3 ms·
I think that she did something very brave, but also very stupid. As I recall, WikiLeaks did the right thing then and proved themselves to be reliable, trustwort
by AaronFriel 9y ago
I think that she did something very brave, but also very stupid. As I recall, WikiLeaks did the right thing then and proved themselves to be reliable, trustworthy actors in releasing details that were important for the public to know.
Recent events have changed my opinion of WikiLeaks, but not of Manning, who took an enormous risk to reveal crimes committed by the military.
- tripplethrendo 9y agoYeah most people are only happy with Wikileaks when they're going after Republicans. They can't stand the same heat when they go after Democrats. I have always been, and will remain, a fan of the truth being exposed.
- lern_too_spel 9y agoYou mean the "truth" about Seth Rich that Assange's organization has been spreading.
- Helloworldboy 9y agoI wouldn't claim to know the truth about that situation unless you're involved in the investigation.
- lern_too_spel 9y agoAnd I suppose you wouldn't claim to know the truth about chemtrails and Bigfoot either? The Washington PD has already ruled it a botched robbery.
- AaronFriel 9y agoIt's my personal belief that WikiLeaks is, perhaps has been for some time, a tool of a foreign state actor to threaten political candidates and push conspiracy theories (see: Seth Rich, Pizzagate.) That crosses a line for me, and the amount of "moral good" they do is significantly diminished when, instead of working with leaks that help align politician's actions with their speeches, seek to undermine democratic norms by dealing in crass and unfounded conspiracies.
- krisdol 9y agoI'd venture a guess that many people who don't like wikileaks now didn't feel that way when wikileaks was exposing the democratic president. Many likely thought and continue to think of Snowden as a hero. I find wikileaks sensationalist in a way that mirrors the sensationalism of grocery store checkout-aisle tabloids. Promoting conspiracy theories about satanic rituals, pizzagate, the seth rich lies, and clinton-organized child kidnappings is not in any way exposing something resembling truth. They promoted conspiracy theories criticizing that the Panama Papers release was a George Soros-funded conspiracy to target Russia and the former USSR. None of these claims had evidence attached to them. Leaks of truth are valuable, but I have lost all faith that wikileaks publishes in a non-partisan "truth for truth's sake" mission, rather, I think they have specific targets in mind and publish whatever it takes to harm those targets and help others.
- Overtonwindow 9y agoBut I think therein lies a horrible truth: Manning, her crime, her release, and everything that flows from that, has been turned into a purely political issue. What might have happened had it never entered the political arena? Perhaps a shorter sentence, confinement to a hospital instead of a prison, better care for her psychosis, an assortment of things could have been better. Her commutation was the single, greatest act of political f* you to America. Not even the pardoning of Nixon, or the failures of every single President since comes close to this level of politicization.
- marcoperaza 9y agoManning leaked out private diplomacy between the US and other countries, damaging the standing of the United States and contributing to the destabilization of those regimes. Manning's leaks are widely thought to have contributed to, or even triggered, the Arab Spring which has not only been a disaster for American interests, but a disaster for almost everyone in the Middle East except the jihadists.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- neo4sure 9y agoWikileaks has become an arm of the Russian government. Any Russian dirt spilled lately???
- marcoperaza 9y agoI said nothing about Wikileaks.
- linkregister 9y agoI disagree that Wikileaks was acting consistently with its core value of radical transparency for governments. They heavily edited the "Collateral Murder" video to make it appear to be murder in the first degree. The entirety of the video shows it to be negligent homocide. Wikileaks is well-known for omitting information about countries with which it is ideologically aligned. Though this is normal and logical, Wikileaks is being disingenuous when it describes its ideals as such. Additionally, Assange groomed Chelsea to give up the information. It wasn't just a case of simple whistleblowing. It was more consistent with an intelligence operation with Chelsea as an asset. Again, there isn't anything inherently wrong with that, it is just inconsistent with the narrative of Wikileaks just being a repository for voluntary leaks.