TrekLit politics

[Thestral]

Oh, to be in a different forum...

Anyway, aside from rolling my eyes at the nonsense, it's worth noting that Manning hasn't been charged with treason. No doubt because it's very specifically constitutionally defined.

 

[Smellincoffee]

^ Bingo.

Manning's crimes can be summed up with one word: TREASON. During time of war, no less. In my book, he'll be lucky if he gets off with thirty years of hard labor, the little shitheel needs to stood up against a wall and shot.

And Ellsberg's actions fall under the same category.

Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some, like myself, regard Manning as a hero for not turning a blind eye toward the state's cowardice. He exposed some of its sins. Only when they are known by the public would ANY politician even think of mitigating, let alone refraining from, misdeeds at the state level.

 

[Janos]

^ Bingo.

Manning's crimes can be summed up with one word: TREASON. During time of war, no less.

Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Words like "treason" actually have established meaning and established consequences, regardless of whether one sympathizes with Manning's motivation, his actions were treasonous.

I'm sure someone can pull out the criminal code or military articles that cover this. But even from a plain old dictionary perspective, which is not as ironclad as the justice system's definition of treason, Manning still fits the bill (particularly #2 & #3 below):

trea*son   
–noun

1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Now, some may see the state's decisions about war or peace as treasonous. That may meet #3 above, but that is just a dictionary definition. The laws of the land would not see it that way as treason is specifically defined as I understand it.

 

[Christopher]

^But it says "a violation of allegiance to one's state," not "allegiance to the people currently sitting in office." A democracy is predicated on the principle that every citizen has the right to disagree with those currently in office, to speak out against them, even to take action to remove them from office (i.e. campaigning and voting), if that's what the citizen feels is necessary for the good of the state. So when the officeholders define themselves as synonymous with the state, when exposing their alleged crimes is defined as treason, then democracy has been replaced by tyranny.

 

[Janos]

^But it says "a violation of allegiance to one's state," not "allegiance to the people currently sitting in office." A democracy is predicated on the principle that every citizen has the right to disagree with those currently in office, to speak out against them, even to take action to remove them from office (i.e. campaigning and voting), if that's what the citizen feels is necessary for the good of the state. So when the officeholders define themselves as synonymous with the state, when exposing their alleged crimes is defined as treason, then democracy has been replaced by tyranny.

I agree with the mobilizing, campaigning, voting pieces here. I wasn't commenting on whether the motivation behind Manning breaking the law is legit or not. It is still the law of the land.

The Consitution has a higher-level definition of treason, but allows the Congress to create further laws. Interesting legal history / court cases here.

in two important prosecutions under the Federal Espionage Act, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals fulfilled previous declarations of the law by ruling that the treason clause did not bar Congress from creating an offense against national security with elements materially different from treason. The applicable statute provided penalties for "whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation" communicates or delivers to any foreign government or its agents information relating to the national defense

Whether we agree or not with the law is more of an academic discussion. If folks want it changed, that would seem to be appropriate and those are actions allowable in a democracy (in line with Christopher's comnments on lawful campaigning, mobilizing, etc.). Whether folks are successful in changing the law, that's another whole can of worms.

However, for people on the internet to encourage willful breaking of the law only encourages future Mannings to do this kind of stuff again. The end result? All the armchair internet supporters still stay in their nice homes behind their keyboards, while the Mannings go to jail.

There is a difference between encouraging and taking lawful action towards achieving more open government and inciting people to break established laws.

I also understand the concept of civil disobedience, and that appears to be an acceptable form of dissent as long as the rule of law is observed. I don't see a lot of civil disobedience in Manning's defense.

I sympthesize with folks that see Manning's actions as betrayal of his country and I intellectually understand how folks may sympathize with Manning's motivations (but perhaps not his actions).

 

[Rush Limborg]

I've been pretty aloof from the new "main" discussion here--mainly because I've alread stated my opinion that I DON'T think Zife was supposed to be Bush--but there are a couple things I have to point out:

Given that the majority of the readers, and possibly authors, are indeed left-leaning, then what we have here is indeed a case of wish-fulfillment that is playing to an audience that is considered likely to "enjoy" it.

