Leslie,
Starchild:
I really don't understand the logic of your comments.
(1) I wouldn't say that financially well to do people are the MAIN victims of government and I don't see what difference it makes. Bradley Manning volunteered of his own free will to join the military; I did not volunteer to pay a parcel tax. Bradley Manning is NOT a victim of government; I am! Surely he must have realized by the time he finished boot camp what the essential purpose of the military was.
(2) "The US government does not adequately train its employees to uphold the Geneva Convention Treaty it is bound of uphold" No amount of training prepares people for the reality of combat. The military does try to train its employees to respect the Geneva Convention, but.....when the bullets start flying and the carnage begins, the training sometimes gets dumped.
(3) "Given the three year incarceration ............" Bradley Manning signed a written statement that he was going to have access to classified info and he promised not to reveal it. He was informed that violating this agreement would subject him to serious penalties. This just seems to me to be more naivety on his part. I actually said that I did not believe that he deserves the punishment that he is getting, but......he should have known that it was coming since he signed a statement acknowledging that he was warned of it.
(4) "Is it Snowden's fault that many of the governments that seem least likely to extradite him have poor human rights records themselves?" No, but it does sort of make a mockery of his stated reason for his action. He claims that he fled the US and divulged some secrets because of alleged US violations of human rights. How ironic it is that he may end up going to a country that has an even worse record that the US does. Snowden has claimed that he can't live in a country where the government spies on its citizens by collecting phone data, yet he may end up in a country that suppresses dissent and freedom of the press much worse than the US. How does that make any sense???
Les
Alleging a country, where Snowden is free, as having a worse human rights record than the US, where he would be tortured with imprisonment, is a mockery of reason.
________________________________
From: leslie mangus <lesliemangus@...>
To: "lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Bradley Manning, etc.Starchild:
I really don't understand the logic of your comments.
(1) I wouldn't say that financially well to do people are the MAIN victims of government and I don't see what difference it makes. Bradley Manning volunteered of his own free will to join the military; I did not volunteer to pay a parcel tax. Bradley Manning is NOT a victim of government; I am! Surely he must have realized by the time he finished boot camp what the essential purpose of the military was.
(2) "The US government does not adequately train its employees to uphold the Geneva Convention Treaty it is bound of uphold" No amount of training prepares people for the reality of combat. The military does try to train its employees to respect the Geneva Convention, but.....when the bullets start flying and the carnage begins, the training sometimes gets dumped.
(3) "Given the three year incarceration ............" Bradley Manning signed a written statement that he was going to have access to classified info and he promised not to reveal it. He was informed that violating this agreement would subject him to serious penalties. This just seems to me to be more naivety on his part. I actually said that I did not believe that he deserves the punishment that he is getting, but......he should have known that it was coming since he signed a statement acknowledging that he was warned of it.
(4) "Is it Snowden's fault that many of the governments that seem least likely to extradite him have poor human rights records themselves?" No, but it does sort of make a mockery of his stated reason for his action. He claims that he fled the US and divulged some secrets because of alleged US violations of human rights. How ironic it is that he may end up going to a country that has an even worse record that the US does. Snowden has claimed that he can't live in a country where the government spies on its citizens by collecting phone data, yet he may end up in a country that suppresses dissent and freedom of the press much worse than the US. How does that make any sense???
Les
From: "sfdreamer@earthlink.net" <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 3:30 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Bradley Manning, etc.Leslie,
I'm sorry to hear you feel this way. Do you believe that financially well-to-do people are the main victims of government? That having a parcel tax imposed on you unjustly is worse than being killed unjustly if the killing happens during a war, since everybody knows that kind stuff just happens to civilians during war, and the U.S. government can't be blamed for failing to adequately train its employees to uphold the Geneva Convention treaty it is bound to uphold?
Given the three-year incarceration of Bradley Manning without charges or trial, some of it spent in solitary confinement under conditions that human rights groups have described as torture, only to finally be given what amounts to a kangaroo court trial where he's been barred from calling many witnesses and barred from mounting a reasonable defense, it seems to me that Edward Snowden acted perfectly reasonably in seeking asylum abroad rather than stay here and have such "justice" meted out to him.
