SignOnSanDiego (active) - Latest Comments in ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

Tinder — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:08:44 -0000

Wow! Waking up to personal attacks! What a pleasant surprise!! It's so refreashing to see such intelligent, logical arguments. (In case you missed it, that was my sarcastic voice.)

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.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

Herb1949 — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:00:59 -0000

Here is the problem with him speaking publicly about the case. There is a chance that he could disclose the procedure/people that were used to catch him. Perhaps even compromising other investigations.
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.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

NoComments — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:45:01 -0000

2 cases out of how many does not show a trend. The ACLU viewpoint is a left center viewpoint.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

phree69ee — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:08:53 -0000

The ACLU defends the constitution, not the individual. They are not criminal defense lawyers. They only take up about one in twenty of the cases that are taken to them, selecting those in which a specific constitutional point is made in defense of the freedom of us all.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

phree69ee — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:03:59 -0000

Oh yes, just make a personal attack instead of responding to an issue, neener neener neener, very intelligent.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

phree69ee — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:00:58 -0000

The ACLU defended the Nazis' right to march in Skokie even at the cost of losing one third of their membership. It is simply false to accuse the ACLU of defending only left wing causes.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

Elf Lord — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:31:01 -0000

How much time did Sandy Berger get for stealing top secret/classified material in order to prevent the 9/11 commission from discovering lapses in the Clinton Admin or a failure to act on Intel that might have prevented 9/11?

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

Guest — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:13:07 -0000

I think I will engage in political espionage and break into a Democratic headquarter and steal some of their dirty plans and dirty secrets. If I am caught, will the ACLU assist me in my defense?

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

AskTheMexican — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:29:51 -0000

And where did you ever hear this crackpot idea? If that's true, then either my US or Mexican passport is a fake. But thanks for clearing that up anyway.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

MrBill2 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:26:33 -0000

Maude! You obviously have never had someone die in your arms because some idiot opened his mouth when he shouldn't. Dirty little secret or whatever you like when some people talk (politicians especially) other people get to die. If you are supposed to keep a military secret then that is your duty and obligation under the law like it or not. Check out the UCMJ that governs military matters. If you do not want to do that then get a job driving truck through Pakistan so I can tell the Taliban you are delivering porn.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

MrBill2 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:20:39 -0000

Golly! Could you put the number up for that straberry picking job?

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

SGG — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:19:47 -0000

What most people fail to realize is that a free country is not a safe country. Security wanes with civil liberties, and the more freedom you want, the less secure our country will be. Freedom and Security do not go hand-in-hand, so there needs to be an even keel so the pendulum does not swing to far in either direction.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

SmartLikeTree — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:19:26 -0000

A US citizen may not keep dual citizenship with Mexico. Sorry, just thought I would throw that out.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

MrBill2 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:17:53 -0000

It really doesn't matter what it was. No talking allowed when they say not to talk. It can be on the news that you are deploying but you may not be allowed to chat about it. The military rules say you have to watch your mouth or go to jail. UCMJ rules not the constitution. Thanks for coming aboard legally. Now you know not to chat when join the military and fight for your beliefs in freedom to make a buck. You know better so don't pretend you don't.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

MrBill2 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:11:53 -0000

Why in the world would you sign up for the military as a conscientious objector. I mean who would believe you could actually care about anything after you break your word? Which time did you lie? When you signed up or when you signed out. Give me a break. Did some little girl talk you into staying home for her or did you just wake up and decide you didn't like playing soldier anymore?

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

MrBill2 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:03:12 -0000

I hate to bust the ACLU's bubble, but this ignorant Marine gave his free speech up when it comes to classified documents and what happens to them. That is the nature of the military. It does not matter what some jerkwater attorney or some misinformed civilian thinks about the issue. The military has a right to say what belongs to them in the information field. It doesn't matter if it is instructions on how to tie a square knot. If it belongs to the military and is classified then you do not get to yak about it to the civilian world until it is declassified.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

zeppelin — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:26:42 -0000

What they don't tell you when you raise your hand and swear to defend the Constitution is that by doing so, you lose all your rights under it, thus becoming not a free American but government property, with the UCMJ as your new constitution -- one that presumes you guilty until proven innocent. If they had told me that upfront when I was about to join the Navy, I'd have RUN out of the room as fast as I could.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

AntiLaJollaHoyaSaxa — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:55:01 -0000

Tinder may be the world's biggest wanker and is a total liar.

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.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

Oceanside Marine — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:55:17 -0000

This guy plead guilty to stealing government equipment, too include a bunch of Iraqi weapons the Command brought back fm Iraq, in addition to the classified information.

He signed an agreement to button his lip in order to get out of jail. He couldn't live up to that agreement.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

Lnghrdrdnck — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:04:42 -0000

this guy sounds like an idiot

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

AskTheMexican — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:38:26 -0000

And what classified material would that be? Stuff that's been on news stations, web sites, and internet blogs world wide?

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

Oceanside Marine — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:29:33 -0000

You failed to mention this disgraced person was caught and plead guilty to stealing government property, most notably a chest of automatic rifles brought back from Iraq, as well as other government equipment--he stole everything he could get his hands on and thought he could get away with.

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.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

Pounceshuman — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:22:59 -0000

Whether the material pvt Mazlarz was truly classified is beside the point. It is not the job of a mere private to decided what is or is not classified or a matter of national security. That is as the saying goes "above his pay grade". What is the organization that he gave the info to? For all he knows it could have been a front for a group that wishes the US harm.
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.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

giggitygiggity — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:31:20 -0000

What the American public doesn't know makes them the American public.

Re: ACLU goes to bat for Marine who discussed security breach

DavidRockies — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:24:30 -0000

Fair bet that -- as your son -- he's qualified for neither.

No worries :-)