6 ms·

The article only mentions her as a picture (on purpose, I'm sure), but I'd like to take a second to address this: Chelsea Manning is a very bad example of a wh

by kodah 3y ago

The article only mentions her as a picture (on purpose, I'm sure), but I'd like to take a second to address this: Chelsea Manning is a very bad example of a whistleblower. First, she didn't reveal anything new. All the information that was produced was previously known. Second, she was releasing documents because she was angry that she was deployed. Third, she didn't even attempt to use the whistle blowing process in the military that is quite in tact (it was called request mast when I was in but goes by different names depending on the branch). How she was treated afterward was terrible, but to continue validating her story by labeling her a whistleblower is harmful imo. It's okay to say not all whistleblowers are cut from the same cloth while simultaneously promoting the system of request mast/whistleblowing in the government.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
>First, she didn't reveal anything new. All the information that was produced was previously known Just as a start, the Iraq War logs detailed fifteen thousand previously unknown civilian deaths. While you can argue we knew our military was doing terrible stuff, without her leaks it wouldn't have been clear what terrible stuff they were doing. >Second, she was releasing documents because she was angry that she was deployed Source? While I'm not 100% clear what her motivations were, I've never heard that claim. As for the third, it was clear what she released was being hidden. I can't imagine what the proper channel would be for something like the "collateral murder" video. "Hey you know that time you killed journalists and lied about it? Well there's evidence you lied about it."
- kodah 3y ago
  > While you can argue we knew our military was doing terrible stuff, without her leaks it wouldn't have been clear what terrible stuff they were doing. The Iraq war logs weren't even mostly about us. They were mostly about our partners. Her testimony aligns to what those databases were for. [1] > Source? While I'm not 100% clear what her motivations were, I've never heard that claim. I was trying to find the chat logs from IRC that make that situation a lot more emblematic. She was having relationship issues at the time and was demurred by long deployment times/work. (To her credit, I did a similar deployment for roughly a year and they are exhausting) In her testimony she glosses over much of what was in the chat logs, instead trying to explain her actions from a place of promoting "national discourse". The helicopter gunship situation is accurate. If there's anything she released that was useful it was that. 1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-manning-wikileaks-statement-full-text https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-mannin...
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    On 1, she says >The CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases contain reporting and analysis fields for multiple disciplines including Human Intelligence or HUMINT reports, Psychological Operations or PSYOP reports, Engagement reports, Counter Improvised Explosive Device or CIED reports, SigAct reports, Targeting reports, Social and Cultural reports, Civil Affairs reports, and Human Terrain reporting. They're the reports we made and the actions we took. How is that not about us? She seemed to be genuinely unhappy with life when she whistleblew, but to me it seemed more like "I'm unhappy so let's make a grand move" than "let's get revenge on the military for my unhappiness."
    - kodah 3y ago
      She says elsewhere in that testimony that the reports in which civilians were killed, raped, and sexual assaults mostly had to do with the police and military of the host countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). This lines up with my experience as well; we were repeatedly advised to stay out of the locals business, or how they run their judicial system is up to them. This same judicial system is how you have multi-time trigger men and bomb makers that somehow left Kabul unphased after leaving their courts. > "I'm unhappy so let's make a grand move" than "let's get revenge on the military for my unhappiness." I don't really see a difference between the two besides intent. Intent isn't really something that matters in today's world. What I would've liked to have seen is if she joined the service members trying to whistleblow on ineffective and dangerous ROEs, the lies told by the Obama administration about the success of the Iraqi and Afghani police and military, etc... Instead, she released just enough vague and sensational stuff to spur conspiracy theories. To be clear, I understand the frustration that inspired Chelsea to do what she did, but I think how you do these things both affords (or removes) protections, and matters a great deal more if you're actually trying to make a difference. That along side the content of what's released; in the case of Snowden there absolutely wasn't anyone to appeal to. In Chelsea's case there certainly was.
      - kelnos 3y ago
        > I don't really see a difference between the two besides intent. Intent isn't really something that matters in today's world. You can't have it both ways, though. In your original post, you said, "Second, she was releasing documents because she was angry that she was deployed." Clearly you believed her intent to be a big part of the reason why she shouldn't be considered a whistleblower. And in this thread we've learned your "first" (she released nothing new) is also not really the case, and your "third" (she didn't try to use official whistleblowing channels first) is murky, in that she probably felt that the people behind the whistleblowing channels already knew about the things she was going to blow the whistle on, and had a vested interest in keeping them secret. So I don't really see your objection here? It feels more along the lines of "if I were in her position I would have done things differently", which, fine, I think that's probably true of many people in many situations, but so what?
ok_dad 3y ago
> whistle blowing process in the military I was also in the military, and can tell you if she had complained no one would have cared and probably would have just gotten her into more trouble. Whistleblowing to the military chain of command is just for stuff like if your CO is stealing money or your LT is coercing a sailor into a sexual relationship, not for stuff that makes the military look bad. The stuff Manning released was definitely not stuff you would take to 'mast'.
- kodah 3y ago
  That's not really true, when I was in I was cognizant of a group of Marines that were being charged due to a request mast. They did have to request past their local unit leadership, which the process allowed for.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Why can't both things be true? Like any large organization, different parts of it behave in different ways. While you had a good impression of the whistleblowing infrastructure due to your experience, it's perfectly reasonable and unsurprising that others might have a bad impression of it due to their experience. And perhaps Manning was one of those latter people.
    - kodah 3y ago
      That can be true, but you can't really have your cake and eat it too though, no? If the process is robust enough for serious internal affairs and someone skips requesting mast, which they can do all the way up to the President, then the next question is "why?". She could've even gone to a Congressperson with this and it'd have afforded her protections. Instead, she went to WikiLeaks.
      - ok_dad 3y ago
        You’re assuming that anyone in the government cares about what she was surfacing. That’s why whistleblowers go to the press, because the power structures that be don’t care.