Is it Snowden's fault that many of the governments which seem least likely to cooperate with the U.S. government by extraditing him happen to have poor human rights records and civil liberties policies themselves?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))From: leslie mangus
Sent: Jul 13, 2013 10:59 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Libertarian SocietyI have up to now not said anything about Bradley Manning because I knew my views would be rather unpopular. But I am getting so tired of hearing about him I just have to speak up.
My personal opinion is that he is an idiot and a naïf. Just what did he reveal that people could or should not have known already???
(1) That people die in wars. Certainly anyone who has read any history should already know this.
(2) That innocent civilians often get the worst of it. Again anyone who has read any history should already know this.
(3) That soldiers who see their buddies get killed or wounded sometimes go berserk and kill those not responsible. I knew this long before Manning was even born (I am 66). Two of my uncles served in WWII. I graduated from HS in 1965; five good friends went to Vietnam within 2 years. Many of them admitted to committing what were frankly war crimes
out of anger and desire for revenge.
Let's not forget that Manning VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY. Just what did he think he was getting into??? Did he think the army was a branch of the Boy Scouts??? Or did he confuse it with the Salvation Army??? The purpose of the military is to wage wars, to fight battles and yes to kill people. Was he so naïve that he did not understand this???
I really cannot figure out what he did that advanced the cause of liberty one nanometer. I don't really consider him a traitor and don't believe he deserves all the punishment he's getting, but I can't see how he did any good either. If he was uncomfortable being a part of the military, then HE SHOULD HAVE RESIGNED AND GOTTEN OUT OF IT!
Snowden may have a better claim to hero status. But his shocking revelation seems to be the government is spying on us by collecting phone info that tell who called whom. While I am not
really pleased about this, I don't see it as a major problem. I am much more worried about things like parcel taxes. This past November the voters of SF (most of whom are not parcel owners) voted to impose on us parcel owners a tax to support City College, that cesspit of financial depravity. Now that this has passed, every bitch and bastard at the public trough is going to be pushing for more parcel taxes. Yet many of the people who come unglued about the phone tracking seem utterly unconcerned about this!
I have met people who lived in Nazi Germany, in Communist East Germany, in the former Soviet Union. These were genuine police states. The US is nothing remotely like this even with the phone tracking. Interestingly many of the countries that Snowden has asked for asylum have much worse records on individual liberty than the US. Yet he has said that he cannot bear to live in a country that collects data on citizen's phone records.
Les
Mangus
Alleging a country, where Snowden is free, as having a worse human rights record than the US, where he would be tortured with imprisonment, is a mockery of reason.
________________________________
From: leslie mangus <lesliemangus@...>
To: "lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Bradley Manning, etc.Starchild:
I really don't understand the logic of your comments.
(1) I wouldn't say that financially well to do people are the MAIN victims of government and I don't see what difference it makes. Bradley Manning volunteered of his own free will to join the military; I did not volunteer to pay a parcel tax. Bradley Manning is NOT a victim of government; I am! Surely he must have realized by the time he finished boot camp what the essential purpose of the military was.
(2) "The US government does not adequately train its employees to uphold the Geneva Convention Treaty it is bound of uphold" No amount of training prepares people for the reality of combat. The military does try to train its employees to respect the Geneva Convention, but.....when the bullets start flying and the carnage begins, the training sometimes gets dumped.
(3) "Given the three year incarceration ............" Bradley Manning signed a written statement that he was going to have access to classified info and he promised not to reveal it. He was informed that violating this agreement would subject him to serious penalties. This just seems to me to be more naivety on his part. I actually said that I did not believe that he deserves the punishment that he is getting, but......he should have known that it was coming since he signed a statement acknowledging that he was warned of it.
(4) "Is it Snowden's fault that many of the governments that seem least likely to extradite him have poor human rights records themselves?" No, but it does sort of make a mockery of his stated reason for his action. He claims that he fled the US and divulged some secrets because of alleged US violations of human rights. How ironic it is that he may end up going to a country that has an even worse record that the US does. Snowden has claimed that he can't live in a country where the government spies on its citizens by collecting phone data, yet he may end up in a country that suppresses dissent and freedom of the press much worse than the US. How does that make any sense???
