Cases like those of Manning or Snowden present an perplexing conundrum for governments. If you do evil, scummy stuff and want to keep it hushed up, you need to make an example of leakers, no matter how well meaning they may be, in order to discourage further leaks. However, by abusing what the public sees as whistle-blowers, you lend credence to their accusations (You wouldn't bother to punish them if they were just making this stuff up, would you?).
It's a catch-22. If you don't punish the leakers, you'll look bad when more whistle-blowers reveal more of the evil stuff you've been up to. If you do punish the leakers, you confirm your guilt. The only way out seems to be to not do evil, scummy stuff in the first place!
In a few hundred years Western civilization has gone from enjoying bear-bating and cat-burning as popular forms of entertainment to being shocked when somebody is strapped to a board with a wet cloth over their face. This is a fundamentally good thing. The public's steadily decreasing appetite for cruelty and violence is what has made things such as Gandhi's use of passive resistance possible. Had Gandhi been born a century or two earlier, things would have gone much more poorly for him!
The notion that the world is a cruel, evil place and that states must, at times, act without moral compunction is a popular one. However, this notion is out of step with the reality that the human race is gradually becoming less tolerant of brutality and that secrets are becoming increasingly hard to keep secret. It is not naive idealism to expect our governments to hold themselves to a higher level of conduct. What few gains the U.S. may have realized from NSA's surveillance program pale in comparison to the loss of confidence U.S. citizens have in their own government and the increased distrust of U.S. institutions and even private companies worldwide.
The U.S. government needs to become more open and more idealistic in order to regain the social license it has lost. The Stasi approach to enforcing citizen loyalty is less viable today than ever.
If you don't punish the leakers, you'll look bad when more whistle-blowers reveal more of the evil stuff you've been up to. If you do punish the leakers, you confirm your guilt. The only way out seems to be to not do evil, scummy stuff in the first place!
Or just have them conveniently commit "suicide" before you even catch the leakers. They were mentally unstable anyway and cracked under the pressure, no questions asked.
It still sears my mind that someone could be locked in a cage by our own government for exposing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 (Collateral Murder video)
People actually died in that example. I am unaware of anything but hypotheticals regarding anyone killed as result of Manning's "leaks".
Although the links are interesting, my general sentiments on the subject hold. I more than suspect this particular event (Collateral Murder) was but one of far too many and remains a common theme. I am reminded of :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hC2oW5P8 - Blackwater drive-by recreational shooting spree. There are others too.
The military, notably with its cozy relationship with private contractors, has created a substantial rift between itself and civilians. Arguably no longer having much to do with defense, its occupations are highly dubious and without the support of many (the majority?) who involuntarily fund it. The DoD has exclusive exemptions from auditing and maintains a hefty black budget. If it intends to bleed the nation dry without reasonable transparency and accountability, I'm willing to pardon a margin of error among whistleblowers.
Solitary confinement probably doesn't prevent death by suicide.
Solitary confinement and 24 hour arm's length supervision might, while it's happening. But it doesn't do anything to prevent the desire and probably makes the thought worse.
There are probably stats on it. I'd have thought solitary would reduce immediate success in suicide and hence also reduce immediate desire. But yes, it's going to be very bleak to be under that sort of regimen and I'd also expect the thought to be worse.
It might be the right thing to do to torture, to add more pain to, someone who already feels so much pain that she attempts suicide, by some standard that I cannot comprehend. We might have to accept such a standard as the cost of diversity.
However it seems obvious to me that it is impossible for any sound-thinking person to argue that it is justifiable to obstruct suicide attempts. One of the values upon which capitalism society is based is the notion of private property, which entails that we have exclusive control of things we own. If it is justifiable to obstruct suicide attempts, that would imply that we do not own our bodies. Well, there's a name for such people: slaves.
It's rather ideological and hilarious for you to use the United States Armed Forces non-democratic and non-civilian justice system to criticize the American democracy.
In one tiny post you demonstrate sad ignorance to the subject (anyone with even a -passing- knowledge of civilian vs military justice is laughing at you) as well as the sad bias which empowers your triumphant ignorance, so bravo.
Out of curiosity, which nations Military Justice System do you prefer?
A) You don't lose your rights by being a soldier, but you do face military based restrictions and fall under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military justice.
B) The premise of operating a successful military is more important than operating a, uih, civilian military.
"My question maybe hurt's so bad, since your have thrown everything you got at me, otherthan giving simple answer.
Your military justice system is fucking worse than terrorist."
I apologize -- I suspected and but didn't fully realize I was dealing with someone who was unhinged.
I have thrown basically nothing at you, and your ridiculous defensiveness here is suspect.
And to call the Military Justice worse than terrorist [sic] exposes you as non-English.
Your rabid bias against America is evident, your overwillingness to use rather petty and ignorant hyperbole is evident, and when someone dares not agree with you, you become unhinged and defensive and quite nasty.
