Treason in a Good Cause
Am I the only one who is a bit put off by all this conservative support for the Pfc who allegedly leaked classified material to Wikileak? Have anti-war conservatives gone so far down the road that they no longer value honesty and duty or condemn oath-breaking and treason? Oh well, it's all in a good cause, as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg used to say. Or was it Kim Philby?
Entries(RSS)
An excellent post.
Welcome back Dr Fleming. I wondered when you were going to dig into this issue, it all goes back to the civil disobedience issue youve discussed before. Perhaps we can get a longer post to flesh it all out some?
"Have anti-war conservatives gone so far down the road that they no longer value honesty and duty or condemn oath-breaking and treason?"
We need to be very careful here. According to some lights, a lot of good men broke oaths and committed treason--Davis, Lee, Jackson etc. Same with Reily and the St. Patrick's Battalion in Mexico.
I think that anti-war conservatives have gone overboard here (including Justin Raimondo whose name is listed on this website) but I think we need to be careful on how we word things.
Tom,
No, you are not alone but things are beginning to get pretty sporty out there. I watched our friend and writer, Justin Raimondo, on Fox News yesterday and was aggrieved to hear him call the little integrity violator a hero, but equally irritating to listen to Justin's antagonist, some former intelligence guru, spew his deceptions about the tactical importance of keeping the public in total ignorance about the realities of war.
The national security state is so vast and operates in such extreme secrecy outside the bounds of the law (though this is true of the gov't as a whole as well) that there are few other ways to find out what our government is doing with our money and in our names outside of whistle blowers, especially since the press has abdicated its duty to be a check on gov't abuse.
I don't know many serious people who regard Jefferson Davis as a traitor. His sovereign state had decided to withdraw from an alliance or confederation, and he fulfilled his obedience to his state, much as an american officer could be expected to regard his loyalty to the USA to supersede loyalty to NATO, the UN, or a political cause. My friend Justin is a libertarian, and not a conservative, so my expression of concern--far from a condemnation that needs to be tempered with care--was not aimed at him. I entirely agree with Robert that the regime for most if not all of my life has treated its citizens as helots to be kept in the dark, but this effeminate creep who betrayed his country is at best a symptom of a military that admits such degenerates into its ranks. By the way, I am probably the only one in this conversation old enough to remember the disappointment felt by many Americans when President Eisenhower lied to his people about Francis Gary Powers.
Dr. Fleming,
Here is an NPR Interview with one of Frums "Unpatriotic Americans" that perhaps provides some perspective on the differences between, Treachery and Honor, which you have pointed out in your own post.
CONAN: And your questions about U.S. foreign policy and the uses of military power, I'm sure those don't come to the point of questioning the men and the women who have served in wars and have had to pay the price.
Col. BACEVICH: Heavens, no. I mean, service to country, whether in military service or other forms, is tremendously honorable and can be very rewarding and satisfying as well. It's not up to those who serve in uniform to decide when and how they will serve. They take an oath and they are bound by that oath. And quite frankly, the particular cause or the outcome of a particular effort, to my mind, has absolutely no bearing on the honor that attaches itself to their service.
What did you do this past Memorial Day?
Col. BACEVICH: Well, yesterday we went to my son's gravesite and we, as we do from time to time, we did a little bit of landscaping. We removed some flowers that had outlived their time and put in some new flowers. This morning, I went back by myself and just spent a little time there.
But the question I have raised is not the nature of this regime but the moral obtuseness of those who praise such an act by such a person--I would not say man in this case. Let us suppose the impossible and imagine that these revelations brought down the entire regime. What then? A new regime based on people who cannot keep their word or maintain their loyalty?
"..Same with Reily and the St. Patrick’s Battalion in Mexico."
Didnt they broke their oaths, largely for promised financial gain? I've never been comfortable with the commemoration of that bunch; I suspect regular Americans at the time had the right opinion: traitors.
What about another impossible (hopefully) case: suppose the US were plotting an invasion of the Vatican. Would it be treasonous to betray the plot? No, because loyalty to God trumps loyalty to country?
No, Dr. Fleming, you are not the only one who is put off. I can imagine the shrieks from "conservatives" if this had happened under Bush.
