-
Website
http://www.signonsandiego.com/ -
Original page
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/mar/12/bn12aclu114529/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/08/obama-urges-major-new-stimulus-jobs-spending/
- Bolts escape Cleveland with close win - Sports - SignOnSanDiego.com
- Talk Chargers-Browns - Sports - SignOnSanDiego.com
- It’s wet and slick out there - Local Breaking News - SignOnSanDiego.com
- Obama to spell out new job-creating initiative - Metro - SignOnSanDiego.com
Top secret is top secret for a reason regardless of one's personal views.
As far as the ACLU, they are more than "entitled to an opinion."
They are entitled to bringing their "opinion" before a judge to rule if their "opinion" is actually constitutionally correct, and thus if the military is abusing it's power to classify information
It's not about hating the miliatry or wanting our national security compromised, it's about checks and balances at ALL levels of government (including the military !) to make sure abuse of power is not taking place
This military operates under their own Federal law. I believe it is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) For the ACLU to have any impact they would need to base their arguments on it and not the constitution.
Military personnel are not allowed to speak criticism of the Commander In Chief as part of that code. I'm sure that sits well with the ACLU !
I would have far more respect for the ACLU if they defended civil liberty from all sides rather than only defend civil liberties as defined by thoes with with a veiw to the left.
Do you think the ACLU will protest the coming reinstatement of the "Fairness" Doctrine?
My guess is not based on their track record . . .
What I mean by this is they claim to need to withold information based on national security or because it could compromise safety/security, but when it's eventually leaked we see no such compromise existed and the military was simply trying to cover-up it's own incompitance or illegal activity.
It would be nice if we could take the military at their word when they claim they can't be open with the public for **legitimate** reasons and not simply to save themselves embarassment
There is a reason that "I can neither confirm, nor deny" is the answer given when some people are asked about sensitive info.
Pvt. Maziarz should have learned that in boot camp.
hope he gets more prison time.
As someone else pointed out the Mazlarz took the oath to become a Marine he swore to obey all legal orders. Providing an outside group with classified info in a time of war could easily be construed as treason. So if he only being accused of theft and a security violation he is getting off easy.
Kevin Keenan must be a very poor lawyer if he doesn't know that when an individual enlists in the arm forces that individual gives up many of his constitutional rights. Speech being one of those rights.
This guy made a deal and he broke it. He gave his word he would not talk about the matter in exchange for getting out of jail. He turned right around and gave you an interview and made statements that did not accurately reflect what he did or why he did it--which was solely for his personal gain. HIS ACTIONS PROVE HE COULD NOT BE TRUSTED AND WHY ANY REPORTER WOULD ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE USED BY THIS NARCISSIST IS BEYOND ME.
When he joined the MC, and when he recieved his security clearance he agreed not to divuldge sensitive information. He has already broken that agreement, that doesn't mean that the agreement is null and void.
For those that are talking about not being able to talk about commonly know information; the reason for that is individuals may have specific information that is NOT known and may be harmful to the units, the family members, MC and the governments strategic plans.
As one person posted, we were not allowed to talk about unit deployments. While the fact the unit was deploying was publicly known there were specifics about the personel, times, transportation, equipment, etc, that were not public information and could be harmful.
Having spent over 30 years in the MC and having held high security clearances I am still liable if I divuldge sensetive information. Even though some of the things I learned about that were classified have since become public knowledge, not all of the details have been released. I don't discuss the issues because I COULD accidently release information that is not public knowledge.
This PVT was a Gunnery Sgt with more than one enlistment. He held a high security clearance and knows the rules. He chose to break them, now he wants to break them again.
Sorry folks, this is NOT a 1st Amendment issue, it is a security issue.
The ACLU would NOT be defending him if they didn't believe that it could be harmful to the MC, just as they would not have defended the Nazi march (mentioned by another poster) if they had not felt it would harm the USA.
1st Amendment rights end when we request and are granted a security clearance.
Believe what I said of my military career or not. I've still got the copies of the orders to support my claim. But whether I worked for WHCA or not doesn't change the point of my prior post: The Marine written about in the article violated a lawful order and the ACLU should stay out of it.
My separation as a conscientious objector came about as a result of a sea change in my personal moral view point that occurred AFTER I had enlisted. I make no judgements on the decisions of others, but for me personally, military service - indeed, the mere framing of someone else as an enemy - is an immoral act. With that belief, continuing in the Air Force was untenable, so I file for, and received an honorable discharge as a conscientious objector.
Now I'm late for work, so I'll have to curtail my usual verbosity, but I'll close by commenting how unfortunate it is that certain individuals are apparently so personally insecure in their own beliefs that they feel the need to engage in what they believe to be hurtful personal attacks against someone who merely holds differing views. Call me a liar, a coward, a deserter, a wanker...whatever you like if it makes you feel better about yourself. Honey, I've heard worse, believe me. Whatever silly names you come up with, they don't change the reality of my past or my person, or, for that matter, yours.
No worries :-)
While I was in the AF I worked for the White House Communications Agency handling the president's "football" - the little briefcase that holds the nuclear war codes - for President Reagan.
It doesn't get much more top secret than that.
While I normally agree with the ACLU's suits, I think they are way off base on this one. When someone volunteers for military service, they agree to follow a certain set of rules that differs from those that apply to civilians. Chief among those rules is the requirement that one follows lawful orders.
Whatever the Marine Corps' motivations in ordering this private to keep his mouth shut on this subject, the order appears to be completely lawful. A court martial - or an Article 15 - would seem to be completely appropriate.
The ACLU ought to stay out of this one.
Claims he was in the AF and worked for the White House Communications Agency handling the president's "football" - the little briefcase that holds the nuclear war codes - for President Reagan.
Try again 007.
Which is all the more reason not to have some private blabbing his mouth to confirm what the traitorous journalists have written. You really are a Mexican, aren't you?
If he disobeyed orders, he should be court-martialed.
God Bless Amerika, and God Bless the Second Amendment!!!
He signed an agreement to button his lip in order to get out of jail. He couldn't live up to that agreement.