18 ms·
I have mixed feelings on this. Manning did commit a crime. They were entrusted with classified information and they released it on purpose. For all of the corru
by rthomas6 10y ago
I have mixed feelings on this. Manning did commit a crime. They were entrusted with classified information and they released it on purpose. For all of the corruption and wrongdoing the release of those cables uncovered, didn't it also do things like give away the positions of some undercover agents? And harm US diplomatic relations with other countries? Look at it from the POV of the government: How could they not punish Manning? It would do a lot to encourage others to indiscriminately leak classified info. Which would be bad.
- mhurron 10y agoClassifying material should not be a way for the Government to hide corruption and wrongdoing. Whistle blowing is the only way that prevents that. Chelsea Manning acted on her conscience, which is the best we can expect anyone to do. The governments punishment was to prevent that happening again.
- ythn 10y agoYou can spin any type of classified material as "corruption" and "wrongdoing". Who draws the line? What if someone indiscriminately leaked everything on the Manhattan project during WW2? Would they be a hero because they "acted on their conscience" and showed the world that the big bad USA was secretly developing WMDs? Or would they be a villain because they just taught other countries how to do the same? To the peace loving left he would be a hero, to the nationalist right he would be an enemy. Bradley/Chelsea Manning is no different.
- chc 10y agoDo you really believe that the government should be able to do whatever it wants in any area with no transparency or oversight? That's what you're saying — that nobody should be allowed to disclose something that government officials don't want them to, without any further consideration — but I have trouble believing that's what you mean to say.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago>That's what you're saying No thats not what's being said. I would hope we could all be above strawmen.
- chc 10y agoAs I said, I have a hard time believing that is what's meant, but I think that is a pretty fair summary of the big-picture implications of that proposal. If you don't think so, please explain how rather than throwing out the word "strawmen" and pretending you've debunked something.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mason240 10y agoNo, Manning did not act on "conscience." Manning had no idea what was being released. This was in retaliation for being a bad soldier who couldn't handle even a cushy role.
- rudolf0 10y agoLittle unethical behavior was actually leaked, though. The killing of the Reuters journalists probably should've been leaked since there was a sort of cover-up (government refused to give Reuters the video or concrete details), so I'll give her that. But the rest was basically just normal communications. I think she's served more than enough jail time, but this didn't really seem like a conscience-driven whistleblowing to me. Snowden, on the other hand, leaked some seriously shady and unconstitutional activity (along with other things that IMO did not need to be released publicly). That very much did seem like he leaked it due to his conscience.
- vkou 10y ago> But the rest was basically just normal communications. Which may have had wide-reaching consequences, with respect to the Arab Spring.
- hendersoon 10y ago"May"? We're way past "may". The Arab Spring was catastrophic.
- vkou 10y agoWhat part of it can be attributed to Manning..? And what part of it can be contributed to food insecurity, economic downturns, the despots running those countries tightening the screws, the CIA's involvement, a civil war in Iraq, the Department of State jumping on the opportunity to stick it to Putin by destabilizing Assad? Are any other architects of these disasters serving 35 years?
- hendersoon 10y agoThat's impossible to measure quantitatively. It's very clear that the leaks contributed to some degree, much like the email leaks and FBI notes to congress contributed to the election results, but how much? Nobody will ever know.
- GVIrish 10y agoWhere Manning went wrong was the indiscriminate nature of the leaking. Had Manning just divulged only the information regarding specific acts of wrongdoing, she would have had a much stronger case as a whistleblower. Dumping troves of classified material without regard to their contents is not the same thing. If someone working in medical records uncovered insurance fraud, but put thousands of people's full records out on the internet (instead of a targeted disclosure), they would absolutely civil lawsuits and criminal penalties. Even if their original intent was noble, their actions would be subject to punishment. The ends don't always justify the means.
- dogma1138 10y agoManning was in the military regardless of what and how it was released there is no possibility for "public interest" defense in this case. Neither does Snowden since he will be charged with espionage.
- colechristensen 10y agoSnowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data to find the things most relevant and important for the American public to know. Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released. Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse with no regard to it's whistleblowing value. Some of that information was dangerous and harmful. Manning's battering ram is much different than Snowden's scalpel, even though their base motivations had a lot in common. Snowden knew what he was doing and did it with great care and consideration. Manning was suffering from some serious mental health issues and did something foolish with questionable value at best.
