Bradley Manning

[SEC agent]

Thank you. Also, I do not, and have never, had sex with my cat

Maybe, maybe not.

Even if you haven't, you sure are fighting hard for people who do, and that's not much better

[SEC agent]

But this isn't about the law, this is about whether or not it's rape. If you want to make it about the law, beastiality isn't illegal in some states, so by your logic, it's okay there.

Its not about the law (or more specifically, whats legal and where), but about the clearly defined legal terms "consent" and "rape".

[SEC agent]

If your argument is that animals cannot consent to sex, then you believe that all sex between animals is rape.

No, by the legal definition of "consent", a human cannot have consensual sex with an animal.  Period.  "Consent" and "rape" have no legal definition outside of human interaction. 

I think all of that catsex has made you a little slow, because we seem to be going in circles here.


Lets try this another way. If we were discussing dogfighting, cockfighting, or other form of extreme physical animal abuse, would you defend it by saying "well animals fight in nature, so it must be ok"?  I would hope not, because its asinine to compare the two situations.  In a dogfight, the humans are clearly coercing the animals to fight, and even though it may be in the dogs nature to fight when cornered, it is being forced to fight.  In this case, the dog is clearly being abused (regardless of whether animal violence also happens in nature).

 

[SEC agent]

I'm fighting for people who are discriminated against.

Rapists should not only be discriminated against, but also locked away from society forever.

[SEC agent]

You know what other group of people use the exact same line of reasoning for their actions?

Child molesters.

Just like them, you can dance around the topic of your perversion all you like, and you can try to justify it however you see fit, but when it comes down to it you are just another disgusting rapist.

[SEC agent]

Whatever makes you feel better about being a catfucker, pervert

[Anon136]

So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why an animal is capable of consenting to sex with another animal but incapable of consenting to sex with a human. as specifically as possible please explain why this is the case.

Are you serious?

Our legal system has a clear definition of "sexual consent" and "rape" that (like all of our laws) pertains to human action, not what animals do to each other.    

A cat raping another cat has absolutely nothing to do with a human raping a cat.

frankly i couldn't care less what sociopaths in silly hats think about the definitions of words. i believe rape means non-consensual sex. you are entitled to believe that it means something else if you wish.

[ReCat]

Whatever makes you feel better about being a catfucker, pervert

It sounds like you're just too stubborn to admit that what they're saying kinda makes sense mate.

[SEC agent]

No, I'm tired of watching crazy people doing mental gymnastics to justify raping animals. This isn't the type of discussion that should warrant multiple pages.

Seriously, you bicoiners are sick.  

[tiberiandusk]

I've noticed since the Bradley Manning / Wikileaks thing started that the conservatives that hate our government so much are the first to jump to defend it and call Bradley a traitor. Our government is the one committing war crimes in our name. Bradley simply aired their dirty laundry. He's a hero and the government will continue to spew mountains of propaganda to make you hate him. He's just a kid with a conscience. If you can't see that you're probably more of traitor to freedom than you say he is.

[Rassah]

Someone's never heard of furries...

I just looked it up...and then promptly erased my browser history (thanks).  So you perverts want to fuck cartoon animals or something?  Is this common amongst bitcoiners?

Wait, no...nevermind.  I think "ignorance is bliss" applies here.

I, uh, have nothing to do with those two

<.<
>.>
o.o

*walks off stage*

Also, those cute fuzzy koalas are the rapiest animals in all of animal kingdom. The moar you know.

[Mike Christ]

I've noticed since the Bradley Manning / Wikileaks thing started that the conservatives that hate our government so much are the first to jump to defend it and call Bradley a traitor. Our government is the one committing war crimes in our name. Bradley simply aired their dirty laundry. He's a hero and the government will continue to spew mountains of propaganda to make you hate him. He's just a kid with a conscience. If you can't see that you're probably more of traitor to freedom than you say he is.

Don't worry, most of us can see this.  SEC agent is just the literal definition of idiot:

id·i·ot 
/ˈidēət/
Noun
1 A stupid person.
2 A mentally handicapped person.

Well, he's one or the other, anyway.  I'm not sure if patriots count as mentally handicapped.

[jackjack]

After reading through the last few pages of this thread, I think somewhere along the line it has gone a little off topic.

Indeed, the off-topic started at the first reply

[ReCat]

If an off-topic topic becomes so overwhelming to the thread, that it becomes the only topic, is it still off-topic, or is it the new on-topic?

[Biomech]

Back on topic, since it is something of concern to me.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/06/assange-issues-statement-on-first-day.html#more

[Luckybit]

He is a traitor who deserves to rot in prison.

For how long? Of course he deserves some punishment for breaking his oath, but how much is fair?

