4 ms·
> Well, the data not being available doesn't necessarily mean that people weren't killed, either. I generally reject arguments of this form, because: 1. In t
by benchaney 9y ago
> Well, the data not being available doesn't necessarily mean that people weren't killed, either.
I generally reject arguments of this form, because:
1. In the absence of real data, they are essentially just fear mongering.
2. It violates the general principle of innocent until proven guilty, because we are assuming Chelsea Manning is guilty of getting people killed without evidence that this is the case.
3. Accepting arguments of this form puts a strong incentive on those in charge to classify everything so that they can always rely on uncertainty to fuel fear. In some sense this incentive is the root cause of everything we are discussing.
> That's not necessarily a good argument against leaking at all, in my opinion, though many consider it so.
That's definitely not a good arguments against leaking at all. The much more interesting question in my mind is: in a situation where people might have been hurt or killed because of a leak is it right to be critical of the leaker in stead of focusing on the contents of the leak. Personally I (somewhat predictably) would say no. For the reasons above, and also because, Chelsea Manning exposed plenty of instances where people definitely were hurt and killed (in a situation where the leak contained lower stakes information, my opinion might be different).
- tzs 9y agoI think my point may have been unclear. People commonly argue that Manning's leaks were justified because they exposed some cover ups, and the leaks did not harm anyone who was not doing anything illegal. They base the second half of that on nobody being able to name any specific person who was harmed. My point is that is an impossible standard. They want absolute proof of harm before they will consider the possibility that maybe Manning should have redacted names, or left out documents that were completely irrelevant to whatever crimes and cover ups she hoped to expose. By that standard if someone is already in a situation where they are in danger, you could leak anything about them and disclaim any responsibility if they subsequently get killed, because it might have been due do that danger they were already in.
- ScottBurson 9y agoI don't disagree with you very much. I think Manning's heart was in the right place, and some of the material she leaked was very important. I just wish she had released the material through journalists, as Snowden did later, rather than dumping it on WikiLeaks.