Kavekk wrote:
My view is that he's neither. He's just some guy.
Apparently, there's some question about that as well. I'd take issue with the word "just" though. He's a guy who directly violated his oath and his orders. I think that "just" doesn't really cover that sufficiently.
Quote:
Quote:
A crime is a crime.
Meaningless, and not just because it's a tautology.
It's meaningless that he committed a crime? Given the context of the question at hand, I'd think that would be quite meaningful.
Quote:
Quote:
Last I checked, motive was a relevant in the justice system.
Increasingly it isn't, and it depends on the offence to what degree this is true, if at all. It might be completely irrelevant. If it's been barred then presumably that's the case.
It's been barred as a defense for his actions, but not as part of his charge and/or potential sentence (one of which, at least, appears to matter in terms of motivation).
Quote:
Quote:
There are processes and protections in place for actual whistle blowers.
I'm sure those procedures will be very useful in exposing endemic structural corruption. Like a fire alarm that's on fire.
The phrase "endemic structural corruption" is a cop-out though. It's an excuse. And a lazy one at that.
Quote:
Quote:
"You have come to the wrong shop for anarchy, brother."
An anarchist goes to whatever shop they please, surely. I'm not sure why you've chosen an oath to the US government as the cardinal virtue, some deeply structuralist ethics I suppose? Pass.
It's relevant to someone standing for Court Marshal though, right? I mean, that's what we're talking about here.