Les
From: "sfdreamer@earthlink.net" <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 3:30 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Bradley Manning, etc.Leslie,
I'm sorry to hear you feel this way. Do you believe that financially well-to-do people are the main victims of government? That having a parcel tax imposed on you unjustly is worse than being killed unjustly if the killing happens during a war, since everybody knows that kind stuff just happens to civilians during war, and the U.S. government can't be blamed for failing to adequately train its employees to uphold the Geneva Convention treaty it is bound to uphold?
Given the three-year incarceration of Bradley Manning without charges or trial, some of it spent in solitary confinement under conditions that human rights groups have described as torture, only to finally be given what amounts to a kangaroo court trial where he's been barred from calling many witnesses and barred from mounting a reasonable defense, it seems to me that Edward Snowden acted perfectly reasonably in seeking asylum abroad rather than stay here and have such "justice" meted out to him.
Is it Snowden's fault that many of the governments which seem least likely to cooperate with the U.S. government by extraditing him happen to have poor human rights records and civil liberties policies themselves?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))From: leslie mangus
Sent: Jul 13, 2013 10:59 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Libertarian SocietyI have up to now not said anything about Bradley Manning because I knew my views would be rather unpopular. But I am getting so tired of hearing about him I just have to speak up.
My personal opinion is that he is an idiot and a naïf. Just what did he reveal that people could or should not have known already???
(1) That people die in wars. Certainly anyone who has read any history should already know this.
(2) That innocent civilians often get the worst of it. Again anyone who has read any history should already know this.
(3) That soldiers who see their buddies get killed or wounded sometimes go berserk and kill those not responsible. I knew this long before Manning was even born (I am 66). Two of my uncles served in WWII. I graduated from HS in 1965; five good friends went to Vietnam within 2 years. Many of them admitted to committing what were frankly war crimes
out of anger and desire for revenge.
Let's not forget that Manning VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY. Just what did he think he was getting into??? Did he think the army was a branch of the Boy Scouts??? Or did he confuse it with the Salvation Army??? The purpose of the military is to wage wars, to fight battles and yes to kill people. Was he so naïve that he did not understand this???
I really cannot figure out what he did that advanced the cause of liberty one nanometer. I don't really consider him a traitor and don't believe he deserves all the punishment he's getting, but I can't see how he did any good either. If he was uncomfortable being a part of the military, then HE SHOULD HAVE RESIGNED AND GOTTEN OUT OF IT!
Snowden may have a better claim to hero status. But his shocking revelation seems to be the government is spying on us by collecting phone info that tell who called whom. While I am not
really pleased about this, I don't see it as a major problem. I am much more worried about things like parcel taxes. This past November the voters of SF (most of whom are not parcel owners) voted to impose on us parcel owners a tax to support City College, that cesspit of financial depravity. Now that this has passed, every bitch and bastard at the public trough is going to be pushing for more parcel taxes. Yet many of the people who come unglued about the phone tracking seem utterly unconcerned about this!
I have met people who lived in Nazi Germany, in Communist East Germany, in the former Soviet Union. These were genuine police states. The US is nothing remotely like this even with the phone tracking. Interestingly many of the countries that Snowden has asked for asylum have much worse records on individual liberty than the US. Yet he has said that he cannot bear to live in a country that collects data on citizen's phone records.
Les
Mangus
There is a concept in the law, at least in American jurisprudence, that contracts that are "against public policy" are unenforceable. For example, a contract to perform a "hit" for a certain agreed compensation is unenforceable.
In my view, the contract Manning signed is unenforceable to the extent that it required him to keep silent about violations of national and international laws and treaties.
He is just as much a hero as someone who signs at "hit" contract is and then turns state's evidence and testifies against the other contracting party, in clear violation of the contract.
Nina
"Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."
--Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791
From the very beginning of the discussion on this list on Bradley Manning, I have been on the side of "you do the crime, you do the time." That is why there has to be an inquiry of some sort to determine: (1) Was a crime committed; i.e. was a law currently on the books broken. (2) If so, are there mitigating circumstances to be reflected in the punishment. Conversely, has the prosecution acted in accordance with laws currently on the books; if not, there are avenues for both the legal profession as well as the general public to influence or halt any prosecution misdeed.
If there is a question as to the legality of any contracts Manning signed, there are legal avenues to inquire on that subject also. But if you have a problem with keeping secrets, you should not sign any contract with entities whose job is to keep secrets! If you do sign, and you do reveal secrets, expect blowback!
Therefore, my support of Manning has never fallen in the "Free Bradley Manning" camp, but in my concern that he was not accorded a speedy trial as constitutionally required, was treated harshly according to human rights investigators, and does not seem to be allowed a full defense if indeed there were witnesses or evidence that should have been allowed but were not.
The transparency that he and Snowden are demanding, in my view is another issue. It is up to We the People to pressure Congress to afford such transparency in the laws they pass. The question of a "police state" where We the People are helpless under it, is a view I have never espoused, as you all know.
War atrocities? What the heck is new there!?! They have occurred in every war! When they are publicized, folks cry "horrors!" and then there is big fuss. So, OK, let's continue the fuss in hopes that less wars will occur, since human nature will negate any effort to have less atrocities in war.
We can also fuss about parcel taxes, as LPSF did during the November elections (no such fuss would have been allowed in a "police state"!). The parcel tax passed just fine, because voters wanted it so. Nothing to complain there; except mourn the populace's apparent adoption of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," and continue to speak out about the situation as we did in November.
Marcy
Les,
Now that I'm back from Las Vegas and a 28-hour ordeal on Greyhound, I have some time to get back to you. Sorry if I was unclear in my previous response. In your original message below, you wrote, "While I am not really pleased about [the NSA spying revealed by Edward Snowden], I don't see it as a major problem. I am much more worried about things like parcel taxes." That is what led me to ask whether you feel the financially well-off are the main victims of government. As unjust as parcel taxes (like all involuntary taxes) inherently are, they have been with us quite a while, and if the public sentiment or means to roll them back do not unfortunately seem to be present in most communities, neither do the sentiment or means seem to be there to sharply increase them in most communities. I don't see the prospect of them being jacked up as a major threat to freedom at this time, relative to lots of other things government is doing.
Among those other things I would include the NSA's high-tech electronic harvesting of everyone's email and phone calls. Wholesale spying on innocent members of the public is a clear signpost of a nascent police state. The U.S. may not yet be the totalitarian equivalent of East Germany or the U.S.S.R., and hopefully it never will, but this expanding digital surveillance is the sort of thing that brings that possibility a significant step closer. Unless one sees the plight of property owners, who tend to be wealthier on average than other members of society, as among the most morally pressing injustices confronting us, how could one view minor differences in the rate at which they have long been robbed as being of greater concern than the new and growing police state type measures we are seeing as part of the "War on Terror"?
You say Bradley Manning is *not* a victim of government because he volunteered to join the military, while you on the other hand *are* a victim of government. But did you not voluntarily purchase your home? You may have a few years on me, but I don't believe you're old enough that you predate parcel taxes, property taxes, or bond measures! Isn't it likely that you were more aware of these sorts of takings when you bought your property than 19-year-old Bradley Manning was of the U.S. government's secret abuses when he enlisted in its Army? You write that, "Surely he must have realized by the time he finished boot camp what the essential purpose of the military was." Well, surely *you* must have realized by the time you voted in a local election or two, and started getting assessments in the mail, what the essential nature of the local government's property racket was? You write that, "Bradley Manning signed a written statement that he was going to have access to classified info and he promised not to reveal it. He was informed that violating this agreement would subject him to serious penalties. This just seems to me to be more naivety on his part." But was there nothing in your purchase agreement, homeowners association paperwork or other documentation that involved you assuming responsibility for making any legally required payments on the property you were taking possession of? If you became a property owner in San Francisco and did not expect to be fleeced, wasn't this naivety on your part?
