Is Bradley Manning a hero or a traitor?

[Robert_Sock]

A traioor to whom? To whom do we owe our allegiances here on Earth?

I’m simply saying that if he proceeded through the official channels he would most likely have been ignored.

I do think that his sentence is far too extreme.

Perhaps it ought to have been ignored for the sake of national security.

 

[Brendan_64]

Perhaps it ought to have been ignored for the sake of national security.

Is ‘national security’ the be all and end all? Are all things subservient to national security? Justice, truth, morality are they all to be subservient to ‘national security’? Is the Nation now our god, with ‘national security’ as our morality and ethics?

 

[njlisa]

I don’t understand the reason for why it may be impossible for modern warfare to be impossible to be a just war. It is arguably easier for a modern war to be just than it was in the past. The reason? Communication & control. In past centuries you were accepting the inevitable reality that war would be teeming with chaos. You’d have armies of peasants being conscripted by independent vassals, who in turn swore a fealty to a king, who was basically a head vassal among them. They’d all gather together in a discombobulated mass of different coats of arms and wage a war, often times with different nobleman each being largely independent in controlling their different territories. There was vary limited means of controlling the masses of conscripts. Treaties did not bear the accountability that they do in our far more connected & organized modern world. Exchange of prisoners and the acceptance of surrender was a **** shoot. Trials and punishment towards soldiers that stepped out of line or sometimes did absolutely atrocious deeds were often forgotten in the chaos, overlooked, or even applauded. War was chaotic and it was an inevitability reality even for a war that seemed to abundantly meet the perquisites of a just war.

The expansion of control, checks & balances, and organizational structure have made a modern military more accountable to the public than they have ever been before. Major decisions to intervene in an event are often done with a large amount of international cooperation and discussion. Civilian casualties have decreased enormously compared to many of the wars waged in the medieval ages. 35+ million people died in the Chinese An Shi Rebellion, which was over a thousand years ago. That makes the ~70 million that died in WW2 in the population of the modern world almost a drop in a bucket in comparison, and WW2 is frequently believed to be the absolute most brutal war in history. Not by a long shot.

But with all the sophistication of modern warfare, you still have incidents like the My Lai Massacre.

**WARNING: Don’t click if you’re squeamish. **

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

 

[Robert_Sock]

Is ‘national security’ the be all and end all? Are all things subservient to national security? Justice, truth, morality are they all to be subservient to ‘national security’? Is the Nation now our god, with ‘national security’ as our morality and ethics?

The bottom line is that Bradley Manning took an oath. Thus, he is morally obliged to honor it.
*
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.*

 

[Brendan_64]

The bottom line is that Bradley Manning took an oath. Thus, he is morally obliged to honor it.
*
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.*

So that oath is binding regardless of conscience, morality, justice, or the greater good? His oath supercedes all of those things? Whoever, or whatever he makes his oath to, can subsequently commit any evil, and one is bound not to speak up about it because of a binding oath? The oath is always the bottom line is it?

 

[Robert_Sock]

So that oath is binding regardless of conscience, morality, justice, or the greater good? His oath supercedes all of those things? Whoever, or whatever he makes his oath to, can subsequently commit any evil, and one is bound not to speak up about it because of a binding oath? The oath is always the bottom line is it?

Read my quote from Romans for my answer.

Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

 

[njlisa]

Read my quote from Romans for my answer.

Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

I mentioned this before, but I think it’s worth restating.

I think Father Frank Pavone nails down some of the finer points of this issue in “When Is It Okay to Disobey?”

catholic.com/magazine/art…kay-to-disobey

 

[Brendan_64]

Read my quote from Romans for my answer.

Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

And would an oath to the Fuhrer in Nazi Germany also have been covered by that?

Is an oath binding no matter what happens? No matter what evil is committed? You stand by an oath no matter what?

We are not obliged to follow unjust laws. Justice takes precedence over man-made laws. We are allowed, indeed it is our duty, to break a man-made law in the interests of justice. The same applies to an oath to civil authorities. In the end conscience takes precedence.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I mentioned this before, but I think it’s worth restating.