- mhurron 10y ago> Some of that information was dangerous and harmful. So dangerous and harmful that it harmed no one.
- y_u_no_rust 10y agoI don't know about that it added a lot of confusion and fueled a bit of the Arab spring and the offshoot situation in Libya not fully of course but and it's hard to quantify it also deeply damaged americas ability to respond to the events correctly
- criddell 10y agoDangerous and harmful to the US government?
- rbanffy 10y ago> Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse No. She leaked the documents to Wikileaks, who decided to publish them uncensored. She had no control over what Wikileaks would do. Other media outlets opted not to release information they considered dangerous. And, as @mhurron pointed out, there is no record of someone who was harmed by that information being released.
- 10y ago
- davidw 10y agoManning dumped a whole slew of stuff without any checking or vetting or anything else. Some of the stuff I saw in relationship to Italy, for instance, was just diplomatic personnel airing "what they really thought" about Silvio Berlusconi. These comments are the kind of thing that didn't do anyone any good to have dumped in public.
- gozur88 10y agoThat was quite harmful. Nobody is going to talk to you in confidence if what they say, attributed, is going to get dumped on the internet.
- kafkaesq 10y agoThen maybe you shouldn't (repeatedly, incessantly, decade after decade) engage so shamelessly with forces of corruption and darkness such it that inspires people to take great personal risk to expose that information.
- gozur88 10y agoThis has nothing to do with corruption. People talk even without getting paid. Not everyone realizes what they're saying is important or will become important in the future. Most of the time it's just background information. Also, there's not necessarily an element of "great personal risk". It may just be social or embarrassment or minor damage to a career. If some flunky at a Peruvian consulate has a bit too much to drink and says his boss is an asshole, it gets written down and goes into a file somewhere. When people see that on the internet they think "Man, I really need to watch what I say to the Americans."
- kafkaesq 10y ago"Man, I really need to watch what I say to the Americans." Given the degree of subterfuge the US has facilitated in many of these countries, over the years -- most of these folks already knew that.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 3legcat 10y ago"Chelsea Manning acted on her conscience" Acting on her conscience does not make what she did the right thing to do. For example, the 2 men behind the boston marathon bombing, did what they did based on their conscience. Did that make what they did right?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- interfixus 10y agoPlease don't rewrite history. Manning may be a woman today, but was unquestionably a man at the time of the leak. Hence, 'HE acted', not 'she'.
- andromeduck 10y agoWorks both ways really. Like she in her former life. English is flexible/ambiguous like that.
- interfixus 10y agoI got halfway through a dissenting reply, and then I realized you are probably right.
- _delirium 10y agoObama doesn't seem to completely disagree, since he didn't pardon her. He instead commuted the sentence from 35 years to 7 years' imprisonment. In my personal opinion that's still too long for the crime, but it's at least less completely insane than 35 years.
- kzrdude 10y agoThe military justice has a possibility for parole release before the term, unlike U.S. federal civil justice. So there was always the possibility of a such release. https://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/21/bradley-mannings-sentence-parole-and-appeal-implications/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/21/bradley-mannings-sente...
- _delirium 10y agoThanks, I didn't realize the military had retained parole after the rest of the federal government abolished it. If I'm reading the link correctly, 10 years would have been the minimum time served in this case. If it were likely that parole would be granted at the earliest point of eligibility (would it be? I have no idea), this commutation then amounts to knocking 3 years off the minimum sentence. Which is not nothing, but less dramatic than the headline 28 years.
- Shivetya 10y agohe did pardon Marine General James Cartwright who released details about the cyber attacks on Iran. That one is was a surprise
- greedo 10y agoHe didn't release details. He lied to investigators to deflect their attention from the real leaker. Sort of like how Martha Stewart was convicted of making false statements to Federal agents.
- _delirium 10y agoIs that the conventional wisdom? I thought the consensus was that he probably was the source for David Sanger's book, but that the federal government didn't want the exposure of litigating the case, so it was resolved in the end by him agreeing to plead guilty to a lesser offense of, roughly, "lying under oath about not being the leaker", without being actually charged with the leak itself.
- mrb 10y ago"How could they not punish Manning?" But she was punished. With 7 years that she already spent in jail. I don't think that reducing her sentence from 35 years to 7 years "encourage others to leak".
