What's new
By:
Filters

War crimes: Are exes accountable for things they did when they were in?

Lulu Belle

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Marty Rathbun's blog, and the controversy surrounding his emergence, has made me think a lot lately about this subject.

There are people who consider that he did so much harm when he was in that no good can come from him now.

I can certainly see that viewpoint, considering who he was and what he was responsible for.

My question:

Where do you draw the line?

Why with some people is there an "all is forgiven" attitude and others there's a "they has a lot to be answerable for" attitude?

For instance, why is Marty "not OK" but Rinder is "OK"?

There are a lot of "now outs" who I feel have some explaining to do. Bitty Miscavige, for one. Mariette Lindsteen is another one. Maybe it's a personal thing, but they were both responsible for certain things in the SO that made my life miserable.

Should they be held accountable, or is it all water under the bridge (no pun intended)?

Would like to hear other people's viewpoints on this.
 
I know this is not what you want, but is anything a crime in war? I mean the object is to win the thing, at any cost. So Scientological "soldiers" are just "following orders." Ofcourse those orders may be unlawful, and so yeah, I say "go get 'em."
 
I think all exes would do well by making themselves accountable for everything they did while in, and in doing so, consider the good with the bad.

However, I don't think it's a question of who should be accountable and who shouldn't be. It's more a question of "what are they doing now?" and/or "are they still doings for which they should be accountable?"
 
I think it is case by case. In Marty's instance, he appears to be confronting the issues, and to be reaching out to individuals to atone for his actions. Its 'ethics change'. Whether some one wants to accept it or not is entirely up to them. But this would be a 'mitigating circumstnce' if there were to be sentencing after being found guilty of crimes in a trial.

Bittie? As far as I know she has exhibited no remorse, made no effort to take responsibility for her actions, and is still "compulsively being right" about her SO past. (If anyone has info to the contrary I would love to hear it.)
So I would say she earned having "the book" thrown at her.
 
Div6 said:
I think it is case by case. In Marty's instance, he appears to be confronting the issues, and to be reaching out to individuals to atone for his actions. Its 'ethics change'. Whether some one wants to accept it or not is entirely up to them. But this would be a 'mitigating circumstnce' if there were to be sentencing after being found guilty of crimes in a trial.

Bittie? As far as I know she has exhibited no remorse, made no effort to take responsibility for her actions, and is still "compulsively being right" about her SO past. (If anyone has info to the contrary I would love to hear it.)
So I would say she earned having "the book" thrown at her.
Click to expand...

lol, if you consider "confronting the issue" ... blaming everything that is, ever was, or ever will be wrong with Hubbard's abusive cult solely on Miscavige, while at the same time trying his hardest to shelter Hubbard and the cult itself, ... then I guess he's "confronting the issues"

And if you consider trolling for ex-scientologists to cash in on ... "reaching out to individuals to atone for his actions" , ... then I guess he is "reaching out to individuals to atone for his actions".

Who am I to confuse Merriam-Webster's definition of these phasing, with their Cult-Ease definition?
 
Lulu Belle said:
Marty Rathbun's blog, and the controversy surrounding his emergence, has made me think a lot lately about this subject.

There are people who consider that he did so much harm when he was in that no good can come from him now.

I can certainly see that viewpoint, considering who he was and what he was responsible for.

My question:

Where do you draw the line?

Why with some people is there an "all is forgiven" attitude and others there's a "they has a lot to be answerable for" attitude?

For instance, why is Marty "not OK" but Rinder is "OK"?

There are a lot of "now outs" who I feel have some explaining to do. Bitty Miscavige, for one. Mariette Lindsteen is another one. Maybe it's a personal thing, but they were both responsible for certain things in the SO that made my life miserable.

Should they be held accountable, or is it all water under the bridge (no pun intended)?

Would like to hear other people's viewpoints on this.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are accountable for what we did when we were in.

being in the SO or Scientology is not an excuse for things that were done. Damn I wish it was.

There are differences of course - there are morally reprehensible acts that are not technically illegal - regging someone into gross debt and bankruptcy would qualify for example. And there are criminal acts - punching people springs to mind.

Neither Rinder nor Rathbun are "ok" in this regard in my view. I like Mike better but thats personal choice.

neither of them have exhibited anything approaching moral behavior SINCE THEY LEFT.

Many people in the SO did nothing they need feel they have to do some big atonement for - like you. You guys are the majority.

People like Rinder and Rathbun are the minority but that minority has a lot to answer for.
 
Unless you believe in brainwashing and that scientologists are controled via a remote in miscavige's office, yep, everyone is accountable for their actions, scientologist or not.
 
Mick Wenlock said:
<snip>

Many people in the SO did nothing they need feel they have to do some big atonement for - like you. You guys are the majority.