Have a good day, Hater, but know that your immature nonsense does nothing but embarrass yourself.
P.S. will you watch a video of ISIS beheading people as they scream and blood squirts? Will you watch ISIS dropping 24 children into a vat of acid where they scream for HOURS? Your knowledge of military justice and terrorism makes me wonder your allegiance. One would have to support ISIS to find the acid-torture of children to be better than solitary confinement.
You finished your answer with comparing your military system with ISIS beheading. That was what I looking at. Your comparison standard for your military system is ISIS, Wow. You literally proved my point.
Have good day.
BTW It is not secret. I am Iranian. But I don't believe in nationality. I am kinda extreme anarchist.
"You finished your answer with comparing your military system with ISIS beheading. That was what I looking at. Your comparison standard for your military system is ISIS, Wow. You literally proved my point."
No, it's not, I was mocking you by engaging in the same ignorant and low-effort hyperbole that sadly makes up the bulk of your contribution here. I suppose your limited English skills prevent you from understand ridicule and mockery, so I'll spell it out for you.
Don't you see how you just "fell for it"? How I used outrageous hyperbole to literally make fun of you, and you took it seriously?
I find it at odds that a nation that has such ardour and pride for their servicemen and servicewomen would basically condone human rights abuse by and unto those same personnel ?!
"I find it at odds that a nation that has such ardour and pride for their servicemen and servicewomen would basically condone human rights abuse by and unto those same personnel ?!"
So, you're new to jingoistic nationalism is what you're telling me.
Cool, welcome to the 19th century. You have about 200 years of history to catch up on! I'm guessing you've just learned about Napoleon's army based on your opinion, so hoy-boy do you have a wide variety of nationalist nations and their armies to study!
True in part. My nation's army (Australia) has a history that goes back to those times, and still has traditions and culture carried forward from that era.
But while we do hold our service personnel in high esteem and treat them with respect, we also hold them accountable and try very hard to stamp out incidences of human rights abuse, gender inequality, bullying etc. within our defence force.
We tend not to let patriotic fervour limit that accountability.
The Australian Defence Force isn't exactly all peachy either.
Australian servicemen and servicewomen are still subject to military law and courts martial, same as the USA. And sexual abuse and harassment is still a serious issue [0].
Never said that is was all roses in our defence force. Ironically my sister in law (in the Air Force) is undergoing a formal complaint review at the moment because she is the subject of systemic bullying and cronyism in her section.
But in her case (and in most others here), outside agencies will step up to the plate and ask serious questions and take charge of the situation if defence force personnel are seen to be unbecoming of their conduct.
Do the most senior generals in the US military draw the line in the sand like David Morrison did a couple of years back? [1]
The situation in Nauru is absolutely abhorrent, but discussing it is outside the scope of this post. It isn't the Australian military there... The situation is controlled by a private security firm under the employ of the Australian Government.
The private security firm didn't create the policy of mandatory indefinite remote detention with little oversight.
And while it may be cognitively useful to pretend Australian border defense is not a military issue, you have created a ranked force defending the state's "territorial integrity" through the use of force.
You originally wrote, "I find it at odds that a nation that has such ardour and pride for their servicemen and servicewomen would basically condone human rights abuse by and unto those same personnel."
The UN has repeatedly decried Austrlia's migration policies as human rights abuses.
The reason migration policies are germane, even if they're enforced by civilians, is because they're an example where Australians exhibit the same blind spots you're decrying in people from other countries.
If you're genuinely curious how people take pride in flawed governments, look closer to home. Really though, it's a universal human condition.
Oh, I know we are absolutely not immune. This sort of thing is endemic in any large, hierarchical group. We are just less likely to let hero worship cloud our judgement.
It's a catch-22. If you don't punish the leakers, you'll look bad when more whistle-blowers reveal more of the evil stuff you've been up to. If you do punish the leakers, you confirm your guilt. The only way out seems to be to not do evil, scummy stuff in the first place!
In a few hundred years Western civilization has gone from enjoying bear-bating and cat-burning as popular forms of entertainment to being shocked when somebody is strapped to a board with a wet cloth over their face. This is a fundamentally good thing. The public's steadily decreasing appetite for cruelty and violence is what has made things such as Gandhi's use of passive resistance possible. Had Gandhi been born a century or two earlier, things would have gone much more poorly for him!
The notion that the world is a cruel, evil place and that states must, at times, act without moral compunction is a popular one. However, this notion is out of step with the reality that the human race is gradually becoming less tolerant of brutality and that secrets are becoming increasingly hard to keep secret. It is not naive idealism to expect our governments to hold themselves to a higher level of conduct. What few gains the U.S. may have realized from NSA's surveillance program pale in comparison to the loss of confidence U.S. citizens have in their own government and the increased distrust of U.S. institutions and even private companies worldwide.
The U.S. government needs to become more open and more idealistic in order to regain the social license it has lost. The Stasi approach to enforcing citizen loyalty is less viable today than ever.