an obligation or duty. Did you actually read the Webster definition?

....Why do you feel the need to mischaracterize what I said in such a manner? Do you operate from such a black and white perspective that to say Manning's actions did not rise to the level of treason is the same as exonerating him of all wrongdoing?

The one seeing this in black & white is you. You want the word traitor to not mean what it actually means.

That's okay but what you've decided is the definition of traitor doesn't make Manning any less of a traitor than he is.

[Scooter]

The word traitor is a political term mostly used to describe situations where there is potential danger to one country caused by someone who gives its classified information to another country.

It is "mostly used" in that way, is it? Do you have research on all of the uses of the word "traitor" throughout history, or even in the past ten years, that supports that assertion?

Yes.

Care to share, or nothing but another bald assertion?

After Wikileaks put the information out there it was no longer a secret. Reporting on it after the fact is not the same as finding and making classified information available

So what if another country that was not aware of the info on Wikileaks only learned the information when it became available in the NY Times? How many people must learn secret information before we reach the magic cutoff point where it is no longer traitorous to disseminate it further?

It wasn't my decision to define traitor as betraying another's trust or being false to an obligation or duty. Did you actually read the Webster definition?

I read it and explained why it was so loose as to be meaningless. Do you understand that dictionaries serve both normative and descriptive purposes? And that in this case, neither purpose is served particularly well, for reasons already stated.

The one seeing this in black & white is you. You want the word traitor to not mean what it actually means.

Because I don't want words to mean anything the user wants them to mean, makes me see things in black and white?

Oh, and I accept your apology for lying about what I said.

That's okay but what you've decided is the definition of traitor doesn't make Manning any less of a traitor than he is.

I absolutely agree. And by the same token, what you've decided is the definition of traitor doesn't make Manning any more of a traitor than he is. Except my definition agrees with what both the Constitution of the United States and the court passing sentence on Manning have to say, and according to both he is no traitor at all. Are you actually claiming that some loosey goosey definition that could mean anything should carry more authority than the U.S. Constitution?

But no worries, apparently the Absurdists have won; words have no meaning, so we can make them mean whatever we want. Happy now?

[Joe Guy]

When Scooter doesn't like the facts he decides not to accept supporting evidence (you know...like a dictionary definition). But when Scooter wants something to be fact it doesn't need to be fact because his opinion means more to him than the truth.

btw - you can't accept an apology if one is not made.

At least in the real world it works that way...

[Scooter]

So you don't apologize for lying about what I said. So you stand by that lie, then? In that case, being lectured at by you on what is or isn't the "truth" is hilarious.

You've certainly been Quad's good little disciple inventing your own version of the facts, that's for damn sure.

[Joe Guy]

I can't apologize for a lie I haven't told.

Especially since you didn't make reference to one.

[Scooter]

So now you want to play loCA's game? Fine.

You said this:

You must have decided that sharing top secret information from your country with another country that puts your country at a dangerous disadvantage is not such a bad thing.

to which I responded, in the very next post in the thread:

Why do you feel the need to mischaracterize what I said in such a manner? Do you operate from such a black and white perspective that to say Manning's actions did not rise to the level of treason is the same as exonerating him of all wrongdoing?

You then responded, even quoting me pointing out your complete distortion of what I had said:

Why do you feel the need to mischaracterize what I said in such a manner? Do you operate from such a black and white perspective that to say Manning's actions did not rise to the level of treason is the same as exonerating him of all wrongdoing?

The one seeing this in black & white is you. You want the word traitor to not mean what it actually means.

but of course, completely sidestepping the lie you told.

So it was pointed out to you, you quoted me pointing it out to you, and you responded to the post in which it was pointed out to you. What else do you need, a diagram?

You would make the CSB troll trio proud.

[Joe Guy]

So now you want to play loCA's game? Fine.

You said "You must have decided that sharing top secret information from your country with another country that puts your country at a dangerous disadvantage is not such a bad thing."

If you read what I wrote very slowly, you will see that I was offering a guess as to what you were thinking. That's why I wrote "You must have......"

to which I responded, in the very next post in the thread: Why do you feel the need to mischaracterize what I said in such a manner? Do you operate from such a black and white perspective that to say Manning's actions did not rise to the level of treason is the same as exonerating him of all wrongdoing?