If the U.S. government's military training is inadequate to keep its employees from violating the Geneva Convention, its civic education is similarly inadequate to keep its elected politicians from violating the Constitution and failing to respect property rights. They do "try" to teach you in school about the Bill of Rights and how the U.S. is a "free country", but when government officials are confronted with constituent demands that outpace budgets, and all kinds of special interests lobbying for various handouts and privileges, "the training sometimes gets dumped" as you put it. One could argue that no amount of training prepares people for the pressures and political realities of holding public office. If you're not going to blame a government soldier for actually pulling the trigger and wrongfully killing civilians in violation of the laws of war and basic human decency, how much can you blame a government official for seeking to raise your parcel taxes, when he continually hears about all the programs that need funding, and most of society acts like parcel taxes are constitutional, fair, and necessary?
Of course it is ironic that Edward Snowden could end up in a place like Venezuela or Russia. But unless governments whose jurisdictions have greater levels of freedom offer him asylum, he doesn't have much choice, does he? Do you have any doubt that if he'd remained in the United States after making his revelations, that he would be unjustly incarcerated right now, despite not having been convicted of anything? Can you really blame him for seeking refuge in places that sometimes treat people worse, when he had good reason to believe that he himself would get fairer treatment there than he would in the United States? That doesn't make a mockery of his stated reason for action; if anything, it makes a mockery of claims by the U.S. government to moral superiority over the governments in those places.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild:
Thank you for your comments which are always well written even if I don't wholehearted agree with you.
(1) Maybe I should have said thatfor me personally the imposition of the parcel tax to support CCSF was much more intrusive than NSA's collection of my phone data. Collecting my phone data does not bother me as much as paying this tax, which deprives me of hard-earned money to pay my retirement costs and medical bills (which are beginning to escalate). I never said I was ok with phone data collection.
(2) When I bought me home this parcel tax was not part of the deal. I could indeed be expected to pay any taxes that were in place at the time that I bought. My specific worry is that, since this parcel tax passed, more will be on way. Taxes I did not agree to pay when I bought my home.
(3) When I said Bradley Manning was NOT a victim, I meant what I said. We have an all volunteer army; the draft having ended in the mid seventies. Government is a coercive institution. The military is probably the most coercive part of government as its function is to control foreign populations...by murder if needed. Did he not realize that? He did chose of his own free will to join the military. Perhaps he did not realize exactly what was involved.
(4) I won't retract anything I said about Ed Snowden. His stated reason for fleeing the US is that "he cannot bear to live in a society where the government spies on its citizen'. If he ends up in Venezuela, he will have gone to a county whose record on citizen rights is much worse than the US. That does seem rather hypocritical to me.
I think he and we would have been better off if he had just (1) downloaded some material to prove his points about the NSA, (2) resigned his position and (3) gone to some congressman who would be sympathetic to his aims. It will be interesting to see if he gets fairer treatment in Venezuela. I would like to know what they would have done anyone revealed their state secrets.
Les
Les,
Thanks for your kind words. I can certainly see how the parcel tax is more of a violation against you personally than the NSA's monitoring of the citizenry is. The same may well be true for me even as a renter, since costs imposed on owners put upward pressure on rents. In any case, everyone's values, priorities, and subjective experiences are different, so I can't really quibble about what bothers you or should bother you most as a personal matter. I can only address what I think is most important from the perspective of the libertarian movement or advancing the cause of freedom. By that standard, I think the spying is a more critical issue right now, for the reasons I noted.
When Bradley Manning joined the U.S. government's military, he did not immediately have knowledge of the government abuses and secrets that he later revealed, any more than you evidently knew about or had to pay the parcel tax you're complaining about when you first bought your property. We can assume he knew when he signed up that the U.S. Army kills people, but he may well have been under the misapprehension as many people are that it generally does so only for legitimate reasons (i.e. it does not "murder" as a matter of policy). As far as I know he wasn't himself ordered to commit murder in order to control non-U.S.-based populations, and aside from being gay and working during the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" period, was victimized not for joining the organization, but only after he acted in accord with his conscience by becoming a whistleblower.