Bullshit. That is unadulterated bullshit, and a gross insult. Maybe there are a few fanatical idiots out there who take their political rivalries so seriously that they'd wish for the assassination of a president whose policies they disagreed with, but it is a monstrous, horrible thing for you to accuse the rest of us of thinking in such hideous terms. I may have hated George W. Bush's policies and his politics, I may have considered him a dangerous incompetent who never got legitimately elected in the first place, but I would NEVER wish for the assassination of anyone, ever. Have you forgotten that part of being liberal is being opposed to capital punishment and warmongering? Liberals don't think problems are solved with killing. And for that matter, no remotely decent human being of any political leaning would wish for the death of someone they simply happened to disagree with on political issues. Decent people of any political stripe want to resolve their political disagreements through discussion, through compromise, or at the very least through outvoting the opposition. And it's indecent of you to accuse those you disagree with of being so vile in their attitudes as to see assassination as a desirable fantasy. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Chris, the fact that there were "works of art" which concerned the assasination of Bush--during his administration--was enough to give conservatives pause. I am not aware of a backlash on the Left on that--but I could be wrong.

Now, before you get mad at the above pagraph--I am not implicating that the Left in general endorsed that--just that it seemed a LOT less ticked off towards it, justifying them like so:

In the musical Assassins, for instance, even when an assassination or attempted assassination is depicted in an ironic or somewhat flippant manner, the intent is not to be flippant about the assassination itself, but rather to use depictions of acts of political violence to examine the horrors of American society. In the film Death of a President (2006), the intent was not to gloat about the possibility of then-President Bush's assassination, but to explore what one scenario of how America would respond might say about how America works.

One wonders how they would respond had the subject matter been President Obama. I'm guessing there'd be cries of "Racism!" at some point....

But NOT when it is an intentional, deliberate parallel to a living person and (at the time the book was written) a current office-holder. That is inexcusable, because it constitutes gloating about the possibility of a currently-living person's violent death.

Lies. You've been told over and over that this is a lie, and yet you keep repeating it as if repetition could change the facts. Fortunately most of the people in this thread seem to know better.

Chris, again, while I do not agree with Nerys's POV on this subject--calling her a liar who "doesn't know better" is totally uncalled for.

As I recall, you got REALLY set off when you thought I had accused you of lying about the scenario of the upcoming Typhon Pact books.

...

There is almost nothing reasonable in your entire argument. Where to start?

Again--I personally also disagree with her assesment. That does not justify acting like that. You may have refuted what Nerys said, you may not have. But why should what you said be taken seriously if you're going to word your answers that way?

You need to learn to distinguish between a press release making a political argument and a novel.

Well, the fact that the press release said what it said should say something about how the novel came accross.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

^ Bingo.

Manning's crimes can be summed up with one word: TREASON. During time of war, no less. In my book, he'll be lucky if he gets off with thirty years of hard labor, the little shitheel needs to stood up against a wall and shot.

And Ellsberg's actions fall under the same category.

Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some, like myself, regard Manning as a hero for not turning a blind eye toward the state's cowardice. He exposed some of its sins. Only when they are known by the public would ANY politician even think of mitigating, let alone refraining from, misdeeds at the state level.

It really doesn't matter what you think or what any media thinks. All it matters is whats defined in the UCMJ, which Manning did violate. Whether it be treason or another violation, there is evidence that Manning did violate the UCMJ, which is why he is in the stockade.

As a former Intel soldier myself, I hope this guy gets the full punishment.

 

[Sci]

In the musical Assassins, for instance, even when an assassination or attempted assassination is depicted in an ironic or somewhat flippant manner, the intent is not to be flippant about the assassination itself, but rather to use depictions of acts of political violence to examine the horrors of American society. In the film Death of a President (2006), the intent was not to gloat about the possibility of then-President Bush's assassination, but to explore what one scenario of how America would respond might say about how America works.