Life in prison is not fair. Also what is with the stories of torture? No matter what he could have done, that should not happen.

Let's watch it play out in court.

He disseminated classified information and gave intel to our countries enemies. That's more than breaking an oath, that's treason.

He knew what the consequences of betraying his country were (particularly being in the military), and now he was to pay those consequences.

It's only treason if people died as a result. Did people die as a result?
Otherwise I don't see how it's worse than what Robert Hanssen did, or Aldrich Ames. What Aldrich Ames did was treason.

[Luckybit]

Who committed treason first, though?

Bradley Manning was the only person committing treason.

Actually, can you please explain why exposing someone in government who has done something illegal a treason? Why was exposing the people who outed Vallerie Plame treason? Why was exposing that Ronald Reagan was secretly selling weapons to terrorists in order to fund a private secret war treason? Why was exposing that IRS was targeting Tea Party members treason? Why did the entire Senate commit treason when they exposed Bill Clinton's private sexual relationship?

Or, do you even know what Bradley Manning actually did?

Bradley Manning did not release any Top Secret information. The Cables were not Top Secret.
That is not to say what he did was right, but how is it treason? It's not even the worst espionage in US history if you want to call it that. The only case for calling it espionage is the fact that Julian Assange is an austrlian so maybe it could be viewed like that but why would it be treason when that kind of stuff goes on all the time and no one else has been charged with treason or espionage even?

[JaSK]

Not sure if SEC agent is actually a troll or just suffering Fractal Wrongness.

[Luckybit]

So saying publicly and proving that USA kills and tortures people undermines your freedom?

So what? Did anything happen thanks to that?

He stole and released critical intelligence that could result in harming diplomatic relations, and put American soldiers lives at risk during wartime (which is aiding and abetting the enemy).  He intentionally violated the Espionage Act, and as someone with a security clearance, he knew the risks. Violation of the Espionage Act carries with it a penalty of death.

If he was unprepared to accept those consequences, he should've kept his treasonous mouth shut.

Wow. Is it that tough to answer?

Hint: the red question just needs a Yes or a No
Hint: the green question just needs a Yes or a No

The first is not a "yes or no" question, because it is a leading question.  It doesn't really matter what the classified documents reveal, because stealing and releasing classified documents is illegal and a clear act of espionage.  If he felt that something illegal was happening, he should've gone through the proper channels and had it investigated.

For your second question, yes.

Does saying publicly and proving that USA kills and tortures people undermines your freedom?

See, that is the kind of stuff which should be leaked but okay say that torture and murder documents do get leaked, what exactly does it change?

MKUltra already was released officially and unclassified and the US always had the authority to kill and just never exercised it. I do see your point but the problem is there is no accountability even if crimes are leaked, who exactly are you supposed to leak it to and what can they do about it anyway? These are legit questions.

[Luckybit]

So saying publicly and proving that USA kills and tortures people undermines your freedom?

So what? Did anything happen thanks to that?

He stole and released critical intelligence that could result in harming diplomatic relations, and put American soldiers lives at risk during wartime (which is aiding and abetting the enemy).  He intentionally violated the Espionage Act, and as someone with a security clearance, he knew the risks. Violation of the Espionage Act carries with it a penalty of death.

If he was unprepared to accept those consequences, he should've kept his treasonous mouth shut.

Wow. Is it that tough to answer?

Hint: the red question just needs a Yes or a No
Hint: the green question just needs a Yes or a No

The first is not a "yes or no" question, because it is a leading question.  It doesn't really matter what the classified documents reveal, because stealing and releasing classified documents is illegal and a clear act of espionage.  If he felt that something illegal was happening, he should've gone through the proper channels and had it investigated.

For your second question, yes.

Does saying publicly and proving that USA kills and tortures people undermines your freedom?

Apparently, he thinks yes. Even though the government is abusing the ability to classify things to hide their crimes, exposing those crimes to the people should totally still be punishable by death.  

The problem with exposing the crime to the people is that it helps the enemy government. So I understand SEC Agent's concern. I also understand the concern about governments abusing citizens killing and torturing them. There has to be a balance where SEC Agent admits that in the case of murder and torture the information has to be leaked but in the case of damn near everything else, what business does the general public have to know it and what right does Bradley Manning or whomever else have to leak it?

A government which kills and tortures people, it might be worth risking going to jail to protect people from that. At the same time anyone who is brave enough to leak that might not live to see the jail, it's not like it's safe to leak stuff like that.

I think the world is better off knowing that the US government uses torture because now the US government cannot keep lying and saying it never tortured anyone. The documents are out there whether they got leaked or were declassified they are out there. The fact that torture ever was allowed should be reason enough to never trust the US government, how do you trust any institution which tortures innocent people or terrorists?