4 ms·

> no idea what was in any of the information being leaked After watching journalists get annihilated by an Apache missile strike, there is not a lot of room fo

> no idea what was in any of the information being leaked After watching journalists get annihilated by an Apache missile strike, there is not a lot of room for confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

hackinthebochs 10y ago
So because there happened to be something bad among the 250k documents, the act itself is completely absolved? If I were to murder 100 people randomly should I be absolved because it turned out one of them was a child molester?
- etjossem 10y ago
  > If I were to murder 100 people randomly should I be absolved because it turned out one of them was a child molester? You sound ridiculous. Let's get to the real question. > So because there happened to be something bad among the 250k documents, the act itself is completely absolved? In short, yes. Her 7-year sentence has already been quite enough. I will concede that the outlet through which the leaks were published didn't meet the standards to which we usually hold investigative reporting. Manning chose to disclose all cables in confidence to a team she felt could sift through them for evidence of wrongdoing. That team then proved themselves irresponsible by publishing everything. They should have been far more selective about what they disclosed to the public. I don't blame the source here. I absolutely do blame the coverage.
  - hackinthebochs 10y ago
    >You sound ridiculous. Let's get to the real question. It's not ridiculous, its a reductio ad absurdum of the principle you seem to be employing, that a chance positive result of an action justifies the original action. Or are you just making things up as you go along to reach the conclusion you prefer? >In short, yes. OK, here's a more down to earth scenario. Say I'm a high level administration official and I have access to all classified information. Should I release literally all of it because surely somewhere in the dump will be some wrongdoing by somebody? Surely your answer to this must be no?
    - etjossem 10y ago
      That's more like it! Naturally, the answer's no - there's plenty of material the public doesn't need to know about, and which could compromise ongoing operations if it were completely transparent. Sources who want to ethically be whistleblowers need to work with reputable press outlets, releasing only what is necessary to people they know will further trim the leak - until the final product does only good for the public. Here's a quote from Snowden on just that: "I never published a single document on my own because I believe that the model, the ideal of American government is actually quite a shrewd one,” he said. “I tried to emulate the model of checks and balance. Instead of making a unilateral decision, that ‘The world must know,’ I worked with the free press, institutions that we trust, American journalists.” Could Chelsea Manning have chosen a better way to release the documents than WikiLeaks? Absolutely. Do I still consider her a whistleblower? Yes - though I would never claim she was as responsible about it as someone like Snowden.
      - hackinthebochs 10y ago
        >Naturally, the answer's no - there's plenty of material the public doesn't need to know about This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing. >Do I still consider her a whistleblower? Yes Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you. Which is fair, a lot of that going around lately.
        etjossem 10y ago
        > This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing. > Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the post-hoc fallacy. If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." You'll find it covers anyone who acts as an informant to reveal something illicit within an organization. For someone like yourself who seems to be eager to find a reason to dislike Chelsea Manning: yes, there's such a thing as an irresponsible whistleblower.
        10y ago

hackinthebochs 10y ago

So because there happened to be something bad among the 250k documents, the act itself is completely absolved? If I were to murder 100 people randomly should I be absolved because it turned out one of them was a child molester?

etjossem 10y ago
> If I were to murder 100 people randomly should I be absolved because it turned out one of them was a child molester? You sound ridiculous. Let's get to the real question. > So because there happened to be something bad among the 250k documents, the act itself is completely absolved? In short, yes. Her 7-year sentence has already been quite enough. I will concede that the outlet through which the leaks were published didn't meet the standards to which we usually hold investigative reporting. Manning chose to disclose all cables in confidence to a team she felt could sift through them for evidence of wrongdoing. That team then proved themselves irresponsible by publishing everything. They should have been far more selective about what they disclosed to the public. I don't blame the source here. I absolutely do blame the coverage.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  >You sound ridiculous. Let's get to the real question. It's not ridiculous, its a reductio ad absurdum of the principle you seem to be employing, that a chance positive result of an action justifies the original action. Or are you just making things up as you go along to reach the conclusion you prefer? >In short, yes. OK, here's a more down to earth scenario. Say I'm a high level administration official and I have access to all classified information. Should I release literally all of it because surely somewhere in the dump will be some wrongdoing by somebody? Surely your answer to this must be no?
  - etjossem 10y ago
    That's more like it! Naturally, the answer's no - there's plenty of material the public doesn't need to know about, and which could compromise ongoing operations if it were completely transparent. Sources who want to ethically be whistleblowers need to work with reputable press outlets, releasing only what is necessary to people they know will further trim the leak - until the final product does only good for the public. Here's a quote from Snowden on just that: "I never published a single document on my own because I believe that the model, the ideal of American government is actually quite a shrewd one,” he said. “I tried to emulate the model of checks and balance. Instead of making a unilateral decision, that ‘The world must know,’ I worked with the free press, institutions that we trust, American journalists.” Could Chelsea Manning have chosen a better way to release the documents than WikiLeaks? Absolutely. Do I still consider her a whistleblower? Yes - though I would never claim she was as responsible about it as someone like Snowden.
    - hackinthebochs 10y ago
      >Naturally, the answer's no - there's plenty of material the public doesn't need to know about This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing. >Do I still consider her a whistleblower? Yes Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you. Which is fair, a lot of that going around lately.
      - etjossem 10y ago
        > This can't be reconciled with saying Manning's actions were justified without post-hoc rationalizing. > Then clearly the meaning of words mean nothing to you. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the post-hoc fallacy. If you want to get strict about definitions, look up "whistleblower." You'll find it covers anyone who acts as an informant to reveal something illicit within an organization. For someone like yourself who seems to be eager to find a reason to dislike Chelsea Manning: yes, there's such a thing as an irresponsible whistleblower.
        10y ago