Mat Weber raises a very interesting question, but the answer is not simple. Insofar as a man is a soldier, he has particular and peculiar loyalties that are not necessarily superseded by his religious commitment. Of course, one might argue that a Catholic has no business serving in the armed forces of a regime that might attack the Church. I wonder what any good Catholics thought or did who were with the Emperor Charles when his largely Lutheran army sacked Rome? One of the problems with liberal ethics since Descartes is that these philosophies rule out the possibility of such a dilemma. One or the other loyalty is supposed to be trumps and thus negate the claims of the other. One distinction, however, can be made: If a soldier is asked to do something contradictory to conscience or which violates the rules of warfare, e.g. murder civilians, he is justified in refusing, though not necessarily in blowing the whistle on his commander.
Dr. Fleming writes: "imagine that these revelations brought down the entire regime. What then? A new regime based on people who cannot keep their word or maintain their loyalty?"
Yes, this is the essence of the issue, and in this case the culture rot starts from the head down (Our Leaders) and then from the tail up (anti- war types selling their soul to the devil) like a rotting fish on hot New York City pavement.
In the article "Non Believer" in the 7 July 2010 issue of The New Republic, the question is raised : "Who is more deserving of contempt? The commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause, however misguided, in which he sincerely believes?(W. Bush, I presume) Or the commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause in which he manifestly does not believe and yet refuses to forsake?" (That would be Obama) Or the undisciplined thing in uniform, selling secrets and his soul on the cheap. This is what I meant when I said things are getting "pretty sporty" or rotten out there!!!
#9 Reily and the St. Patrick’s Battalion in Mexico
Yes, they were certainly misguided American type zealots but nothing compared to the Abraham Lincoln Brigade that fought for the Communist takeover of Spain, and then popularized by Papa Hemmingway!! But we digress from the subject at hand.
Private Manning's exposure of thousands of documents is very grave and dishonorable. He brings to mind the story of Sgt. Clayton Lonetree who in the 1980s, as a marine guard at the US embassy in Moscow, was seduced by a KGB lovely. Lonetree provided his "sweetheart" blueprints to the embassy and a list of US underground agents. Sentenced to 15-30 years, Lonetree was released from Levenworth after nine years. Marine Corps Commandant General Alfred Gray asked for Lonetree's release as the potential dire results of Lonetree's dishonor did not materialize. According to General Gray, Lonetree's motives were "not treason or greed, but rather the lovesick response of a naive, young, immature and lonely troop in a lonely and hostile environment." One wonders how the sensitive General Gray would have explained his leniency to Lt. William Dean Hawkins, hero of Tarawa and posthumous winner of the Medal of Honor, who was also young and died in a hostile but very much crowded environment. I wonder whether General Gray considers Sgt. Lonetree a marine in good standing, a brother to Mike Edson, Chesty Puller and a million others, who just slipped up.
Manning, like Lonetree, is a traitor. The penalty for traitors has historically been death. Lonetree not only was not executed, he was freed after nine years in prison. I expect it will be a modern day miracle for Manning to receive anything as long a sentence as Lonetree ever served. It is dishonorable not to execute Manning but in this forgiving and sensitive age of ours it is no wonder that some think of him as a hero. Who knows, perhaps Benedict Arnold should be reinstated and his birthday be made a national holiday. After all, Arnold won Saratoga but was denied the rapid promotion he thought he deserved, a situation that hurt his feelings.
@ All
What are we to think of the leaking of the earlier helicopter footage that supposedly shows the shooting of journalists? Should it be in the same category, or should he get a pass on it?
Shooting journalists? This goes Shakespeare's Jack Cade one better. What harm do lawyers do compared with our boogy-woogy bugle boys for the New World Order.
Perhaps I have not been following the right-wing reaction closely enough - Dr. Fleming, when you write "conservative support" are you speaking of actual conservatives or are there neo/movement cons lauding this man as a hero? I do not characterize him thus, btw.
Also, does what Manning did actually qualify as treason? "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". Wouldn't the definition of "aid and comfort" have to be inordinately elastic for this leak to be covered by it? That is the same clause neocons exploit to tar paleos and other critics of the wars as "traitors" (I absolutely do not mean to imply that Dr. Fleming is doing any such thing, by the way).
Dr Fleming, understood and agreed, but it was a serious question. The journalists were Reuters people, so they would be just as guilty of collaboration as any, but I cannot call that leak of the video on the same level as the document leak.
I have missed this "conservative" support for Private Manning. Who are we talking about? Silence indicating many things, to be kind, that I will agree with, but support?
Was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn an "anarchist", a traitor? Is Russia so much better off now? Ernst Junger addressed this from the point of Duty, as a conservative I'd say, but whatever is left of my Americanist understanding, tells me, support Manning.