People like Rinder and Rathbun are the minority but that minority has a lot to answer for.
Click to expand...
It sure does.
 
Mick Wenlock said:
Yes, we are accountable for what we did when we were in.

being in the SO or Scientology is not an excuse for things that were done. Damn I wish it was.

There are differences of course - there are morally reprehensible acts that are not technically illegal - regging someone into gross debt and bankruptcy would qualify for example. And there are criminal acts - punching people springs to mind.

Neither Rinder nor Rathbun are "ok" in this regard in my view. I like Mike better but thats personal choice.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that's kind of my point.

There were people who were in posts - by choice or by chance, who knows? - where they were able, and actually obligated, by the nature of their jobs, to inflict a lot of damage. Rinder and Rathbun were two of them. I would consider Bitty, as DM's Special Project Ops, to fit into that category as well.

But I really think a lot of our viewpoints as to "who owes" is very subjective. There were a lot of people who treated me like shit and made my life hell who weren't on those kind of posts. People in the finance office; lower level MAA jobs; people who maybe just didn't like me who were over me. (I was so low on the food chain that "people over me" constituted just about everybody. lol!)

Then there were those who may have had OSA type jobs who I knew personally and I liked them, and I considered them good people.

It all has so much to do with what we subjectively experienced.
 
I don't mean to invoke Godwin's law here but history has provided an excellent example re WWII and the Nuremberg Trials.

People who took ownership AND were of value to the prosecutors got more slack than those who didn't. Lesser sentences and so on. One could cynically say it's because then they're of use to the State, it's a bargaining thing, and so on. But one could- less cynically- say that when someone helps the state or the people or the claimant that they are rectifying some of the damage, albeit after the fact. Some bells can never be unrung, some deeds can never be undone or completely made up for, yeah. But if someone helped bust open a crime ring or get some real usable dirt on (in this case) Miscavige then that person would morally and perhaps legally be entitled to some leniency. It's always at the prosecutor's discretion when it's the state but it's something that is done.

I'm thinking of Albert Speer re WWII Germany and re the Manson case, I'm thinking of Linda Kasabian's immunity agreement. She WAS along that night with those crazies who killed those poor people. Under the law, she's culpable. Morally she's culpable. But she helped the state's case greatly and for this, she was let go. At least one victim's family member has said that this shouldn't be, that Linda should have gone to jail, but they aren't seeing the big picture. Linda's testimony was valuable. It can't bring those people back but it did far more for the state's case than having no plea bargain would have done.

I think that the same principles, criteria and methods could and should be used with ex CofS execs.
 
Lulu Belle said:
Well, I think that's kind of my point.

There were people who were in posts - by choice or by chance, who knows? - where they were able, and actually obligated, by the nature of their jobs, to inflict a lot of damage. Rinder and Rathbun were two of them. I would consider Bitty, as DM's Special Project Ops, to fit into that category as well.
Click to expand...
By the same token, there were choices. Some could and did maintain their "postitions" where they were "forced" to inflict harm, while others didn't and wouldn't. In addition to that, some who could have acted and made a difference didn't and/or wouldn't (for 'various' reasons, but seemingly because of some 'personal' agenda).

But I really think a lot of our viewpoints as to "who owes" is very subjective. There were a lot of people who treated me like shit and made my life hell who weren't on those kind of posts. People in the finance office; lower level MAA jobs; people who maybe just didn't like me who were over me. (I was so low on the food chain that "people over me" constituted just about everybody. lol!)
Click to expand...
I know that ANZO is not INT, but in my experience with SO Execs and Sea Org members and Class V Execs alike, there were 'good' ones and 'bad' ones. Some you could see would do just about anything to save their own ass, and do whatever it took to move up the ranks, but then there were others who wouldn't.....you could see that they battled with their predicament and at least eventually changed it, despite the 'consequences'.
 
Lulu Belle said:
Well, I think that's kind of my point.

There were people who were in posts - by choice or by chance, who knows? - where they were able, and actually obligated, by the nature of their jobs, to inflict a lot of damage. Rinder and Rathbun were two of them. I would consider Bitty, as DM's Special Project Ops, to fit into that category as well.

But I really think a lot of our viewpoints as to "who owes" is very subjective. There were a lot of people who treated me like shit and made my life hell who weren't on those kind of posts. People in the finance office; lower level MAA jobs; people who maybe just didn't like me who were over me. (I was so low on the food chain that "people over me" constituted just about everybody. lol!)

Then there were those who may have had OSA type jobs who I knew personally and I liked them, and I considered them good people.

It all has so much to do with what we subjectively experienced.
Click to expand...

Well let me tackle this

There are several aspects I think.

There is breaking the law - being on any post and doing that is wrong. pure and simple.

