|
|
|
August 02, 2005
I'm into fighting in wars I'm against too! (But they won't let me!)
A soon-to-be-an-Iraq-war-veteran, Specialist Leonard A. Clark, has been punished for violating operational security and for 11 counts of disobeying orders: Clark violated Article 92 by "releasing classified information regarding unit soldiers and convoys being attacked or hit by an improvised explosive devices on various dates, discussing troop movements on various dates," according to the statement.According to the article, Clark is a candidate for office. [True. Here's Clark's Legislative Candidate Questionnaire.] (Via Juan Cole, who complains that, "you're not allowed to blog about the Iraq War critically if you are an active duty serviceman over there.") Clark is campaigning for public office, which is apparently prohibited: Campaigning for public office without permission from the secretary of defense while on active duty in the Armed Forces is a violation of Defense Department regulations.Certainly, there's no question that Clark is against the war. In an audio statement here, he calls the war "morally and ethically wrong," while in an email reproduced at Daily Kos, he attacks his Commander in Chief: Well, happy days are here again! Our great Attorney General Gonzales flew into the Ultra Safe Green Zone and gave a speech at the embassy. You remember our Attorney General, the one who a chief counsel to the President, said it was quite alright to use certain torture methods that might get by the Geneva Convention, Washboarding, beating, etc. It's all there, folks, and our great maniac executive strongly supports him.Hey, the guy is as much entitled to his opinion as I am to mine. But should that allow him to broadcast details about troop movements, and about "tactics, techniques, procedures and rules of engagement"? Am I crazy, or does common sense suggest that he might in a bit of a conflict of interest vis-a-vis his job? For example, should someone who is unalterably opposed to what we call "the Drug War" (or to all drug laws) be working in the DEA? Take me as an example. I not only believe all federal drug laws are unconstitutional, I think they're immoral. (Yes, evil.) I also think the "Drug War" is a grotesque lie. If the bureaucrats in the Justice Department were dumb enough to hire me and put me in the DEA and I started a blog devoted to "ending the immoral Drug War," while supplying details of bungled or immoral anti-drug operations I'd gleaned from my position as an insider (in addition to campaigning for office), could I legitimately expect nothing to happen? (Bear in mind that military personnel have even fewer rights than government employees.) GreyHawk wonders out loud whether we've heard the last of this story. No we haven't. I don't think antiwar Iraq war veterans will fade away. They'll just run for office. posted by Eric on 08.02.05 at 09:16 AM
Comments
It would REALLY be interesting if Clark actually got elected without the SoD's permission... Raging Bee · August 2, 2005 11:16 AM People like Clark have a talent for alienating the electorate. Comes of the belief their opinions are so self-evident other people must agree with them and support them. When other people disagree it comes as a great surprise to them. They get upset, lash out, and wind up alienating even more people. Which gets them even angrier and you know where that leads. But is Clark stupid? No, just incredibly arrogant. So arrogant it leads to acts of utter stupidity. All under the impression he's such a wonderful person doing such a wonderful thing that he ignores any possibility that other people just might have a shadow of an inkling of a hint of a vague suggestion he might possibly be engaged in a hypothetical action that just might, as an extreme example, be misconstrued by those with extreme paranoia as (if you were hardcore strict about such things) being possibly (under aggravating circumstances) something distantly related to, wrong. Alan Kellogg · August 2, 2005 12:22 PM What he did was outright treason. Revealing troop movements, etc., has always been cited, including by liberals such as Justice William O. Douglas, as the textbook example of exactly what is not protected by the First Amendment, of what obviously constitutes a "clear and present danger" to our nation's military security, and is therefore justly and stringently punishable by law. "you're not allowed to blog about the Iraq War critically if you are an active duty serviceman over there." [emphasis mine] I'm increasingly looking critically at this word "critically", which I see being used all the time from a certain quadrant of a spectrum. "Critical" is today a code-word for treasonous or subversive or otherwise Politically Correct, as, e.g., "Critical Race/Gender Studies", "Critical Legal Studies" (which teaches that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are invalid because written by Dead White Men), "Critical Thinking" (Politically Correct "thinking"), etc.. This stems from the writings of Herbert Marcuse, the intellectual father of today's Political Correctness. "Critic" is, today, a euphemism for "enemy". Israel's "critics" hate Israel, they do everything they can to weaken and destroy the only Jewish nation on this planet. America's "critics" hate America, they do everything they can to weaken and destroy the freest and mightiest nation on this planet. President Bush's "critics" hate Bush because he is a patriotic American and a Christian. Ayn Rand's "critics" hate her because she stood uncompromisingly for absolute values, above all the value of the individual. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · August 2, 2005 01:26 PM This issue has alot of complications which are not spelled out. 1) How specific (and how dangerous )was the information given out? Are their other bloggers guilty of this same crime who are being investigated/charged? Did he realize that all of this information was classified and was intentionally breaking the law, or was he just 'blogging' away his experiences and say too much? 2)Was his site registered with command, and how long has the military known about this problem? Did the millitary bring about the intelligence charges before he applied for office or afterwards? 3)To the question'For example, should someone who is unalterably opposed to what we call "the Drug War" (or to all drug laws) be working in the DEA?' alchemist · August 2, 2005 05:54 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"They'll just run for office."
Reminds me of someone I heard about recently. John Heinz? No that's not right. Oh well, it'll come to me.