At least bother to show some, what we once called, evidence.
C Bowen has misunderstood both the discussion and the nature of this section. If he wants only detailed analysis backed by evidence, this is not the section for him. It was designed to permit our editors and colleagues a forum for rapid responses that might trigger further discussion. Obviously, neoconservatives who support the war have attacked Private Manning, while some anti-war conservatives are supporting him. Mr. Bowen appears to be a conservative and he supports Manning. Then what is the grounds of his complaint? That Solzhenitsyn--a famous soldier who betrayed the Red Army??--criticized the regime? Does this mean that Chronicles editors have not been denounced for the same thing? What a farrago of self-contradicting nonsense. And, the best part is the self-righteous, peremptory, prosecutorial tone that is out of place in any polite conversation and will not be tolerated here.
"Am I the only one who is a bit put off by all this conservative support for the Pfc who allegedly leaked classified material to Wikileak? Have anti-war conservatives gone so far down the road that they no longer value honesty and duty or condemn oath-breaking and treason?"
I think all conservatives might not exactly be a homogenous group in their values and convictions, even though they might be very serious about them. Same for moral people in general. People could look at all matters from the same morals but understand it differently, I suppose.
I guess in any issue, there's hundreds of angles of rights and wrongs, and only so many angles are considered at a time, while certain angles end up overlooked in plain sight. In my opinion, human limitations?
Mr. Sanjay's well-meaning attempt to agree to disagree would make rational discourse of ethics impossible. Of course there are hundreds of angles to every situation, but there are a limited number of fundamental principles that should be adhered to. The art of finding one's way through this labyrinth is casuistry. Not all angles are equally relevant. Private Manning's complex nationality,for example, or his aberrant sexual life that may have engendered malicious intentions, etc. But the ethical question is much simpler: is a man justified in an act of disloyalty to his military unit, particularly when it means--as it appears to do in this case--that national security is breached? Even for a good cause? Was this decision Manning's to make? For the liberal individualist, the answer is probably, yes or maybe. For those who have a deeper understanding of human society, whether Christian or classical or even sociobiological, the answer would appear to be emphatically no.
It seems like the devil is working on both sides in the war on terrorism.
Dr Fleming, what is the story of Manning's 'complex nationality'?
His mother is British, lives in Wales. I don't know at all if that is relevant, though someone with dual loyalties, e.g. Rahm Emanuel or Richard Perle or Zbigniew Brezinsky, should probably not be put into a position where they can compromise national security.
Thanks, I went and check on the points you made and it appears your correct, that he is a wreck of a 'man'. What a sad joke that Raimondo is making him out to be some kind of Martyr.
Maybe one of the relevant ethical concepts is "snitch"?
"What a sad joke that Raimondo is making him out to be some kind of Martyr."
Yes, it is true we all tend to over play the strong hand but in this rat fight Justin is in with the Neo-cons, I prefer Rat Raimondo to the Rats eating Road Kill, which is all the neo-cons ever eat on television. Yes, the Pfc violated his oath as well as the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. Yes, a military without good order and discipline is a mob. Yes, Pfc Manning should probably be prosecuted and discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions. But when it comes to wearing badges of honor and dishonor, I don't think the neo-cons are fit to judge anybody under any conditions. How about Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby outing their very own CIA agents? Not every tin-horn can be prosecuted these days for cowardly acts, we simply don't have the prison space available.
It very much is a mistake to put people with dual loyalties in an army meant to protect one group of people only.
That United States has stretched itself so far across the world that it deals with disparate allies of various motives is a sign of what often comes back to hurt it very badly.
This Manning person was one example. Osama bin Laden was another - everybody who checked knows quite well that he was a contractor with the CIA who helped them build underground bases in Afghanistan (this fact is neither confirmed, nor denied, nor discussed by CIA, although good journalists have reported on this with references).
The worst case is Zbigniew Brzeszinski. Too many interviews with him indicate that he has a lifelong hatred of Russians and desire to push them down. The man is clearly trouble. It would have made sense if he were just a a security advisor for Poland, but not for the United States. How would the Russians feel that Americans have a lifelong Russophobe foreigner among their ranks? Would it not seem like America is gathering Russian enemies as their foreign allies against them? Would that not risk more paranoia and Cold War fear from the Russians against Americans?
Truth, like cream will always come to the top. We who hear it gladly
receive it even when it comes from at times, the least expected places.
How could anyone who reads this website be loyal to the current military-financial-judicial establishment? This ain't our country; we're just living in it.