Blowing the whistle on government war crimes and secrets being kept from the public was a courageous, public-minded and non-self-interested action, and even if he did anticipate that the government would go after him for it, as Edward Snowden did, that doesn't negate his victimhood, because he was still unjustly persecuted. You agreed below that Manning does not deserve the punishment he has received -- I would say that anyone who receives undeserved punishment is a victim, ipso facto.
If Snowden were given credible offers by multiple governments to live in their jurisdictions without fear of being persecuted or extradited for his whistleblowing, and he chose to seek asylum in a less free country over one with significantly more freedom, I agree that would be somewhat hypocritical. But simply seeking to avoid unjust persecution? I don't see that as hypocritical in the slightest.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I've simplified the discussion. I want Manning pardoned. Yer either on my side or not.
________________________________
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Bradley Manning, etc.Les,
Thanks for your kind words\. I can certainly see how the parcel tax is more of a violation against you personally than the NSA's monitoring of the citizenry is\. The same may well be true for me even as a renter, since costs imposed on owners put upward pressure on rents\. In any case, everyone's values, priorities, and subjective experiences are different, so I can't really quibble about what bothers you or should bother you most as a personal matter\. I can only address what I think is most important from the perspective of the libertarian movement or advancing the cause of freedom\. By that standard, I think the spying is a more critical issue right now, for the reasons I noted\. When Bradley Manning joined the U\.S\. government's military, he did not immediately have knowledge of the government abuses and secrets that he later revealed, any more than you evidently knew about or had to pay the parcel tax you're complaining about when you first bought your property\. We can assume he knew when he signed up that the U\.S\. Army kills people, but he may well have been under the misapprehension as many people are that it generally does so only for legitimate reasons \(i\.e\. it does not "murder" as a matter of policy\)\. As far as I know he wasn't himself ordered to commit murder in order to control non\-U\.S\.\-based populations, and aside from being gay and working during the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" period, was victimized not for joining the organization, but only after he acted in accord with his conscience by becoming a whistleblower\. Blowing the whistle on government war crimes and secrets being kept from the public was a courageous, public\-minded and non\-self\-interested action, and even if he did anticipate that the government would go after him for it, as Edward Snowden did, that doesn't negate his victimhood, because he was still unjustly persecuted\. You agreed below that Manning does not deserve the punishment he has received \-\- I would say that anyone who receives undeserved punishment is a victim, ipso facto\. If Snowden were given credible offers by multiple governments to live in their jurisdictions without fear of being persecuted or extradited for his whistleblowing, and he chose to seek asylum in a less free country over one with significantly more freedom, I agree that would be somewhat hypocritical\. But simply seeking to avoid unjust persecution? I don't see that as hypocritical in the slightest\.Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))Starchild:
Thank you for your comments which are always well written even if I don't wholehearted agree with you.
(1) Maybe I should have said that for me personally the imposition of the parcel tax to support CCSF was much more intrusive than NSA's collection of my phone data. Collecting my phone data does not bother me as much as paying this tax, which deprives me of hard-earned money to pay my retirement costs and medical bills (which are beginning to escalate). I never said I was ok with phone data collection.
(2) When I bought me home this parcel tax was not part of the deal. I could indeed be expected to pay any taxes that were in place at the time that I bought. My specific worry is that, since this parcel tax passed, more will be on way. Taxes I did not agree to pay when I bought my home.
(3) When I said Bradley Manning was NOT a victim, I meant what I said. We have an all volunteer army; the draft having ended in the mid seventies. Government is a coercive institution. The military is probably the most coercive part of government as its function is to control foreign populations...by murder if needed. Did he not realize that? He did chose of his own free will to join the military. Perhaps he did not realize exactly what was involved.
(4) I won't retract anything I said about Ed Snowden. His stated reason for fleeing the US is that "he cannot bear to live in a society where the government spies on its citizen'. If he ends up in Venezuela, he will have gone to a county whose record on citizen rights is much worse than the US. That does seem rather hypocritical to me.
