|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 10/08/2002 : 13:18:58 [Permalink]
|
Wow, lots o' responses!
Are we all reading the same article? Some of the reactions here seem to misrepresent the thoughts of the Sergeant.
Anyway, key points that I agree with the author about:
quote:
Classified leaks; senators visiting Iraq and criticizing the president in public; retired flag grade officers providing insight on how they might see forces employed for combat; what is our country doing?
I'm all for freedom of expression, but for members of the government to do any of the above should be considered criminal.
quote:
Let the citizens demonstrate and let the media guess, but don't give away our country's actions or intentions.
quote:
On the other hand, if the enemy's Fog (the unknown) is reduced via the leaking of classified information and the blabbing by former senior military experts, or a schizophrenic political leadership, we give him a reason to believe that he can win the fight. WE GIVE HIM THE WILL TO FIGHT.
quote:
A service member goes with the decision made by this government regardless of feeling. He just wants to come to home at the end of the day too.
In the end, if you're a private citizen, hate the President, call him an idiot and a loser in public, whatever makes you feel better, but when officials and the press are giving out info that could cost soldiers their lives, I'm surprised anyone would cry "Free Speech!".
|
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2002 : 20:05:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the end, if you're a private citizen, hate the President, call him an idiot and a loser in public, whatever makes you feel better, but when officials and the press are giving out info that could cost soldiers their lives, I'm surprised anyone would cry "Free Speech!".
I tried to make it clear I have no problem with this. If a government official's words or actions, hell anyone's words or actions, can be shown to compromise national security, then charge them with treason and bury them under Leavenworth. That's the law now. Nothing needs to change. Criticizing the president is absolutely not a criminal act, no matter who does it. The President is not entitled to lock-step agreement from anyone, governmentally employed or not. And he's certainly not going to get it by demanding it, "or else".
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2002 : 21:24:42 [Permalink]
|
I can't believe you are even debating this. Iraq is no threat to the US. What Sadam knows or does not know will not save him if the US does attack. US casualties will not be high, as the military will not move unless the way is no more threatining than the Rosebowl parade route.
While I really object to wars like this one...being used to boost midterm election results...when waiting will achieve the same result with fewer longer term problems. It is certian that the Iraqis will support it once it is clear who is going to win.
The Sgt. need not worry about leaks in the press, most are more than likely there to scare or confuse Saddam. If the real leaks were treated as treason, then the others would clearly be shown to be phony.
I also find it interesting that some with a right wing view point seem to regard Democracy as something with fixed values (theirs) and the only debate and vote should be on who protects thoses values. At least that is how I see it.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2002 : 05:42:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I tried to make it clear I have no problem with this. If a government official's words or actions, hell anyone's words or actions, can be shown to compromise national security, then charge them with treason and bury them under Leavenworth.
You did. In my mind, I had been focusing on leaked info that would endanger soldiers' lives. I'll need to ponder the "Senators criticizing the President in public" angle more. Shouldn't that be something that they discuss amongst themselves, in such a situation? I can see both sides...
quote:
Criticizing the president is absolutely not a criminal act, no matter who does it. The President is not entitled to lock-step agreement from anyone, governmentally employed or not. And he's certainly not going to get it by demanding it, "or else".
Are you saying it shouldn't be? Or that you think this is true? Because from my understanding (and I most certainly could be wrong), as Commander-in-Chief, he is the highest ranking military officer in the Armed Forces. It most certainly is a criminal act for a subordinant to publicly criticize a superior officer (AFAIK).
Someone who knows, I'd be interested in being set straight on this. 
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 10/09/2002 06:03:57 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2002 : 05:47:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can't believe you are even debating this. Iraq is no threat to the US.
We are debating behavior of officials in wartime or potential wartime in general. Not about Saddam and Iraq specifically. (There's a bazillion other threads on that topic).
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2002 : 06:21:13 [Permalink]
|
I hope that members of Congress are not subordinate to the President. They certainly act like it when it comes to rubber-stamping disastrous foreign policy, but they are not supposed to be.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2002 : 11:06:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You did. In my mind, I had been focusing on leaked info that would endanger soldiers' lives. I'll need to ponder the "Senators criticizing the President in public" angle more. Shouldn't that be something that they discuss amongst themselves, in such a situation? I can see both sides...
With the President very publicly beating the war drums you are damn right the senator should publicly chastise the president. If the president keeps it behind closed doors then the senator probably should too but I doubt this is a scenario that has ever or will ever happen.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2002 : 11:50:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'll need to ponder the "Senators criticizing the President in public" angle more. Shouldn't that be something that they discuss amongst themselves, in such a situation?
Sometimes. I wouldn't consider it out-of-line for Congress itself to maintain a standard of decorum, binding to all its members, with regards to certain issues with the President. Some kind of censure would be the logical punishment. I don't see this happening, though.
quote:
Because from my understanding (and I most certainly could be wrong), as Commander-in-Chief, he is the highest ranking military officer in the Armed Forces. It most certainly is a criminal act for a subordinant to publicly criticize a superior officer (AFAIK).
Certainly members of the armed forces are obliged to do so, but civilian Congressmen are most certainly and deliberately not.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume
Edited by - phdreamer on 10/09/2002 11:51:36 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2002 : 12:10:40 [Permalink]
|
If this were a military dicatorship then you bet they would be subordinate. Maybe next year...
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2002 : 12:46:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Certainly members of the armed forces are obliged to do so, but civilian Congressmen are most certainly and deliberately not.
Right. I was just wondering because you said:
quote:
Criticizing the president is absolutely not a criminal act, no matter who does it.
I just wanted clarification that indeed it is a criminal act for certain members of society.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2002 : 19:54:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Certainly members of the armed forces are obliged to do so, but civilian Congressmen are most certainly and deliberately not.
Right. I was just wondering because you said:
quote:
Criticizing the president is absolutely not a criminal act, no matter who does it.
I just wanted clarification that indeed it is a criminal act for certain members of society.
Indeed. My statement was entirely too general. I stand corrected.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Kilted_Warrior
Skeptic Friend
Canada
118 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2002 : 22:25:45 [Permalink]
|
here in Canada, it is our right and privilage to critique and make fun of and bad mouth our PM, but that is because the PM is not the head of state, and is not to be worshipped like your pres. Recently, Jean Cretien was pied in the face. If that had happended to George Jr. The purp would have been shot by every secret service agent in a hundred meter radius!
This freedom of speech and these anti terrorism bills y'all are passing are limiting the rights and freedoms your much-talked-about forefathers won!
You have a weird government down there...
Uh oh, I'm ranting again... |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
