3 ms·

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 l

by 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.
    - kodah 3y ago
      Yeah, I don't really accept that kind of logic. That's the kind of stuff that says Jan 6 is okay because the government is that untrustable. In Snowden's case, sure, but in Manning's case her testimony also highlights that intel analysts had been building a case against the helicopter crew for a while.
      - ok_dad 3y ago
        I am personally fine with whistleblowers going to the press if they are more comfortable. The systems in the government, and especially the military, are very harsh and unforgiving to mistakes and unpreparedness. It's hard to whistleblow properly to the government, and so if there is an important topic that needs to be surfaced, then as far as I am concerned I would prefer people do whatever is necessary for their own safety and security to do so. I respect your stance as well, but disagree that it's always the best. A messy situation like the Manning stuff had numerous avenues of approach and none were great.

by kodah 3y ago

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.
  - kodah 3y ago
    Yeah, I don't really accept that kind of logic. That's the kind of stuff that says Jan 6 is okay because the government is that untrustable. In Snowden's case, sure, but in Manning's case her testimony also highlights that intel analysts had been building a case against the helicopter crew for a while.
    - ok_dad 3y ago
      I am personally fine with whistleblowers going to the press if they are more comfortable. The systems in the government, and especially the military, are very harsh and unforgiving to mistakes and unpreparedness. It's hard to whistleblow properly to the government, and so if there is an important topic that needs to be surfaced, then as far as I am concerned I would prefer people do whatever is necessary for their own safety and security to do so. I respect your stance as well, but disagree that it's always the best. A messy situation like the Manning stuff had numerous avenues of approach and none were great.