I think he and we would have been better off if he had just (1) downloaded some material to prove his points about the NSA, (2) resigned his position and (3) gone to some congressman who would be sympathetic to his aims. It will be interesting to see if he gets fairer treatment in Venezuela. I would like to know what they would have done anyone revealed their state secrets.Les
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:20 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Bradley Manning, etc.Les,
Now that I'm back from Las Vegas and a 28\-hour ordeal on Greyhound, I have some time to get back to you\. Sorry if I was unclear in my previous response\. In your original message below, you wrote, "While I am not really pleased about \[the NSA spying revealed by Edward Snowden\], I don't see it as a major problem\. I am much more worried about things like parcel taxes\." That is what led me to ask whether you feel the financially well\-off are the main victims of government\. As unjust as parcel taxes \(like all involuntary taxes\) inherently are, they have been with us quite a while, and if the public sentiment or means to roll them back do not unfortunately seem to be present in most communities, neither do the sentiment or means seem to be there to sharply increase them in most communities\. I don't see the prospect of them being jacked up as a major threat to freedom at this time, relative to lots of other things government is doing\. Among those other things I would include the NSA's high\-tech electronic harvesting of everyone's email and phone calls\. Wholesale spying on innocent members of the public is a clear signpost of a nascent police state\. The U\.S\. may not yet be the totalitarian equivalent of East Germany or the U\.S\.S\.R\., and hopefully it never will, but this expanding digital surveillance is the sort of thing that brings that possibility a significant step closer\. Unless one sees the plight of property owners, who tend to be wealthier on average than other members of society, as among the most morally pressing injustices confronting us, how could one view minor differences in the rate at which they have long been robbed as being of greater concern than the new and growing police state type measures we are seeing as part of the "War on Terror"? You say Bradley Manning is \*not\* a victim of government because he volunteered to join the military, while you on the other hand \*are\* a victim of government\. But did you not voluntarily purchase your home? You may have a few years on me, but I don't believe you're old enough that you predate parcel taxes, property taxes, or bond measures\! Isn't it likely that you were more aware of these sorts of takings when you bought your property than 19\-year\-old Bradley Manning was of the U\.S\. government's secret abuses when he enlisted in its Army? You write that, "Surely he must have realized by the time he finished boot camp what the essential purpose of the military was\." Well, surely \*you\* must have realized by the time you voted in a local election or two, and started getting assessments in the mail, what the essential nature of the local government's property racket was? You write that, "Bradley Manning signed a written statement that he was going
to have access to classified info and he promised not to reveal it. He was informed that violating this agreement would subject him to serious penalties. This just seems to me to be more naivety on his part." But was there nothing in your purchase agreement, homeowners association paperwork or other documentation that involved you assuming responsibility for making any legally required payments on the property you were taking possession of? If you became a property owner in San Francisco and did not expect to be fleeced, wasn't this naivety on your part?
If the U\.S\. government's military training is inadequate to keep its employees from violating the Geneva Convention, its civic education is similarly inadequate to keep its elected politicians from violating the Constitution and failing to respect property rights\. They do "try" to teach you in school about the Bill of Rights and how the U\.S\. is a "free country", but when government officials are confronted with constituent demands that outpace budgets, and all kinds of special interests lobbying for various handouts and privileges, "the training sometimes gets dumped" as you put it\. One could argue that no amount of training prepares people for the pressures and political realities of holding public office\. If you're not going to blame a government soldier for actually pulling the trigger and wrongfully killing civilians in violation of the laws of war and basic human decency, how much can you blame a government official for seeking to raise
your parcel taxes, when he continually hears about all the programs that need funding, and most of society acts like parcel taxes are constitutional, fair, and necessary?
Hi All,
I am probably the only one on this list who sees a possible comparison between this discussion on Manning's trial and the populist reaction to the Trayvon Martin verdict. Have you all read or heard President Obama's speech on the Trayvon case? I interpreted that speech as a call for departure from the rule of law; Obama also feels that "unjust" laws should be ignored.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/19/remarks-president-trayvon-martin
"Rallies across the nation" swelled after President Obama called for a thoughtful considerations on racism, participation in this cause by celebrities, and federal "assistance" for local communities to straighten out racism and unhelpful laws. I recently posted an article on the militarization of local police -- the kind of assistance that the President is talking about.
