3 ms·

> > "Is this important that I'm willing to die to leak it?" Can't just quote out of context... there's a lot of other stuff around that quote... > Couldn't po

> > "Is this important that I'm willing to die to leak it?" Can't just quote out of context... there's a lot of other stuff around that quote... > Couldn't politically sabotaging this war (by leaking embarrassing videos and criminal backdoor political deals) be interpreted as making his country and colleagues safer by sending them home sooner? First, that's some pretty tortured logic. Second, he wasn't just leaking "embarassing videos and criminal backdoor political deals" - that's where the whole quoting out of context problem comes in. It'd be a lot more understandable if he was just releasing that sort of info - he said he "exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history" - he stole all sorts of info. That's the crazy-go-dangerous-reckless-endagerment-treason part right there. That's not the right thing to do. > It's unclear if people would really die from his actions. If you leak supply-run schedules for two months in the future, this hardly puts any lives in danger - the schedules just have to be changed In theory. In practice, there's millions of moving pieces in the war, and some things like best practices for specific events can't be changed. If he dumped everything classified he had access to, that'd be a HUGE benefit for people who want to kill the people he's serving with. > And I think this is why we try not to discuss politics here... Riddle me this, mate - does it feel weird making a comment supporting what this guy did in an earlier comment, and then responding to someone you disagree with saying that's why we try not to discuss politics? I mean, you're obviously a smart guy, but you're quoting me out of context, ignoring facts of what he did, commenting favorably and calling the guy brave, and then in response to a comment you disagree with you say this is why we don't discuss politics? C'mon man. I mean, if anyone cares, I wasn't at any point in favor of the Iraq invasion or ongoing war either, but a military analyst can't randomly steal classified data without flinching - maybe taking just the helicopter video could be sympathetic, but stealing random data like supply chains and timetables is totally unforgivably putting people's lives at risk for no good reason.

rbanffy 16y ago
> Can't just quote out of context... there's a lot of other stuff around that quote... I try to make quotes brief. It's always easy to go to the original message and acquire the context. A small quote serves as a pointer and should not be interpreted as the whole thing. That said, the comment stands. It's not sane to demand people to choose between what's morally right (leaking the chopper video was right) and facing capital punishment. Others in his place would have leaked only the video and not other sensitive documents and could be charged with treason the same way as someone who leaks logistics to enemy operatives. I agree the logic is tortured, but if you found yourself trapped in the middle of an unjust war (and this one is about as unjust as wars can possibly get) maybe the only sane alternative is to do your best to try to end it by the means you have. I agree not all the data he stole and leaked is at all relevant to the American people (the ones he swore to protect, I assume) and that they could cause lots of harm. > In practice, there's millions of moving pieces in the war, and some things like best practices for specific events can't be changed. So, creating an impossible situation would possibly make the war impossible to fight effectively and, with some luck, end it sooner. Mind you - for the hypothetical tortured soul I imagined for this exercise, whatever causes the earliest return of the troops home is the winning scenario. Under this, it doesn't matter who wins the war, as long as it ends quickly. Manning was reckless in both ways - leaking material he should not have leaked (along with material he really should) to people he should not trust (who is to vouch for every anonymous analyst at Wikileaks?) and then bragging to someone he should never, ever, under no circumstances, trust. I have a little, just a little, sympathy for him, for the helicopter video. I may have some more if the leaked diplomatic dispatches lead to some cleaning of foreign policy. I have no sympathy for indiscriminate release of information that may endanger personnel whose worst offense is a perhaps questionable career choice that led them to the worst possible place to be. Exposing the dirty secrets of a dirty war is important. It may start with urinating on toilet seats, but it may as well pass through having pleasure when you take down a target and may as well as go all the way up to entering a war on known faulty intelligence. If I had access to (for whatever reasons) sensitive information, I wouldn't tell my wife. I wouldn't tell my mother. I wouldn't write it down. note: I did some minor edits another note: I seriously doubt the Wikileaks folks have access to anything Really Bad Guys don't.

rbanffy 16y ago

> Can't just quote out of context... there's a lot of other stuff around that quote... I try to make quotes brief. It's always easy to go to the original message and acquire the context. A small quote serves as a pointer and should not be interpreted as the whole thing. That said, the comment stands. It's not sane to demand people to choose between what's morally right (leaking the chopper video was right) and facing capital punishment. Others in his place would have leaked only the video and not other sensitive documents and could be charged with treason the same way as someone who leaks logistics to enemy operatives. I agree the logic is tortured, but if you found yourself trapped in the middle of an unjust war (and this one is about as unjust as wars can possibly get) maybe the only sane alternative is to do your best to try to end it by the means you have. I agree not all the data he stole and leaked is at all relevant to the American people (the ones he swore to protect, I assume) and that they could cause lots of harm. > In practice, there's millions of moving pieces in the war, and some things like best practices for specific events can't be changed. So, creating an impossible situation would possibly make the war impossible to fight effectively and, with some luck, end it sooner. Mind you - for the hypothetical tortured soul I imagined for this exercise, whatever causes the earliest return of the troops home is the winning scenario. Under this, it doesn't matter who wins the war, as long as it ends quickly. Manning was reckless in both ways - leaking material he should not have leaked (along with material he really should) to people he should not trust (who is to vouch for every anonymous analyst at Wikileaks?) and then bragging to someone he should never, ever, under no circumstances, trust. I have a little, just a little, sympathy for him, for the helicopter video. I may have some more if the leaked diplomatic dispatches lead to some cleaning of foreign policy. I have no sympathy for indiscriminate release of information that may endanger personnel whose worst offense is a perhaps questionable career choice that led them to the worst possible place to be. Exposing the dirty secrets of a dirty war is important. It may start with urinating on toilet seats, but it may as well pass through having pleasure when you take down a target and may as well as go all the way up to entering a war on known faulty intelligence. If I had access to (for whatever reasons) sensitive information, I wouldn't tell my wife. I wouldn't tell my mother. I wouldn't write it down. note: I did some minor edits another note: I seriously doubt the Wikileaks folks have access to anything Really Bad Guys don't.