I sometimes imagine that the ruling class will be on the verge of collapse and the paleos will be its last defenders. Pathetic.
Mr. Gast, have you read the articles on loyalty here?
There's a lot of fresh and interesting stuff there, and it will certainly answer your dillemmas.
I reread Dr. Fleming's article on loyalty every few weeks or so. Remember - people have been loyal to worse things just to make sure that at least something better of past regimes remains in the future.
As Tacitus wrote of the early empire, the remedies were worse than the disease. So too the remedies for the tyrannical outrages of this regime--oathbreaking, sneering contemptuousness, disloyalty--are worse than the disease. One can lead a decent life under a dictatorship but that requires a life of disciplined virtue. But what can be done with persons who, in a free republic or a dictatorship, cannot be made to understand the most basic principles required of moral human beings?
Mr. Gast, although I do not see any reason to serve the current regime and I truly wish the current order to collapse, Private Manning swore an oath to serve the regime and he dishonored himself when he turned traitor.
I am not sure if this is the oath Pvt Manning swore. If not, I will use it as an example:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
I am sure Dr. Fleming has anticipated (not to mention previously answered) this question, but is it possible to uphold the first part of this oath by breaking the second? I am not arguing that this is what happened in this case. I must be honest and confess that when I read what little I've read about the story my initial reaction was satisfaction that illegality in the national security state was being exposed. I am ashamed to admit that I did not consider the moral or ethical ramifications of the leaker's act (I also did not know about the leaked informants etc) at all, and merely took a moment's pleasure that the wrongdoings of an institution I have long considered hostile and remote were being brought to light.
This realization (of the wrongness of my reaction and what it says about myself) is not a pleasant one.
Mr.Toddard,
Don't beat yourself up too bad. Rejoicing in the misfortune of one's enemy is a normal reaction. It is when we realize that the enemy is in all of us, that is a good thing. And even better is the ability to admit it. You seem to have all the essentials in this respect. As Leonard Cohen sings in one of his many popular songs, " Sometimes when they say repent!!! Repent!! Repent!!!, I wonder what they meant? "
Mr. Gast, pathetic is the right word. We are all boyscouts here so it is a grave concern to us that pfc Manning violated his oath, not withstanding that his punishment will entail a courtmarshal and a 20 year sojourn to Leavenworth! Had he known that the Chronicles would not be behind this, he would most certainly have thought about this treasonous act twice before acting. What we have here is a textbook example of why you cannot take us out anywhere.
Thanks, Robert.
If this was treason, make the most of it.
The moral imperative is to do good, avoid evil, and never tell a lie. If the private done bad, there has assuredly been a fair amount of "evil doing" and lying in the higher ranks too. I'd be doubling back for the treasonous PFC later, assuming I had any appetite or energy left over.
Concerning the oath to defend and uphold the Constitution: I believe that everyone who enters federal service, both military and civilian, takes this oath; however, those who are given access to classified information (a security clearance) also take an additional oath to not reveal protected information to those who are not authorized access and, in addition, do not have a need to know the information. The question here is: do the ends justify the means? I agree with Dr. Fleming. Whoever revealed this classified information after swearing an oath not to was unjustified in doing so.
To which loyalty article are you referring, Mr. Sanjay?
Credo For Conservatives III: Tradition, Order, and Loyalty
One wonders whether anyone commenting here has ever been a member of the American military for an extended period or its recent student. That's unlikely, based on the naiveté exhibited in this conversation regarding our military's roles, sociology, personalities and obligations, real and imagined. Someone might wish to poll Fred Reed on this.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Wikileaks.shtml
I don't doubt that the American military serves strictly private interests and keeps a few people a little richer at everybody else's expense, or that it is nothing more than a tool for murdering foreigners to install new regimes in the name of democracy.
It's just that whistleblowing is a dirty habit. You can look past history, and you'll find that there is no such thing as an honest whistleblower. Whistleblowers are often selfishly motivated and of very dubious character. Be it a private business or a government department or a municipal board, the whistleblower generally leaks out their sensitive information in a misleading manner and quickly gets hired by the other competing party which put him or her up to it.
As someone taking a course on business and commerce, we have all been taught about real life situations of scientists and engineers ratting to newspapers in protest against ethics violations, and often that break of trust and confidence has a cost much greater than the minor benefit. Just don't encourage it. Encourage ethics and good behaviour, but not that.
Please Welling. I served in the US Army, and my father was an officer in the USAF for most of my life, so I have a very good idea of the politics of the US military.
