3 ms·

Your username seems appropriate. You deliberately misconstrued my post. I'm all for blowing the whistle on warcrimes. Manning released information that was not

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

> 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.