Skip to main content

View Diary: CNN Losing Bradley Manning Story: Manning Was Reporting a War Crime, "The Van Thing" (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  gee I can't decide (4+ / 0-)

    continue committing war crimes, "but on the other hand", stop the war and therefore also the war crimes.

    Gee what a tough decision.

    •  Gee, what a simplistic interpretation. (4+ / 0-)
      •  right and wrong when it comes to prosecuting (0+ / 0-)

        illegal immoral wars is simple, no interpretation necessary.

        Don't like having war crimes leaked?  Don't have optional wars (with their predictable war crimes) for something other than self defense.

        •  Who are you talking to? (0+ / 0-)

          You've been insulting, you've been simplistic (not the same as "simple"), but in your zeal to show off how moral you are, you haven't responded to anything I've actually said.

          Maybe you're better than this in other diaries -- I have no idea.  But in this one there have been moments where you've treated the comments section like The Donoevil Show, showing off with cute little zingers and bumper sticker comments rather than engaging in mature and intelligent discussion -- which is interesting, given the difficult questions Bradley Manning's case poses.  And yes, despite your insistence that it's simple, the reality is that anyone who knows there's a world outside his or her own head knows that teasing out the larger rights and wrongs in this requires serious thought.  

          Shorter version:  Purposeful denial of complexity is not insight.  

          So here:  are we a nation of laws, or of men?  I say we're a nation of laws.

          But laws themselves are not always moral.  What if men break laws for a moral purpose?  Should the punishment be different if the law is broken for a moral reason?

          Which raises this question: who decides whether the law was broken for a moral purpose, or for a selfish, amoral one?  You?  Paul Ryan?  Bernie Sanders?  Me?

          If a person is given the authority to say a law was broken for a moral reason, so it's okay, don't we become a nation of men rather than of laws?  

          If that's bad, then we can only consider whether someone broke a law, but not why.  Isn't that dehumanizing?

          Would you get rid of government secrecy entirely?  If not, where do you think maintaining secrecy is a good idea?

          As a responsible citizen, how do I answer these questions about my country, and about the people I vote for or against, and how do I reconcile any contradictions?

          And last but not least:  do you finally understand how my original "on the one hand, but on the other hand" comment went completely over your head?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site