by kodah 3y ago

boomboomsubban 3y ago

>First, she didn't reveal anything new. All the information that was produced was previously known Just as a start, the Iraq War logs detailed fifteen thousand previously unknown civilian deaths. While you can argue we knew our military was doing terrible stuff, without her leaks it wouldn't have been clear what terrible stuff they were doing. >Second, she was releasing documents because she was angry that she was deployed Source? While I'm not 100% clear what her motivations were, I've never heard that claim. As for the third, it was clear what she released was being hidden. I can't imagine what the proper channel would be for something like the "collateral murder" video. "Hey you know that time you killed journalists and lied about it? Well there's evidence you lied about it."

kodah 3y ago
> While you can argue we knew our military was doing terrible stuff, without her leaks it wouldn't have been clear what terrible stuff they were doing. The Iraq war logs weren't even mostly about us. They were mostly about our partners. Her testimony aligns to what those databases were for. [1] > Source? While I'm not 100% clear what her motivations were, I've never heard that claim. I was trying to find the chat logs from IRC that make that situation a lot more emblematic. She was having relationship issues at the time and was demurred by long deployment times/work. (To her credit, I did a similar deployment for roughly a year and they are exhausting) In her testimony she glosses over much of what was in the chat logs, instead trying to explain her actions from a place of promoting "national discourse". The helicopter gunship situation is accurate. If there's anything she released that was useful it was that. 1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-manning-wikileaks-statement-full-text https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-mannin...
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  On 1, she says >The CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases contain reporting and analysis fields for multiple disciplines including Human Intelligence or HUMINT reports, Psychological Operations or PSYOP reports, Engagement reports, Counter Improvised Explosive Device or CIED reports, SigAct reports, Targeting reports, Social and Cultural reports, Civil Affairs reports, and Human Terrain reporting. They're the reports we made and the actions we took. How is that not about us? She seemed to be genuinely unhappy with life when she whistleblew, but to me it seemed more like "I'm unhappy so let's make a grand move" than "let's get revenge on the military for my unhappiness."
  - kodah 3y ago
    She says elsewhere in that testimony that the reports in which civilians were killed, raped, and sexual assaults mostly had to do with the police and military of the host countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). This lines up with my experience as well; we were repeatedly advised to stay out of the locals business, or how they run their judicial system is up to them. This same judicial system is how you have multi-time trigger men and bomb makers that somehow left Kabul unphased after leaving their courts. > "I'm unhappy so let's make a grand move" than "let's get revenge on the military for my unhappiness." I don't really see a difference between the two besides intent. Intent isn't really something that matters in today's world. What I would've liked to have seen is if she joined the service members trying to whistleblow on ineffective and dangerous ROEs, the lies told by the Obama administration about the success of the Iraqi and Afghani police and military, etc... Instead, she released just enough vague and sensational stuff to spur conspiracy theories. To be clear, I understand the frustration that inspired Chelsea to do what she did, but I think how you do these things both affords (or removes) protections, and matters a great deal more if you're actually trying to make a difference. That along side the content of what's released; in the case of Snowden there absolutely wasn't anyone to appeal to. In Chelsea's case there certainly was.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      > I don't really see a difference between the two besides intent. Intent isn't really something that matters in today's world. You can't have it both ways, though. In your original post, you said, "Second, she was releasing documents because she was angry that she was deployed." Clearly you believed her intent to be a big part of the reason why she shouldn't be considered a whistleblower. And in this thread we've learned your "first" (she released nothing new) is also not really the case, and your "third" (she didn't try to use official whistleblowing channels first) is murky, in that she probably felt that the people behind the whistleblowing channels already knew about the things she was going to blow the whistle on, and had a vested interest in keeping them secret. So I don't really see your objection here? It feels more along the lines of "if I were in her position I would have done things differently", which, fine, I think that's probably true of many people in many situations, but so what?

ok_dad 3y ago

> whistle blowing process in the military I was also in the military, and can tell you if she had complained no one would have cared and probably would have just gotten her into more trouble. Whistleblowing to the military chain of command is just for stuff like if your CO is stealing money or your LT is coercing a sailor into a sexual relationship, not for stuff that makes the military look bad. The stuff Manning released was definitely not stuff you would take to 'mast'.

kodah 3y ago
That's not really true, when I was in I was cognizant of a group of Marines that were being charged due to a request mast. They did have to request past their local unit leadership, which the process allowed for.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Why can't both things be true? Like any large organization, different parts of it behave in different ways. While you had a good impression of the whistleblowing infrastructure due to your experience, it's perfectly reasonable and unsurprising that others might have a bad impression of it due to their experience. And perhaps Manning was one of those latter people.
  - kodah 3y ago
    That can be true, but you can't really have your cake and eat it too though, no? If the process is robust enough for serious internal affairs and someone skips requesting mast, which they can do all the way up to the President, then the next question is "why?". She could've even gone to a Congressperson with this and it'd have afforded her protections. Instead, she went to WikiLeaks.
    - ok_dad 3y ago
      You’re assuming that anyone in the government cares about what she was surfacing. That’s why whistleblowers go to the press, because the power structures that be don’t care.