I was one of the brutal and licentious soldiery, not an officer and a gentleman. Consequently, the main concept of honor among my comrades and my humble self was limited to not doing anything detrimental to another fellow's survival. Our goal was to get as many of us home safe and sound, as possible. There was a sharp divide between we draftees, and the lifer enlisted types. And there was a great gulf between these two and the commissioned officers. Unless a fellow draftee did something really egregious, it was considered dishonorable to rat on them to a senior NCO or commissioned officer.
We were given a brief introduction to the UCMJ, and told that we were not to follow an unlawful order. But if you did not follow it, you were in real trouble. How many of these leaked documents and videos showcase unlawful orders? I do not know, as I have not bothered to look at any of it. How does this leakage relate to the question as to whether or not the Afghani War is a just war? This would have to be taken into account, but to the troops, the justness of a war is irrelevant. They follow orders.
My later experiences in the Military Industrial Complex involved having a series of security clearances. So, I had to sit through hours of old movies highlighting security policies and the breaches of them. One important aspect of the laws on classification of materials, is that something cannot be declared classified on the basis of political matters. Of course I doubt that this is enforced much if at all. Another is that merely having a secret or top secret security clearance does not mean that a person can look at any materials classified at these levels. They also have a need to know the contents. What I find amazing, and to the point where I suspect some chicanery is involved in this leak, is that a Private First Class would have both the clearances and the need to know to have access to this much classified material. A PFC in the military forces is somewhat lower than whale turds. How would one with a screwed up background like this person's ever get through a background check? I mean, he was not a Jihadi psychiatrist ranked as a Major.
Classified materials are safeguarded in a number of relatively effective ways, and I also find it amazing that he could collect all of this stuff undetected. I am not sure how much honor a PFC might have, but I really doubt that he was able to do all of this without detection, or without a great deal of assistance from others.
Dear Mr. Maxwell (46),
If it's a matter of qualifications, then know that I grew up an Air Force brat with a father in SAC in the 50s and 60s; I held a regular Army commission as an Infantry (Airborne Ranger) and Armor officer, commanding two companies during the 70s, which I describe to my wife as my "lost decade."
Unfortunately, military politicians are the norm today and, for most of them, taking oaths of office seriously is a notion found more in Hollywood versions of the military than in the real thing. I think Mr. Berg (47) has got it about right and add that Bradley Manning is symptomatic of a decaying institution, one becoming increasingly so every additional minute it is deployed.
Mr. Maxwell was addressing Mr. Welling's mistake on the level of fact: He had mistakenly assumed that no one in this discussion had military experience. In fact, I know that several of the people who contributed to this thread are veterans. There is, however, a more serious error and that lies in the question itself, the assumption that, in a debate over an ethical question, specialized experience can be the basis of authority. It is this assumption that gives rise to bogus courses and books on business ethics, bio-ethics, etc, or to statements like "Only a woman has a right to have an opinion on abortion," or what is really needed on the Supreme Court is a wise Latina. No institution, including the 12 apostles or the Church after Pentecost, is without corruption. Does one side with Judas and Ananias, then, or with Jesus and Peter? Was Cato entirely wrong in trying to do something to save the corrupt Roman republic? Is the American military so corrupt that it is better to violate oaths and betray comrades? No one in his right mind respects a rat, and if there are extreme cases in which blowing the whistle on one's criminal confederates is a necessity, it is not something to undertake without a serious searching of conscience. Cicero quotes approvingly an ancient philosopher who asked if a son should inform on a father who had tunneled into the city's treasury to steal money and answered, in general no, because a commonwealth has more need of obedient sons than loyal citizens.
What leads this moralist to despair is the complete indifference of most Americans to any principle but that of results. If terror bombing shortens a war, just do it; if torturing POWS gets needed information, just do it; if violating an oath--whether that of a soldier or a husband--adds to the sum of someone's happiness and security, no problem. I am fully aware that most people may act on this "principle" most of the time, but in the past ordinary people have been either too intelligent or too hypocritical to use it. What the leaders of both parties and of all movements argue for constantly is the morality of dogs in heat.
If youre going to violate your oath, I think you ought to have a much better reason for it; such as the military covering up a massacre. This young man violated his oath not to expose a greater evil, but in a misguided effort to stick it to 'the man'. What the pro Wikileakers dont answer is, what if some Afghan does get killed because of the information? Are they responsible ? Or, when it comes to the consequences, is it only then that they are a supposedly neutral third party?