So I didn't "mischaracterize" what you wrote. I was guessing at what you meant when you wrote what you wrote.

You then responded, even quoting me pointing out your complete distortion of what I had said:

Why do you feel the need to mischaracterize what I said in such a manner? Do you operate from such a black and white perspective that to say Manning's actions did not rise to the level of treason is the same as exonerating him of all wrongdoing?

The one seeing this in black & white is you. You want the word traitor to not mean what it actually means.

but of course, completely sidestepping the lie you told.

I wrote that it appears to me that you don't want to accept the definition of traitor. And you saw that as sidestepping a lie I didn't tell.

So it was pointed out to you, you quoted me pointing it out to you, and you responded to the post in which it was pointed out to you. What else do you need, a diagram?

I don't need a diagram. Do you not know the definition of "lie"?

You would make the CSB troll trio proud.

You would make Steve proud. He also often sees things that aren't there.

[Scooter]

So you posit what you now rationalize as a "guess", that is not supported in any way, shape or form by ANYTHING I have written, and that makes it ok to put words in my mouth? What would inspire you to make such a "guess" in the first place, because I really would like to understand the flow of logic that equates "Manning should not be called a traitor" to "Manning didn't do anything wrong".

Actually, don't bother, because there is no justification for such a leap.

I won't be reading whatever you write in response, so if you do it will be only to stroke your own ego.

[Joe Guy]

While you're not reading this, consider the following....

When I wrote that I thought that you must not consider what Manning did to be such a bad thing - I didn't say that you exonerated him for all he did.

I realize it would be more convenient for you if I had written that - but I didn't.

[Lord Jim]

Scooter if it's your position that no one who isn't convicted of treason under the very difficultly worded definition in the US Constitution, ( a wording that was created the way it was for historical reasons; the framers of the Constitution wrote at a time when people could be charged in most countries with "treason" just for criticizing the monarch) then you have embraced a definition that in addition to the afore mentioned Rosenberg and Hiss, also wouldn't include Philip Agee, Christopher John Boyce, John Anthony Walker or Jerry Whitworth.

Do you not think any of these folks are traitors?

I agree that the concept of traitor could be defined so broadly as to be meaningless. But it can also be defined so narrowly as to be useless.

Personally I don't think it requires any overly broad definition of traitor to be able to easily fit someone who did what The Traitor Manning did accurately under the description.

[Scooter]

For one, I think intent matters, and while I am not familiar with all of the names you have listed, I can see that several of them intentionally and directly put information into the hands of foreign governments who were seen as enemies of the United States, that the sympathies of those individuals lay at least in part on the side of those governments, and therefore that their intent was to give aid to countries which were enemies of the United States. I see in Manning's case neither any direct communication with enemies of the United States, nor any indication of any sympathies for enemies of the United States, nor any intent to give aid to enemies of the United States. It doesn't make him any kind of a hero, as some wish to portray him, but it doesn't make him Benedict Arnold either.

[Joe Guy]

It's difficult to argue an issue with Scooter. He seems to think (in other words, his reactions to someone's counter-argument make it appear that he thinks...) that anyone who disagrees with his opinion is attempting to insult and discredit him.

So he takes personal jabs at others, as in calling someone a liar, writing, 'thank you for making my point for me' or 'I won't be reading whatever you write in response' etc.

Scooter is apparently never willing to accept when he is wrong about anything. When he is shown to be incorrect (like being shown that he made a false assumption) he attacks the other person and then disappears from the thread.

My prescription for Scooter is to take at least one chill suppository every day as needed - not to exceed more than 24 in any 24 hour period.

-Dr Joe Guy, Psychiatric MD with a BS degree.

[Big RR]

[quoteThe Traitor Manning betrayed his country; that makes him a traitor. The undisputed facts of what he did that are in the public record alone, make it accurate to characterize him as such.
][/quote]

Jim--the details of this particular case aside, suppose someone found out that some at the highest levels of the government were doing something illegal and wrong, and using the US secrecy act to cover it up. Would public disclosure of that make the person a traitor, or a whistleblower? Do you concede that, at least some time the person would be the latter?

[rubato]

Has anyone shown that the actual harm is greater than the benefits?

Yrs,
Rubato