- clashmoore 10y agoThe book, "The Spy Who Couldn't Spell: A Dyslexic Traitor, an Unbreakable Code, and the FBI's Hunt for America's Stolen Secrets" by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee tells the story of an American intelligence worker who tried to pass off information to other governments just prior to Sept. 11th. His motivation was money (selling his secrets for millions of dollars) and when he was caught, he was hoping to have his sentence reduced to 8 years so he may be with his family. I think it would be encouraging to others to leak if the risk of making millions for their families to getting caught still allows them to live life if the punishment is anything less than life.
- rosser 10y agoDifferent circumstances. Spying for money should be treated radically differently than spying for conscience.
- ishields 10y ago> It would do a lot to encourage others to indiscriminately leak classified info A one-time presidential commute or pardon would do no such thing. Saying that "this specific case has been looked at and deemed to be okay" doesn't automatically equate to "everyone can do this and they won't get in trouble." There's a huge difference between whistleblowing and treason
- Natsu 10y agoThat's understandable, but Manning's sentence has been unusually cruel in its execution, and unjust when compared to other people who did without being punished at all. See, e.g. the conduct that Colin Powell described in this email: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 [EDIT: click to view the PDF to find the actual content.]
- the_duke 10y agoIs there a list of emails that contain actual unfavorable/damning information?
- Natsu 10y agoYes, although IMHO it's not a very good one. Some of these should be taken with salt - http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/ http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/
- sjy 10y agoFor example, #6 claims that 'Hillary's campaign' wants an 'unaware and compliant citizenry,' on the basis of an unsolicited email to Podesta using that phrase to describe Trump's campaign strategy!
- Natsu 10y agoAssuming you're talking about this email - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599 It's oversold, yes, but as far as I can tell, it's this Bill Ivey (NEA chairman under Clinton, Obama transition team member) and not some random spammer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ivey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ivey Other correspondence can be found here - https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=bi%40globalculturalstrategies.com https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=bi%40globalculturalstrategie...
- Natsu 10y agoI should also mention that it's fairly incomplete. E.G. no mention of this one that Wikileaks tweeted earlier regarding Taiwan - https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23730#efmAEGAEhAHiAIYANlAOG https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23730#efmAEGAEh...
- rand77763 10y agoThe POV of the government should be nothing more than the POV of the people.
- cderwin 10y agoThere is no POV of "the people". A bunch of individuals comprise the people, and some of those individuals also comprise the government. But "the people" as a group do not have a POV.
- rtkwe 10y agoThat's a shay position given how wrong a majority of the country has been at various times in history. Forced school desegregation was wildly unpopular in a lot of the country (even the north) but it was the right thing to do, some issues shouldn't be left to the whims of a populace. It also treats the view of the people as a singular entity when it's vastly fractured and multifaceted.
- tropo 10y agoForced school desegregation is not active for most kids. Many people buy into expensive school districts. Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and other fine cities are not exactly desegregated. Even in more mixed areas, the school zones are seldom mixed. Then, for those without the money to isolate themselves by zip code, there is homeschooling. Kids do not get bused from one homeschooling family to another.
- Legion 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- hnbro 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy
- acalderaro 10y agoYea, from the POV of the government having the public realize all the illegal, unethical and irresponsible things you've been doing with their tax dollars would be absolutely terrible. Someone may end up getting jail time - or even worse - lose their reelection! /s Anyone who is able to condemn Manning would also condemn the soldiers of Hitler's army who chose to disobey orders to kill Jews because it would have been against the law. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. And if our government didn't engage in illegal activity (like torture, political uprisings, wire tapping) then perhaps people like Manning wouldn't have to leak information that could compromise a few undercover agents. In this case, the benefits far outweigh the costs. Find me a politician or soldier who got jail time for committing acts of torture in Baghdad and then we can talk about penalizing Manning.
- thrill 10y agoYou sure jumped to Nazi comparisons rather quickly.
- Zooper 10y agoRather than being an example of Godwin's law, though, this is a historically analogous comparison of US war crimes justifications in Iraq to the Nuremberg defense and doesn't suggest impending ethnic genocide where there is none.
- acalderaro 10y agoBecause the comparisons are blatantly obvious.
- golergka 10y agoIs there a single thing in those files to make Nazi comparison justifiable?
