3 ms·
"Sounds like the NSA who couldn't point to a single instance of stopping any type of terrorist attack/operation despite collecting anything they could get their
by jariel 6y ago
"Sounds like the NSA who couldn't point to a single instance of stopping any type of terrorist attack/operation despite collecting anything they could get their hands on."
This is kind of a misrepresentation of the situation.
Manning leaked mostly diplomatic cables, the contents of which he was unaware of, thereby harming his whistleblower credentials.
The contents were not what we would regard as 'intelligence information' - more aptly described as 'the e-mails of the US diplomatic foreign corps', some of which contained sensitive information'.
That gigabyte of private information was released and there wasn't a single scandal of it shows how tight the operation was, moreover any reading of the cables demonstrates how well the US diplomatic corps were actually doing their jobs.
Far from releasing damning information about Americans, the cables released inside information about Arab leaders and their systematic corruption.
To unearth that amount of private information, to have it combed over by thousands of journalists trying to find a juicy bit, and to come up with very little ... is frankly something Americans can be proud of.
It's ridiculously ironic that Manning, in his attempt to discredit America, ended up doing what US diplomats were unable to do within the constraints of their jobs, which is to speak truth to power about the corruption in the Middle East - which ignited the Arab Spring.
The real world is sausage making and grinding, any skeptical, decontextualized look under any rocks will always yield something to talk about - so in the end, it's really the details and context that really do matter.
The cables did truly pose a serious threat to the security and integrity of individuals in various ways, and obviously it compromised many programs. That there doesn't seem to be any deadly outcomes is wonderful, but it doesn't abnegate Manning from the inappropriate actions he took particularly on the cable leak.
What's far more interesting about this case, is the fact that the press used to be in love with Assange, and now they hate him. I wonder what caused them to turn. Obviously, his close ties to Russia are problematic, but it's hard to see exactly what it is. It's possible that he's just not contemporarily a social advocate in their view: we're now full-on into intersectional issues, matters of state etc. are 'old news' it would seem.
- deathgrips 6y ago>What's far more interesting about this case, is the fact that the press used to be in love with Assange, and now they hate him. I wonder what caused them to turn. He published Clinton's emails. After that he was no longer on the same "team" as American journalists.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago> That gigabyte of private information was released and there wasn't a single scandal of it shows how tight the operation was, moreover any reading of the cables demonstrates how well the US diplomatic corps were actually doing their jobs. No, it just shows how subservient to U.S. foreign policy the American press is (they did not undertake any widespread publishing of embarrassing details from the cables), and how uninterested and easily misled the American public is about our government's actions overseas. > What's far more interesting about this case, is the fact that the press used to be in love with Assange, and now they hate him. The American press was never that in love with Assange -- the smear jobs and carping about his character started very soon after the Manning leaks, as Cockburn points out. The nail in the coffin was publishing the DNC emails, which despite containing a great deal of newsworthy details and indications of corruption, became a convenient scapegoat for Clinton's loss in the 2016 election and are now viewed almost exclusively in that light. (I think some legitimate criticisms can be lodged against Assange for electioneering in his timing of the leaks, but Clinton did joke about assassinating him and did all she could to put him in prison, so ....)
- jariel 6y ago"No, it just shows how subservient to U.S. foreign policy the American press is " This is demonstrably false. Forst - the press loves a scandal, it's what they live on. They were happy to talk about Snowden, Assange etc. for quite a long time. You're literally saying the press is acting against their own best interest and purpose which is upside down. Second - we don't need the press to find wrongdoing. It's all there for you to see. Where is the scandal? The cable releases prove that the American diplomatic corpos is doing a good job by any measure.
- luckylion 6y ago> You're literally saying the press is acting against their own best interest and purpose which is upside down. Are you suggesting that them acting a certain way shows that acting that way is in their best interest (because they wouldn't act that way otherwise)? Are you sure they know what cause of action is in their best interest? Are you sure they consider "their best interest" to be the same you consider it to be? Is the 24/7 news cycle hype in the best interest of "the media"? Was the war-drumming with barely any skepticism about the Iraq war(s) in their best interest? > Second - we don't need the press to find wrongdoing. It's all there for you to see. Where is the scandal? What? The public at large gets their information from the press. If the press does not report, it does not happen for large parts of the public. That's why taking control of the press is usually the first thing during any coup and for any authoritarian state.
- Svperstar 6y ago>I wonder what caused them to turn. He wanted Trump to win the 2016 election.