One wonders how they would respond had the subject matter been President Obama. I'm guessing there'd be cries of "Racism!" at some point....

For my money, it would depend on what I think the goal of the work was.

If the goal is to say, "This should happen because blacks are somehow inferior to whites," well, yeah, I'd cry racism.

If the goal is to say, "Our political culture has become so violent that this could happen," or to say, "Even though America has made great strides towards racial equality, including electing a black President, there is still a disturbingly large reactionary element that might try something like this" -- then, no, I wouldn't cry racism.

Again, it depends upon the intent of the work. Depicting a presidential assassination, even of a non-fictitious president, is not inherently the same thing as endorsing such an event.

Chris, again, while I do not agree with Nerys's POV on this subject--calling her a liar who "doesn't know better" is totally uncalled for.

No, it is called for. She keeps claiming that any work of art that depicts a presidential assassination of a non-fictitious president -- or even of a fictitious one, given Min Zife -- constitutes an endorsement of that act, or a "gloating of the possibility" of such an event. And that's just a lie.

It is not true that depicting assassination in a story equals endorsing it or gloating over the possibility of it, any more than it is true to say that depicting Snidely Whiplash tying Nell Fenwick to train tracks in an episode of Dudley Do-Right constitutes endorsing (or gloating at the possibility of) violence against women.

Further, Nerys has repeated her claim, multiple times, that seeing a Bush-like fictitious president assassinated constitutes wish-fulfillment for liberals. This is also an ignorant untruth at best, and a lie at worst, as numerous liberals have explained that they derive no such pleasure from the thought of a Bush assassination.

(Hell, the entire side-discussion amongst the liberals about whether it would be better for Bush to be impeached and tried in an American or international court, and about whether or not Obama should also be impeached and tried, proves that our wish fulfillment is entirely legalistic!)

There is almost nothing reasonable in your entire argument. Where to start?

Again--I personally also disagree with her assesment. That does not justify acting like that. You may have refuted what Nerys said, you may not have. But why should what you said be taken seriously if you're going to word your answers that way?

I said that nothing in her argument was reasonable. That is not an insult. If you can't handle being told that what you've said is unreasonable, too bad.

You need to learn to distinguish between a press release making a political argument and a novel.

Well, the fact that the press release said what it said should say something about how the novel came accross.

You have so fundamentally misunderstood my statement that I am frustrated and angry.

No press release was issued about the novel saying anything about Zife or Bush or assassinations. I was referring to a rhetorical press release on any given topic from any generic person or organization. In other words, I was saying, "Learn the difference between a press release making a political argument and a novel which does not necessarily make a political argument." Or, to put it more simply, "Learn the difference between a political argument and a story."

It really doesn't matter what you think or what any media thinks. All it matters is whats defined in the UCMJ, which Manning did violate. Whether it be treason or another violation, there is evidence that Manning did violate the UCMJ, which is why he is in the stockade.

As a former Intel soldier myself, I hope this guy gets the full punishment.

I think I'll wait for a ruling from a court-martial before I make the assumption that he's guilty, thank you. Especially since, if he brought to public light proof of U.S. or foreign government abuses, I consider that a valuable service. (If nothing else, leaking video of U.S. forces deliberately killing civilians was itself a valuable service.)

But again, whether or not his actions constitute a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not matter; what matters is that he should not be tortured.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

He was not tortured (unless being incarcerated is torture, which it is) and the UCMJ violations does matter, especially if you are in uniform. then again I am talking to someone who doesn't really know what they are talking about in regarding the UCMJ. Its the basic fact that he distributed sensitive material to non-authorized personnel is in the primary reason he is in prison. It doesn't matter what he released, its the fact that he released it. In all honesty, the UCMJ system doesn't really care if you are against it or not, there is substantial evidence that Manning did what violate the UCMJ. The person he released it to was the one who said it was Manning and there is physical evidence as well.

