Hacker News Reader

Comment by miles | Hacker News Reader

Somehow this quote from the interview by Thomas Drake, a former senior executive of the NSA and a decorated Air Force and Navy veteran[1], carries a bit more weight for me than the widely trumpeted blatherings of Dick Cheney[2], winner of five draft deferments[3]:

I actually salute him. I will say it right here. I actually salute him, given my experience over many, many years both inside and outside the system. Remember, I saw what he saw. I want to re-emphasize that. What he did was a magnificent act of civil disobedience. He's exposing the inner workings of the surveillance state. And it's in the public interest. It truly is.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0616/Dick-Chene...

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/politics/campaign/01CHEN.h...

View on HN

I agree with the overwhelming majority of your post but I have to say the draft dodging/deferring comment was a little odd. I think its really tough for us (people who have grown up under an all volunteer service) to pass judgement on how a previous generation dealt with the draft, even more so if we pass those judgements as civilians.

I have never served in the military. But I am old enough that my brother fought in Vietnam (sort of not drafted, it is complicated) and my father was drafted for WW II. I also have relatives serving in the armed forces. (Including, at the moment, 2 nephews.)

I have observed what I've seen commented on elsewhere. There is a certain type of person who managed to skip the draft for themselves, and then proceeded to become overly supportive of the military and military aggression. Possibly as a reaction to the guilt of having not served when given the chance. There is a certain cowboy element to their approach. Prominent examples include Dick Cheney and George Bush.

By contrast people who actually served often, like John McCain or Al Gore, are strongly supportive of the military. But they tend to treat military service and action as the serious matters that they are.

The phrase that sums this up best is "chickenhawk".

There was a democrat several years ago that wanted to put back the draft in place - e.g. mandatory military service. The idea was that since lots of republicans/democrats have kids and this would made them think again for going to war.

You are probably thinking of Rangel. But he is not the first to bring it up and hopefully he will not be the last. It really has nothing to do with democrats or republicans, the distinction is socio-economic. I think the idea is even better if you expand the definition of service to also include "civilian service" e.g. teacher, social worker, etc.

As far as the draft goes I think you nailed it with "it is complicated."

As far as the rest goes I think we should evaluate policy positions based on the merits of the arguments. My position on Iraq would not be based on whether the president more resembled Gene McCarthy or Curtis "Bombs Away" Lemay.

The "it is complicated" is a very specific situation.

My brother joined the Marines 3 days before his 18th birthday because at the time if you did that you only served 3 years and couldn't go to Vietnam. 2.5 years later he was in a horrible accident. The recruiting officer got him to re-enlist because that was the only way to pay the medical bills. The reup also would put him through college, and he couldn't go to Vietnam for 5 years - no chance it would still be going on!

The recruiting officer word was carried out perfectly. But the war was still going on and my brother earned a purple heart there.

Lets agree to disagree about "complicated." I am glad that your brother came home.

Also: hypocrite.

I think Cheney's draft dodging status is fair game. He did, after all, co-architect our erroneous invasion and continued occupation of a country that did not actually attack us, so he has no problem sending others to war. Something other draft dodgers were not as directly responsible for.

I think the discussion our society is having is important. I do not think we should spend time trying to score ancillary points because something is "fair game." Are Cheney's positions on PRISM really dependent on his service record? Would you be more inclined to agree and support them if they were put forward by Bob Kerrey?

More generally should we only elect candidates who have also served so that we can avoid having a CinC who sends soldiers to battle even though they did not serve? If Cheney had a legitimate 4F during Vietnam would you be more supportive of his decision to invade Iraq?

As I mentioned in response to davidhollander, Cheney's personal background is extremely important. If Kerry came out in support of PRISM et al., that would absolutely give me some pause--he actively served in and was a vehement dissenter of the Vietnam conflict.

If Cheney were simply a chicken-hawk, then there would be no issue. If he were simply a profiteer, there would also be no issue. But his active role as both is worrisome: he stands to profit from his direct ability to shape public opinion as a once-elected representative of the population.

As our society discusses this issue, it is important to take into account not only what is said, but why it is being said. This is what is meant by assessing credibility to speak about a certain matter. The sum of a person's actions informs the listener about his or her credibility and Cheney is no exception.

And if it was Bob Kerrey, a Navy SEAL, vietnam veteran, MoH recipient, Republican from nebraska?

Why did you assume I used a Democrat as an example?

I must have misread the name in your comment. The greater point I was making still stands: as far as I know, neither Kerry nor Kerrey blur the lines between public service and military industry as much as Cheney does. If Cheney had at least served and been consistent, his opinions on military actions and these recent leaks' effects on US defenses would at least have some backing.

The particular MoH recipient I would have used for anything involving domestic spying and civil rights would have been Senator Inouye; 442/100th and the Japanese internments in WW2 seem like the US's best example of valor in the face of rampant domestic discrimination. He was on Watergate and Iran-Contra, too.

Sadly he died in 2012.

Using Sen Inouye as an example would not have provided any information about the person I was having the discussion with.

It's an ad hominem which falls short of hypocrisy or contradiction because the soldiers and contractors sent to Iraq were not conscripted. Surely there are more substantive arguments to be made.

The comparison between Drake and Cheney should be based on the metric of credibility to speak on these matters. Drake has military experience and has put his career and freedom on the line for public disclosure. Cheney actively avoided putting himself in harm's way, then sent people to their deaths, directly profited from it, and will continue to profit off any future militaristic endeavors the US pursues.

Cheney is defending the need for state secrets but has a proven record of benefitting from intelligence that has been obscured from the general public. Motive is extremely important here.

> sent people to their deaths, directly profited from it, and will continue to profit off any future militaristic endeavors the US pursues.

This would remain a valid example of moral hazard even if Cheney had been drafted and experienced combat in Vietnam. The draft was one of the reasons the Vietnam War was so unpopular, avoiding it could be construed as an act of civil disobedience. It's not an essential part of the argument.

> then sent people to their deaths

On several occasions. He was the Secretary of Defense for the first Gulf War, and VP when both Afghanistan and the second Gulf War started up.

So you are some sort of neo-aristotelian except instead of property ownership you think the credibility of people's opinions is based on years in uniform? Does Ellsberg get partial credit for being a policy analyst at DoD?

Please re-read my comments. It has nothing to do with military service or the number of years served. I'm making a general point about each individual's credibility and motivations for speaking out on PRISM. Drake gains nothing from his outspokenness, Cheney stands to profit quite a bit.

Thanks for your reply, dfc. Sorry if the draft deferral comment was inappropriate. I mainly wanted to contrast their experience and expertise in the field. BTW, thanks for the recommendation on your profile page to use dfcdfc as the topcolor; I stumbled onto it over a year ago and have been using it ever since.

No worries, more than anything the draft thing was distracting. It was superfluous and it took something away from the clearly reasoned point you were making.

Added:

I just saw bit about topcolor=dfcdfc. That brought some much needed levity to the discussion. You are good people miles.

You are good people miles

You too, dfc ;-)

There is plenty of evidence regarding the opinions of the people of Cheney's parents' generation (and earlier) about people who avoid mandatory military service, not to mention voluntary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com