4 ms·

I completely agree. Manning was clearly well-intentioned, but she leaked information including diplomatic cables that was not relevant to war crimes or any such

I completely agree. Manning was clearly well-intentioned, but she leaked information including diplomatic cables that was not relevant to war crimes or any such malfeasance. The only effect of those leaks was to hurt the interests of the United States. Her case is certainly much less clear-cut than Snowden's, as she was not a contractor and was more likely to be covered by whistleblower protection going through channels. But realistically, we all know that the US government was never, ever, going to release that "Collateral Murder" video. The great shame of all this is that whistleblower protections and mandatory escalations haven't been expanded so the next generation of do-gooders can work within the system to right these wrongs.

EdHominem 10y ago
> I completely agree. Manning was clearly well-intentioned, but she leaked information including diplomatic cables that was not relevant to war crimes or any such malfeasance. Documents of illegal behavior were intermingled with the rest. It's not a whistleblower's responsibility to sort through the data, nor would we want it to be. They aren't qualified to know if those other files contribute to the understanding of the situation Imagine if someone leaked documents of child molestation but didn't leak all of them, allowing the culprits to escape justice because of a weak case. > The only effect of those leaks was to hurt the interests of the United States. That's our fault for letting our soldiers break the law, and for not having any procedures in place to stop this before it got this far. (ie, a whistleblower hotline that actually got stuff done.) Chelsea witnessed people in the US Armed Forces faking (and cooperating with external faking of) evidence, knowingly sending innocent people to US military prisons where we now know (and she and they knew at the time) they being were tortured and murdered. Any delay in whistleblowing to sort through thousands of files would simply get more people killed. Delaying for even a minute would have been the morally irresponsible answer.
- hendersoon 10y ago
  I disagree. Delaying would have been much smarter. Snowden did it right, working with journalists to release his information in a way that did not hurt US and allied interests without benefit.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    Yes, you, sitting coddled in comfort, think we should have given your paid killers more time to hide the evidence. The "benefit" as you phrase it is not murdering innocent people, and for them, not being murdered. That's pretty huge! You're condoning allowing ongoing murder because you don't like the reputation damage that comes from being proven to be a murderer. Can't take the time, don't do the crime.
    - hendersoon 10y ago
      Your username seems appropriate. You deliberately misconstrued my post. I'm all for blowing the whistle on warcrimes. Manning released information that was not criminal by any definition, like diplomatic cables. Snowden's responsible disclosure method was more effective, too. Spread out over a year, every news cycle contained a new headline from him. He had far greater impact.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        > Manning released information that was not criminal by any definition, like diplomatic cables. Which was intermixed with all the evidence of warcrimes. It's not the whistleblower's job to clean up the criminal's papers before reporting them. And who's to say (are you a judge?) what's relevant to the crimes? You'd have to read every document, in the context of all the others, to begin to know. It'd be wrong to try to pare the archive down, even if it was remotely possible. Also, we learned a lot of other things that didn't rise to the level of warcrimes themselves but are a lot better exposed. > I'm all for blowing the whistle on warcrimes. Obviously not all for it. More like, mostly, or kinda, for it. Well, like, not totally against. Like, you're for it, but only if it's done in ways you approve of. Otherwise, fuck the victims... > Snowden's responsible disclosure method was more effective, too. Oh I see, you are totally for whistleblowers, you're even offering advice to Manning on how to make a bigger splash. Well why didn't you say so? > in a way that did not hurt US and allied interests without benefit. Yeah, you're clearly just upset that Manning leaked our shit but you've got to realize that nobody cares what the criminals want. We lost the right to complain when we let our soldiers murder people and covered it up. > Your username seems appropriate. You deliberately misconstrued my post. No Ad Hominem needed. (Do you even know what that is?) Your point was stupid on it own.

EdHominem 10y ago

> I completely agree. Manning was clearly well-intentioned, but she leaked information including diplomatic cables that was not relevant to war crimes or any such malfeasance. Documents of illegal behavior were intermingled with the rest. It's not a whistleblower's responsibility to sort through the data, nor would we want it to be. They aren't qualified to know if those other files contribute to the understanding of the situation Imagine if someone leaked documents of child molestation but didn't leak all of them, allowing the culprits to escape justice because of a weak case. > The only effect of those leaks was to hurt the interests of the United States. That's our fault for letting our soldiers break the law, and for not having any procedures in place to stop this before it got this far. (ie, a whistleblower hotline that actually got stuff done.) Chelsea witnessed people in the US Armed Forces faking (and cooperating with external faking of) evidence, knowingly sending innocent people to US military prisons where we now know (and she and they knew at the time) they being were tortured and murdered. Any delay in whistleblowing to sort through thousands of files would simply get more people killed. Delaying for even a minute would have been the morally irresponsible answer.

hendersoon 10y ago
I disagree. Delaying would have been much smarter. Snowden did it right, working with journalists to release his information in a way that did not hurt US and allied interests without benefit.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Yes, you, sitting coddled in comfort, think we should have given your paid killers more time to hide the evidence. The "benefit" as you phrase it is not murdering innocent people, and for them, not being murdered. That's pretty huge! You're condoning allowing ongoing murder because you don't like the reputation damage that comes from being proven to be a murderer. Can't take the time, don't do the crime.
  - hendersoon 10y ago
    Your username seems appropriate. You deliberately misconstrued my post. I'm all for blowing the whistle on warcrimes. Manning released information that was not criminal by any definition, like diplomatic cables. Snowden's responsible disclosure method was more effective, too. Spread out over a year, every news cycle contained a new headline from him. He had far greater impact.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > Manning released information that was not criminal by any definition, like diplomatic cables. Which was intermixed with all the evidence of warcrimes. It's not the whistleblower's job to clean up the criminal's papers before reporting them. And who's to say (are you a judge?) what's relevant to the crimes? You'd have to read every document, in the context of all the others, to begin to know. It'd be wrong to try to pare the archive down, even if it was remotely possible. Also, we learned a lot of other things that didn't rise to the level of warcrimes themselves but are a lot better exposed. > I'm all for blowing the whistle on warcrimes. Obviously not all for it. More like, mostly, or kinda, for it. Well, like, not totally against. Like, you're for it, but only if it's done in ways you approve of. Otherwise, fuck the victims... > Snowden's responsible disclosure method was more effective, too. Oh I see, you are totally for whistleblowers, you're even offering advice to Manning on how to make a bigger splash. Well why didn't you say so? > in a way that did not hurt US and allied interests without benefit. Yeah, you're clearly just upset that Manning leaked our shit but you've got to realize that nobody cares what the criminals want. We lost the right to complain when we let our soldiers murder people and covered it up. > Your username seems appropriate. You deliberately misconstrued my post. No Ad Hominem needed. (Do you even know what that is?) Your point was stupid on it own.