 

[Sci]

He was not tortured (unless being incarcerated is torture,

Read this article and then tell me with a straight face that the guy's not being tortured.

and the UCMJ violations does matter,

Not to the larger rhetorical point Alyn was making, which is that prisoners of the United States should not be tortured and that any president who condones such treatment should be impeached and tried for crimes against humanity. Whether or not the prisoner has actually committed a violation of the UCMJ is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not he should be tortured, because the answer is, nobody should ever be tortured for any reason at all.

Its the basic fact that he distributed sensitive material to non-authorized personnel

Much of the material in the WikiLeaks case had no business being classified in the first place, and no one has yet proven that they've damaged American national security.

is in the primary reason he is in prison. It doesn't matter what he released,

Of course it matters what he released. If the information he released should not have been classified, then prosecuting him is unjust.

there is substantial evidence that Manning did what violate the UCMJ.

Then why did they wait half a year to charge him with a crime?

 

[Christopher]

I don't know anything about this Manning case. But I know a few things. One, sometimes conscience must transcend law, and if laws are being used to perpetrate injustice, there can be a moral duty to violate them. Two, a basic principle of civil disobedience is that if one violates the law in the name of moral duty, one must be willing to accept the penalties of that violation, including incarceration. However, three, the state has a moral and constitutional duty to ensure those penalties are not cruel and unusual. If anyone imprisoned for any crime is being subjected to abuse or endangerment while in prison, then the penal system is failing in its duty of care.

And four, as Sci pointed out, the paramount principle of the American legal system is the presumption of innocence. A person who has not been convicted of a crime should not be presumed guilty of that crime and should not be punished for it, particularly not to an abusive extreme.

I don't see any of these facts as partisan. They are fundamental principles of law and justice that ought to be respected by all Americans on all sides of the political spectrum. We can debate and disagree on the issues, but we should be able to agree to conduct that debate within a civilized context of respect for the law and basic human rights.

 

[Thestral]

The Consitution has a higher-level definition of treason,

It really doesn't matter what you think or what any media thinks... Whether it be treason or another violation, ...

Thus, so far as anyone can say, Bradley Manning is not guilty of treason. It's a specifically designed charge in the Constitution for a reason.

Much of the material in the WikiLeaks case had no business being classified in the first place, and no one has yet proven that they've damaged American national security.

That's really not for us to decide, and it has no bearing on this case.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

He was not tortured (unless being incarcerated is torture,

Read this article and then tell me with a straight face that the guy's not being tortured.

and the UCMJ violations does matter,

Not to the larger rhetorical point Alyn was making, which is that prisoners of the United States should not be tortured and that any president who condones such treatment should be impeached and tried for crimes against humanity. Whether or not the prisoner has actually committed a violation of the UCMJ is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not he should be tortured, because the answer is, nobody should ever be tortured for any reason at all.

Much of the material in the WikiLeaks case had no business being classified in the first place, and no one has yet proven that they've damaged American national security.

is in the primary reason he is in prison. It doesn't matter what he released,

Of course it matters what he released. If the information he released should not have been classified, then prosecuting him is unjust.

there is substantial evidence that Manning did what violate the UCMJ.

Then why did they wait half a year to charge him with a crime?

Again, what you think in the matter has no bearing in how the the UCMJ works. Besides, the military court systems operates a lot differently than the civilian ones. Yet, according to officials, he is actually not in solitary, but a single person cell. He was required to be naked during inspection because he was joking with the guards that he could kill himself with his underwear and sandals. He has an one hour walk outside his cell for an hour and he had limited TV access. He was allowed reading material. The most important thing, all the prisoners at the prison have the same type of cell.

Actually you are wrong, he was arrested late May 2010 and charged early July 2010. Yet, if we go with the facts of the case and how its relates to the UCMJ, Manning should be imprisoned and since he did release sensitive material outside the confines of his duty station, he should be either sentence to hard labor or executed.