Then there are the morally repugnant acts. Where people received harm from the acts of people like this. This would also include the concept that most of us joined the SO inorder to help, not hurt.

And there are the "being a jerk to people below you" acts. That Janet Light was less than intelligent and a bit of prat doesn't mean that she "owes" me. I doubt she has the self awareness to even realize that she is a bit of twit.

Rinder, Rathbun, Reynolds and the rest of the petty thuggette brigade all had one magic word they could have invoked. - "No".

The minute they did not use it, the minute they went ahead with whatever it was that they might feel guilty about later - they lost all right to any moral cover.

Seriously Lulu - most SO people did not do things that they need to feel pangs of conscience about. Merely disliking some people is not a bad thing!

But when Rinder worked to cover up the McPherson death he was wrong. pure and simple - he was wrong even by the theoretical standards of scientology! Same for Rathbun.

Every time they watched someone get hit and did nothing - they lost.

Every time they stood by while people were publicly humiliated - they lost.

The Lisa McPherson tragedy is a stunning example of how Scientology and the Sea org creates cowards.

During the whole thing NOT ONE PERSON had the courage to just act like a real human being. Not one. While she was dying not one person thought to call 911. No-one thought to stand up and just do the right thing.

And even afterwards, after she had died - again no-one stood up.

Fear is not an excuse - well I should amend that and say - yes fear IS an excuse - but only in the Sea org.
 
Last edited:
I think that if a person is willing to go to a place like this or wwp or something a tell all without defending sci that would be striking a giant blow against the enemy. That might be a good start. To be truthfull, what I see Rathbun doing is maybe trying to set himself up as the new leader. I think the whole of Scientology should be taken down NOW!
 
I think Lulu Belle is right in that it is subjective based on our own experiences. Although many of us, myself included even during my time as a public could have done more to stop and maybe correct even minor abuses.

We can't change what happened but we can stop it from happening again. If those who did wrong in the past during their time in the church now want to somehow make it right, if they can bring some peace to those they harmed, that's okay with me.

I think you have to do what you need to in order to move on. It will be different for each of us. I want to learn from the past, but focus more on the future and what I can do now.

I went through some crap, but I don't feel anyone involved owes me anything. I moved on for me and for my family. I just don't want to see it happen anymore.
 
I believe that people are responsible for their actions, at all times, no matter what justifications or inducements they have accepted. So, I believe executives in Scientology are responsible for contributing to the Frankenstein's monster of the Church of Scientology, and for the harm that it did to so many people. That said, I don't believe in punishment, at all. I believe that if they continue to support the Church, they should be prevented from being able to take actions to that effect, as the Church is actually a criminal enterprise making use of dangerous psychological effects to dominate and control people, using that control to defraud them of their assets and enslave them.

When such executives leave, I believe they have a responsibility to correct the problems that they contributed to, and to whatever extent they can, "make up the damage" they have done (and then suffer on up the conditions).
 
Mitigating circumstances to one's personal actions can explain a situation, but when it all comes down to it, a person's choices is something that person should take responsibility for.

I get the impression that many Scientologists who helped at or directly ruined critics or enemies of Co$ knew what they were doing and knew they were violating state/federal law. Many who abused fellow Scientologists in places like the RPF knew they were hurting people.

Brainwashing is hard to use in court sense their is no specific scientific research that can be used to measure it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing#Legal_issues.2C_the_APA_and_DIMPAC (also hasn't been successful in court cases).

Plus it all depends on the severity of the crime. It is good if someone makes effort to make amends for harmful actions.
 
If DM runs out of HQ, jumps into a police station and says 'close it down the cult is evil', that wouldnt excuse him would it.

If Guillaume does, well that's different, he's been held prisoner.

Heres a little conspiracy theory for you....What if DM was to realise that he might get toppled, decides on his replacent and says OK we'll fight for the position, I'll make it look like I put up resistance and then I'll disappear to Bulgravia, this is my bank account, just keep sending 50 per cent, and I wont tell anyone about that under age whore, or whatever he'd picked up from a sec check. He could then retire in peace, just like Idi Amin did and many others.
 
La La Lou Lou said:
If DM runs out of HQ, jumps into a police station and says 'close it down the cult is evil', that wouldnt excuse him would it.

If Guillaume does, well that's different, he's been held prisoner.

Heres a little conspiracy theory for you....What if DM was to realise that he might get toppled, decides on his replacent and says OK we'll fight for the position, I'll make it look like I put up resistance and then I'll disappear to Bulgravia, this is my bank account, just keep sending 50 per cent, and I wont tell anyone about that under age whore, or whatever he'd picked up from a sec check. He could then retire in peace, just like Idi Amin did and many others.
Click to expand...

Ouch. I hate that one even more than I hated mine. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top