- acalderaro 10y agoNazis tortured and massacred civilians in eastern Europe. US Soldiers did so in Iraq. Did you even bother to read the reports?
- pvg 10y agoThere really wasn't much in the way of corruption and wrongdoing in the diplomatic cables. If anything they showed that the mundane private details of US diplomacy match US public diplomatic stances quite closely.
- baddox 10y agoAccording to this article, the prosecution failed to provide evidence that anyone was killed due to the leaks. I don't know if anyone was harmed, but it really doesn't seem like it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- adrienne 10y agoManning is a woman; is there some reason you're calling her a "they"?
- rabidrat 10y ago"He" is the pronoun that was used in their past, "she" is the pronoun for the present. When we're talking about the past+present for this person, I think "they" is not unreasonable. At least, it's more reasonable than trying to call someone out for their pronoun usage when the discussion is about a much more serious topic.
- adrienne 10y agoNo, the correct way to do this is to use the individual's pronouns. Please note that the AP and the NYT have basically adopted the GLAAD style guide on this issue: http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender The NYT correctly stated in the parent article, "Ms. Manning was still known as Bradley Manning when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009." See how that works? She was always a she, even though she was presenting as a man at the time.
- rabidrat 10y ago> She was always a she, even though she was presenting as a man at the time. Sorry, I don't agree. Gender should not be retconned. Please do your activism in a different forum.
- wtbob 10y ago> No, the correct way to do this is to use the individual's pronouns. No, the correct way to do this is to use the correct pronouns, at least in the third person. One might refer to someone who believes he is Napoleon to his face as 'Your Majesty,' in order not to cause mental distress, but one is under no compunction to refer to him in the third person as 'His Majesty.' Likewise, no-one is under any compunction to refer to a man who believes that he is a woman in the feminine third person (although, in languages which have gendered second persons, it might be kind to use it face-to-face, again in order to avoid mental distress).
- dforrestwilson1 10y agoWe live within a rules-based system. For Manning the rule was "We'll give you this security clearance, here are 100 classes about not spilling the things you know to anyone else." I too am troubled by the decision, but it does seem a bit out of whack with the total lack of punishment for the higher echelons of government. Lately it seems like the rules-based system we have been living under is cracking.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoYears in solitary confinement isn't "total lack of punishment". And an intelligence contractor flunky isn't "higher echelons"
- dforrestwilson1 10y agoI was referring to Powell and HRC. What were you referring to?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- beedogs 10y agoIt's okay to call her "she", you know. "They" is a little... odd, when referring to a person.
- dcposch 10y agoIt's becoming increasingly common. Personally I think esoteric pronouns like "ve" are a silly idea that won't catch on, but I like the idea of using "they" as a gender neutral way to refer to one or more people. It's a straightforward expansion of the current usage: as a gender neutral way to refer to two or more people.
- bluehex 10y agoMy problem with "they" is that it's overloading the plural pronoun and using it like a singular. This can cause confusion, for example, it makes the comment we're discussing a bit hard to read when in one sentence "they" means Manning and in the next sentence "they" means the government.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- hnbro 10y agoi think it's only odd to some because of prescriptive "style guide" insistence over the years. it makes a great deal of sense.
- kriro 10y agoRegarding the harm it did to US relations with other countries...I think long term it would be more positive for relations with all countries if there's decent treatment of whistle blowers. Sure short term it sucks to have info along the lines of "we did X to harm your country" leaked but let's face it most sane governments assume that the U.S. is doing some very shady things and has a huge budget to execute that fairly "well". At the end of the day I'd much rather have a U.S. doing shady things and some people shining a light on it every now and then than just the U.S. doing shady things.
- EdHominem 10y ago> Manning did commit a crime. Not actually. Manning was required by law to refuse and report illegal orders. And not just make a show of reporting it and then back to business as usual. > didn't it also do things like give away the positions of some undercover agents? No, but that'd be our fault anyways, for mixing legal and illegal. > And harm US diplomatic relations with other countries? The truth didn't harm relations, doing the things that the allies found out about in the first place was the problem. > Look at it from the POV of the government: How could they not punish Manning? Um, admitting fault and correcting it. But yeah, we know that'd never happen so what could they do but shoot the messenger? > It would do a lot to encourage others to indiscriminately leak classified info. Doubtful. The motivator in Manning's case wasn't the ease or difficulty of leaking, but the crimes that needed exposing.