The basic fact Manning committed a crime based on physical evidence and from his informant. He will be tried and a sentence will be laid down.

I'm sorry but he did was treason. As stated in US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, 2381 Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. PFC Manning did that.

 

[Christopher]

I'm sorry but he did was treason. As stated in US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, 2381 Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. PFC Manning did that.

No, he allegedly did that. The only people who have the right to determine whether he's actually guilty are the members of his jury. Until they deliver their verdict, the rest of us should remember that the presumption of innocence is essential to a just and lawful society.

 

[rfmcdpei]

As stated in US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, 2381 Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Is someone who makes unauthorized releases of sensitive information--not information relating to American military secrets or security, apparently, but official American perceptions--really someone who "levies war against [the United States] or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere"? Am I an enemy for checking out WikiLeaks updates? Is The Guardian?

 

[Christopher]

I think we've drifted quite a ways from TrekLit politics here. Maybe this portion of the discussion should be split off to another forum?

 

[Rush Limborg]

One wonders how they would respond had the subject matter been President Obama. I'm guessing there'd be cries of "Racism!" at some point....

For my money, it would depend on what I think the goal of the work was.

If the goal is to say, "This should happen because blacks are somehow inferior to whites," well, yeah, I'd cry racism.

If the goal is to say, "Our political culture has become so violent that this could happen," or to say, "Even though America has made great strides towards racial equality, including electing a black President, there is still a disturbingly large reactionary element that might try something like this" -- then, no, I wouldn't cry racism.

Again, it depends upon the intent of the work. Depicting a presidential assassination, even of a non-fictitious president, is not inherently the same thing as endorsing such an event.


...No, it is called for. She keeps claiming that any work of art that depicts a presidential assassination of a non-fictitious president -- or even of a fictitious one, given Min Zife -- constitutes an endorsement of that act, or a "gloating of the possibility" of such an event. And that's just a lie.

It is not true that depicting assassination in a story equals endorsing it or gloating over the possibility of it, any more than it is true to say that depicting Snidely Whiplash tying Nell Fenwick to train tracks in an episode of Dudley Do-Right constitutes endorsing (or gloating at the possibility of) violence against women.

Further, Nerys has repeated her claim, multiple times, that seeing a Bush-like fictitious president assassinated constitutes wish-fulfillment for liberals. This is also an ignorant untruth at best, and a lie at worst, as numerous liberals have explained that they derive no such pleasure from the thought of a Bush assassination.

(Hell, the entire side-discussion amongst the liberals about whether it would be better for Bush to be impeached and tried in an American or international court, and about whether or not Obama should also be impeached and tried, proves that our wish fulfillment is entirely legalistic!)

All this naturally begs for the question, Sci: how can you know what the "intent" is?

I mean...you could take the author's word for it, I suppose. However--let's be honest here. No one is going to "admit" that the goal was to claim that African-Americans are inferior and somehow inherently less qualified to hold the Oval Office.

In the same way, no one creating and publishing a work of fiction depicting the assasination of a president--doing so while said president is in office, mind you--no such author is going to come out and say that he/she did so with the intent of expressing a wish that that would happen--whether that was the intent or not.

I said that nothing in her argument was reasonable. That is not an insult. If you can't handle being told that what you've said is unreasonable, too bad.

Oh, I understand saying that an argument is unreasonable--heck, I've said that thousands of times here.

I do not understand replacing a quote of said argument with nullspace, or else--and I don't think you've done this, but it's a common tactic, say, in the TNZ--replacing it with a snide remark in parentheses ("(Complete nonsense and BS)")

...and then rhetorically asking "Where to start"?

Returning to my first post in this thread--had I behaved in that manner, I would have been severely taken to task for it. Recall the memorable incident when I ended an argument with, "So there".

Well, the fact that the press release said what it said should say something about how the novel came accross.

You have so fundamentally misunderstood my statement that I am frustrated and angry.

As I said, Sci--sometimes, wording is everything.

 

[Sci]

All this naturally begs for the question, Sci: how can you know what the "intent" is?

