13 ms·

Classifying material should not be a way for the Government to hide corruption and wrongdoing. Whistle blowing is the only way that prevents that. Chelsea Mann

by mhurron 10y ago

Classifying 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 ago
You 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 ago
  Do 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 ago
      As 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 ago
No, 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 ago
Little 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 ago
      What 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 ago
        That'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 ago
Where 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 ago
  Manning 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 ago
Snowden 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    Dangerous 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 ago
Manning 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 ago
  That 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 ago
    Then 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 ago
      This 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 ago
Please 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 ago
  Works both ways really. Like she in her former life. English is flexible/ambiguous like that.
  - interfixus 10y ago
    I got halfway through a dissenting reply, and then I realized you are probably right.

by mhurron 10y ago

ythn 10y ago

You 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 ago
Do 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 ago
    As 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 ago

No, 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 ago

Little 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 ago
    What 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 ago
      That'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 ago

Where 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 ago
Manning 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 ago

Snowden 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Dangerous 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 ago

Manning 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 ago
That 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 ago
  Then 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 ago
    This 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 ago

Please 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 ago
Works both ways really. Like she in her former life. English is flexible/ambiguous like that.
- interfixus 10y ago
  I got halfway through a dissenting reply, and then I realized you are probably right.