Hans Talhoffer
Active Member
So revealing national secrets to a single foreign power is bad, but to two or more is fine?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So revealing national secrets to a single foreign power is bad, but to two or more is fine?Well, he hasn't revealed it to a specific foreign power, but to the world. And isn't that good when said information reveals highly immoral actions by the leadership? They SHOULD be held accountable for their actions, right? The leadership I mean... And what's more, they are not above the law, are they? The leadership I mean.
The endangerment of American lives, assets and interests isn't enough for you?What treason?
David.
I don't know if it would/will count as a mitigating factor, but I do think that one should make a distinction between somebody giving away information like sensitive technology, encryption keys, troop movements etc. to a foreign power that has a military interest in it or if one chooses to illegally publish classified evidence of crimes one's own country committed.where is the content of the material mentioned as a mitigating factor in the secrets act?
Bradley Manning hasn't renounced his citizenship and Julian Assange never had it. I don't even know what you are talking about.So you're happy to watch traitors simply renounce their citizenship and get off scot free, is that it?
It weakens the accusation of treason, especially considering that one of those powers was the United States itself.So revealing national secrets to a single foreign power is bad, but to two or more is fine?
Wikileaks has published tonnes of material of sensitive military and diplomatic material. Its been around longer than the recent diplomatic tapes fiasco, all though that is bad enough.I don't know if it would/will count as a mitigating factor, but I do think that one should make a distinction between somebody giving away information like sensitive technology, encryption keys, troop movements etc. to a foreign power that has a military interest in it or if one chooses to illegally publish classified evidence of crimes one's own country committed.
I'm talking about your bizarre assertion that only American citizens are liable to criminal prosecution. Go to Mexico and commit a crime, being an American citizen rather than a Mexican won't make you immune to prosecution there, so why shoul it here?Bradley Manning hasn't renounced his citizenship and Julian Assange never had it. I don't even know what you are talking about.
The secrets belong to the US in the first place. You can't reveal secrets to the people who owned them in the first place! *lol* What parallel universe do you come from?It weakens the accusation of treason, especially considering that one of those powers was the United States itself.
So revealing national secrets to a single foreign power is bad, but to two or more is fine?
What I want, is people who reveal national secrets than endanger the lives of our troops arrested, given a fair trial, convicted then shot as the traitors they are.Nope. It certainly is not. Revealing it to the public is fine, should said information reveal immoral or illegal behavior. Of course location of military bases, passwords or other access information to governmental databases and such is one thing, but I see no problem letting the public know when their leaders have misbehaved severely, broken the people's trust and abused their power.
I say such information should be leaked. And lo, it is what WL has revealed. Severe misconduct by leaders from many nations. I see no problem whatsoever with that. It's what the press is FOR. As opposed to gossiping about what celebrity couple is having relationship issues.
I am of the impression that you want a strong government where it's constituent parts are above and beyond the reach of the people and the law. Is this correct?
What I want, is people who reveal national secrets than endanger the lives of our troops arrested, given a fair trial, convicted then shot as the traitors they are.
I could care less about people revealing information about foreign powers, but he revealed American classified information... that makes him a traitor to America!He's not American, do you think you should have authority to pick him up and shoot him? He has not betrayed anyone, has he? He has revealed information he received about a foreign power. Should what you say then extend to other countries picking up American citizens and shooting them? What would that entail for Americans who have revealed information about China, Russia or North Korea? You had better turn them over to be executed if you really think Assange should be shot over this.
I can think of a few people who would then be picked up and shot for their crimes by western countries as well.
Furthermore, Assange only runs a website publishing information others publish. Should then journalists be shot for revealing information they receive or otherwise acquire? If so, surely Woodward should be shot over WaterGate and Nixon remain seated?
You cannot, ipso facto, be a traitor to something you never swore allegiance to.I could care less about people revealing information about foreign powers, but he revealed American classified information... that makes him a traitor to America!
I could care less about people revealing information about foreign powers, but he revealed American classified information... that makes him a traitor to America!
People revealing information about China, Russia and N. Korea to America are chalk and cheese, since they aren't revealing information to a foreign power.
The outdated lie of American exceptionalism is a pernicious disease that leads to a suspension of consistent judgement or application of justice.So you're OK with people revealing information to other countries, so long as the information revealed is not American. But if someone - whoever - reveals information about the US this person should be shot, regardless of nationality?
And you don't find this hypocritical at all?
Tell it to William Wallace.You cannot, ipso facto, be a traitor to something you never swore allegiance to.
Sorry to burst your bubble O'Reilly, but the world is not under the jurisdiction of America.
Not hypocritical at all. Revealing American secrets to other countries is treason against America. Is this really that hard a concept?So you're OK with people revealing information to other countries, so long as the information revealed is not American. But if someone - whoever - reveals information about the US this person should be shot, regardless of nationality?
And you don't find this hypocritical at all?
Not hypocritical at all. Revealing American secrets to other countries is treason against America. Is this really that hard a concept
Not hypocritical at all. Revealing American secrets to other countries is treason against America. Is this really that hard a concept?
Tell it to William Wallace.
1. At the time of Wallace, Scotland and England both were hereditary Monarchies, not Feudalisms.So, you think this is the dark ages? Sorry to disappoint you. It's 2010, and Australia is not occupied by the US. So not only is he outside US jurisdiction, he also - unlike WW - has not killed anyone or waged war against anyone. Plus I'd like to think society has evolved a little since the days of feudalism.
1. At the time of Wallace, Scotland and England both were hereditary Monarchies, not Feudalisms.
2. They weren't Australian state secrets he was exposing, they were American.
3. He has made information public that can directly lead to death to American troops and destruction of American interests. The fact that he personally doesn't pull the trigger doesn't make him any less responsible. Think about the inteligence officer in a conventional war. She might never personally harm a fly. That doesn't make her any less legitimate a target.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?