I think Father Frank Pavone nails down some of the finer points of this issue in “When Is It Okay to Disobey?”

catholic.com/magazine/art…kay-to-disobey

No disrespect for Father Frank Pavone, but I’ll go with what the bible has to say on the topic. If Father Frank Pavone disagrees, let him take it up with God. I have to wonder why Father Frank Pavone is no longer in the public eye?

Again, I believe that government oaths ought to never be broken.

 

[Robert_Sock]

And would an oath to the Fuhrer in Nazi Germany also have been covered by that?

Is an oath binding no matter what happens? No matter what evil is committed? You stand by an oath no matter what?

Again, reread Romans for my reply.
*
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.*

If you have a problem with Romans, you need to take it up with God, not me.

 

[Gricken]

Again, reread Romans for my reply.
*
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.*

If you have a problem with Romans, you need to take it up with God, not me.

That’s a yes.

 

[njlisa]

No disrespect for Father Frank Pavone, but I’ll go with what the bible has to say on the topic. If Father Frank Pavone disagrees, let him take it up with God. I have to wonder why Father Frank Pavone is no longer in the public eye?

Again, I believe that government oaths ought to never be broken.

Father Pavone is back. Check out this news story.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Father Pavone is back. Check out this news story.

I’m glad he is back, he is a talented preacher, but I hope he is subservient to his superiors.

 

[njlisa]

I think we have two arguments going on here as pertains to Bradley Manning.

1. 
   *]Was Bradley Manning right in defying his oath of service to release the documents?
   *]Is it ever right to disobey the law of the land?
   
   I think we can all agree that sometimes it is permissible to break the law of the land – as when Christians gave shelter to Jews during the Holocaust.
   In that case, we have to wrestle with the question, did Bradley Manning’s decision rise to the level that disobedience was acceptable?

 

[njlisa]

Again, reread Romans for my reply.
*
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.*

If you have a problem with Romans, you need to take it up with God, not me.

By the way, Acts 5 says otherwise:

27 When they had brought them in and made them stand before the Sanhedrin, the high priest questioned them,
28 “We gave you strict orders [did we not?] to stop teaching in that name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and want to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
29 But Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men. …"

 

[Brendan_64]

Again, reread Romans for my reply.
*
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.*

If you have a problem with Romans, you need to take it up with God, not me.

So that’s it then? The Law is the Law. We can’t be breaking the Law regardless of justice, truth, morality or the effects this would have on our fellow man? The Law takes precedence over all else?

Personally, when faced with an issue of justice, morality and truth like that, my conscience takes precedence over the Law. I’d act according to my conscience and let God judge me as he may for it.

 

[Robert_Sock]

By the way, Acts 5 says otherwise:

27 When they had brought them in and made them stand before the Sanhedrin, the high priest questioned them,
28 “We gave you strict orders [did we not?] to stop teaching in that name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and want to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
29 But Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men. …"

The early Christians were simply voicing their beliefs peacefully, and not revealing top secret information that went against some kind of an oath. The two passages are simply not comparable. Apples vs oranges.

 

[njlisa]

So that’s it then? The Law is the Law. We can’t be breaking the Law regardless of justice, truth, morality or the effects this would have on our fellow man? The Law takes precedence over all else?

Personally, when faced with an issue of justice, morality and truth like that, my conscience takes precedence over the Law. I’d act according to my conscience and let God judge me as he may for it.

I cited this Scripture above. Acts 5 says:

27 When they had brought them in and made them stand before the Sanhedrin, the high priest questioned them,
28 “We gave you strict orders [did we not?] to stop teaching in that name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and want to bring this man’s blood upon us.”
29 But Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men. ..."

 

[Robert_Sock]

So that’s it then? The Law is the Law. We can’t be breaking the Law regardless of justice, truth, morality or the effects this would have on our fellow man? The Law takes precedence over all else?

Personally, when faced with an issue of justice, morality and truth like that, my conscience takes precedence over the Law. I’d act according to my conscience and let God judge me as he may for it.

Think as you please.

 

[njlisa]

The early Christians were simply voicing their beliefs peacefully, and not revealing top secret information that went against some kind of an oath. The two passages are simply not comparable. Apples vs oranges.

But they were disobeying the law for moral reasons. I thought you were saying that your previous scripture citation made obedience to the law absolute. Am I wrong?