It's usually fairly obvious. If it depicts an assassination as a good thing from which positive consequences flow which the narrative endorses, we can be fairly certain that the intent was to support the assassination.

For instance, it's fairly safe to say that the film Valkyrie supported the idea of assassinating Adolf Hitler. (No, I am not comparing Bush to Hitler, it's just the most prominent recent film I could think of that featured a political assassination or attempted political assassination.) By the same token, it's safe to say that the episodes "What Kind of Day Has It Been," "In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, Part I," and "In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, Part II" did not support the attempted assassination of fictitious U.S. President Jed Bartlet.

And if we look at Star Trek: A Time to Heal, it's pretty obvious from the use of the phrase "the merciless hands of Section 31" and various other story elements used to create a sense of ominousness and dread, that the assassination of Min Zife is not considered by the narrative to be a good thing.

I mean...you could take the author's word for it, I suppose. However--let's be honest here. No one is going to "admit" that the goal was to claim that African-Americans are inferior and somehow inherently less qualified to hold the Oval Office.

Of course there are people willing to say such things. Just ask David Duke.

In the same way, no one creating and publishing a work of fiction depicting the assasination of a president--doing so while said president is in office, mind you--no such author is going to come out and say that he/she did so with the intent of expressing a wish that that would happen--whether that was the intent or not.

That really depends on the creator.

But if we look at the narratives they create, it's fairly easy to determine what the narrative is endorsing. In Death of a President, for instance, the narrative did not endorse the idea of an assassination of George W. Bush -- it depicted the entire event with a sense of dread and horror, and it depicted the consequences of such an assassination as being even more horrific.

Spoiler: Death of a President

In fact, the twist to the story in that film is that an Arab-American is accused of the assassination and locked up even after it turns out that the real assassin was an African-American father whose son died in Iraq.

The twist to that story therefore constitutes using the assassination of Bush as a plot mechanism to critique U.S. legal and racial attitudes in the wake of the start of the War on Terror; it doesn't endorse anything.

Oh, I understand saying that an argument is unreasonable--heck, I've said that thousands of times here.

I do not understand replacing a quote of said argument with nullspace,

Using the ellipses is a perfectly valid way of establishing that I am referring to the entirety of Nerys's post when I speak, and does not constitute an insult, a misquote, or a way of twisting her words.

Returning to my first post in this thread--had I behaved in that manner, I would have been severely taken to task for it.

If you were to take any of my posts and use ellipses to refer to the entirety of it, I wouldn't give a shit and wouldn't feel insulted at all.

Recall the memorable incident when I ended an argument with, "So there".

I barely remember that, if at all. I'm afraid you have a much longer memory for apparent slights against yourself than I do for slights against myself.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

"If any kind of political statement about Bush was intended, it was more like "hey all you people that wish he was assassinated: here's what that feels like. Not so comfortable with the idea now, are you?""

At this point, this is the only even halfway convincing argument I have seen, and in addition to Rush's comments, one of the only attempts to offer a truly reasoned counterargument that has any chance of being supported by the text itself. However, I still do not agree with it: such a thinly-disguised parallel of a sitting president being killed, is still something that is completely and totally inexcusable. Working with an assassination scenario--there are reasons to do that. But I see little difference between this and the movie someone made (which Rush cited) that actually depicted GWB being killed. Both have no place in the political discourse, or in ANY sort of reasoned discourse whatsoever.

 

[Thrawn]

^ I appreciate the compliment, thank you.

I'm still confused why you're so adamantly against this, though, even if the purpose is to show how horrific it would be.

That's like saying that no work of art should ever mention rape, because rape is so horrible that it has no place in reasoned discourse.

Or that no work of art should mention the Holocaust, because we wouldn't want to encourage another one.

And I'm honestly not trying to inflame; I just want to know what's so different about THIS horrible act that makes you think it shouldn't even be NEGATIVELY portrayed, as compared to all the others that show up in stories, Trek or otherwise, all the time.