And the rush to depart from the Constitutional framework continues. Is anyone winning in this race yet?
Marcy
Hi Marcy,
Do you think the rallies for Trayvon Martin were caused or fueled by Obama's speech? I don't. It seemed obvious to me that anything less that a conviction of George Zimmerman for murder was bound to produce major rallies, given the attention that's been paid by the media to this case, and so I was not surprised in the slightest. In fact when I heard about the verdict I thought there might well be major riots.
I just read the text of Obama's speech to which you posted the link below, and if I dare say so it appears quite fair and balanced. Nothing jumped out at me as particularly inflammatory. Obama, or his speechwriters, know how to write something that sounds very all-around reasonable (in stark contrast to many of his actual policies!). I didn't see anything in there that seemed to be referring to the militarization of police, or saying that unjust laws should be broken, although it's possible I missed something subtle he said along those lines, in which case I hope you can point it out to me. On the contrary, he seemed to be specifically defending the rule of law...
"The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works."
...and saying that police should receive training to be more sensitive and less racist:
"I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists. When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing."
Now admittedly that is beyond the scope of the Constitution, but not in any way that's unique to Obama; the federal government has long been involved with seeking to promote racial justice at the state level (see e.g. the recent Voting Rights Act rules thrown out by the Supreme Court imposing requirements on state election officials).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Marcy:
I guess really don't see a connection between the Martin verdict and Manning's trial. Maybe I just haven't thought about it enough.
I have listened to Obama's speech. I thought it was good and to a great extent I agree with him. I understand very well that young black men in particular have a very bad rep and their hatred and distrust of the police is well founded. But.....there are always two sides to every conflict.
I live in a condominium association. Periodically we have had rashes of break-ins and even car thefts. The perpitrators almost always turned out to be young black men. There is a low income housing project not far from here; it used to be inhabited mostly by black families. Most have since moved away. We have not had any break-in problems for quite some time. We can't help drawing an inference even if it is unfair.
I am sure whites are racist to some extent. My own experience is that blacks are racist too. But few white people have to work for a black person or rent from a black landlord and so the racism of blacks just doesn't mean much to most whites.
Les
Hi Starchild and Les,
Indeed, President Obama's speech did not refer to militarization of police; and indeed his historical perspective was valid. However, I would file this speech in the folder of "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Starchild, your quote from the speech regarding what would be "productive" for the Justice Department to undertake could have been uttered years ago by Nixon in his effort to end use of "illicit" drugs in all states through federal mandate. Federal mandate also funds SWAT teams that regularly kick down our doors. A Justice Department mandate for a civil trial contending that "profiling" occurred in the Zimmerman case, or that state stand your ground laws are unhelpful (even though that rule was not the main argument of the defense) provide more precedents for more drug war and SWAT team legislation. As quotes from the Bible, we often pick and choose when it is OK to welcome the Feds based on our own needs.
Regarding the rallies, they had already started before President Obama's speech, so obviously I could not have been saying they were sparked by his speech. For an interesting perspective of what started the rallies, you might want to read the following article by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, "Black Racism Killed Trayvon." The Revered is as uncomfortable with intimidation as I am -- be it intimidation via rabble rousing or SWAT team.
http://www.bondaction.org/content/article/37076/Black%20Racism%20Killed%20Trayvon%20…
Although the main point I am trying to make is that the further we move from the constitutional framework the further we sink into a mess of conflicting interests, I will digress a bit to encourage Les to read the article by Rev. Peterson as well as Sally's article in today's American Thinker, "Birth of a Racist." Let me know, Les, if you still think whites are not much influenced by black racism after you read the articles.
http://www.americanthinker.com/
Just to cover myself against being labeled a "white racist," as Rev. Peterson and Sally discuss in their articles, may I remind everyone that I am of mixed race?
Marcy