2010-12-10, 06:26 PM
RahlsSoldier Wrote:No, the same argument cannot be made. You can enter the US military as Private First Class. You cannot enter the military as 4 star general. Do you trust someone the instant you meet them? Then why would you hand sensitive information to someone without giving them the chance to prove themselves? We are not talking about the Canadian Government so I really don't give a pomegranate what happens in that regard. I am talking about the US's security loop holes. Just because they are present in other places doesn't make them right.
[color="#cc8899"]Ok, from another perspective then - we allow infantry who just enlisted access to firearms on a regular basis. Despite all of the potential warning signs, background checks, safety briefs, etc, some do get out of control and shoot their fellow soldiers. That act of betrayal, although on a different scale, is what Manning did to his fellow intelligence professionals. He took a loaded gun and used it to fire on his own government.
I'd also like to add that he had made it to E4, Specialist, prior to a demotion related to an assault. Somewhat irrelevant to current argument, but worth noting.
I'd also like to bring up the case of Ana Montes, a SENIOR level analyst with decades of trust and experience. Who happened to be a spy for the Cubans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Montes
Don't you dare presume to tell me that Manning's issue is at all related to rank, experience, or age. Again, there are several motivations for leaking info, and they apply to all people working with classified info. [/COLOR]