5 ms·

The US Army is a colossal murder machine, responsible for unimaginable suffering throughout the entire world. Are you trying to say he's a bad guy because he sh

The US Army is a colossal murder machine, responsible for unimaginable suffering throughout the entire world. Are you trying to say he's a bad guy because he should have done some editing of it beforehand? Or that he would put his entire future at risk because of some personal troubles? BTW, Daniel Ellsberg, the most famous whistleblower, has given Manning his full support: http://www.bradleymanning.org/activism/sign-daniel-ellsbergs-petition-to-free-bradley-manning-2 http://www.bradleymanning.org/activism/sign-daniel-ellsbergs... >Bradley Manning has worldwide support because the information he released to the public uncovered human rights abuses and corruption, and contributed to peace and democracy. Nobel Laureates like President Obama shouldn't send Nobel Peace Prize Nominees like Bradley Manning to prison for life! After more than 950 days of pre-trial imprisonment by the US military, and multiple instances of outrageous government conduct, it is time to drop the charges and free Bradley Manning!

mpyne 14y ago
My opinion is that Daniel Ellsberg supports Manning for the simple reason that it aids his own activism, even if the facts are not 1:1 the same as his case was. And that's kind of an important point: Ellsberg helped author the Pentagon Papers and knew full well the import of what he leaked (to an American paper, btw, not Soviet, N. Vietnamese, or neutral party). Despite having a Top Secret clearance Ellsberg didn't leak other classified information that he may have had access to, as it didn't pertain to the lies that the government was feeding the public at the time.
- arcadeparade 14y ago
  That's all true, but how does it make what Manning did a bad thing? What I think it comes down too is whether or not you think the U.S is a force for good in the world or not.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Just pretend that one of those diplomatic cables contained information about the location within Kyrgyzstan of various nuclear weapons physics packages that were coming up for inspection and disassembly by an American team of experts working on reducing the threat of nuclear weapons from the former USSR ending up in Islamist hands, including approximate location and schedule. If the possibility of that kind of laser-guided information about where to find enriched nuclear material (for a fission bomb or dirty bomb) doesn't scare you, you're not paying attention. And that's even assuming that America is the worst thing to happen to the world ever.
    - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
      "Just pretend that..." Why? It didn't, so this is a non-issue. Just pretend that they contained evidence of <insert some hypothetical systemic atrocity>, and now that we know, your mother and children are safe. Do you see why these are not useful thought experiments?
      - mpyne 14y ago
        > Why? It didn't, so this is a non-issue. The reason we can pretend is that we're acting just like Pfc. Manning did; he didn't know what all he was leaking either. If I was designing a casualty procedure for a nuclear reactor with unknown conditions I would have to assume worst-case scenario. If I was designing a Ruby gem to convert arbitrary input into executable code I would have to assume worst-case scenario. And likewise here, if I'm going to move classified information of unknown contents then I should at least consider worst-case assumptions of what that data might contain. At least I bother to call it pretending. Manning just assumed it would be either "WAR CRIME" or relatively innocuous and got lucky.
        lawnchair_larry 14y ago
        The difference is that if your nuclear reactor failed to account for a particular type of disaster that never actually materialized, we would not talk about how you are responsible for radiation poisoning the entire population and charge you accordingly. If the vulnerability in your ruby gem was found and fixed before any reports of actual attacks, and no reports of attacks ever came out, we would not claim that you are responsible for some arbitrary number of businesses getting owned.
        mpyne 14y ago
        Would we still blame a company for leaking 6.5 million hashed passwords if the hackers decided for whatever strange reason not to take advantage of it? Would we blame someone for putting arsenic in their spouse's meal if the spouse coincidentally passed up dinner that night? Would we blame someone who killed a family of 5 by driving drunk on the road even though he or she is way too impaired to think straight? Whatever else I believe, I believe people are responsible for their own actions. If I mess up and things still don't go screwy it's luck, not a positive reflection on me.

mpyne 14y ago

My opinion is that Daniel Ellsberg supports Manning for the simple reason that it aids his own activism, even if the facts are not 1:1 the same as his case was. And that's kind of an important point: Ellsberg helped author the Pentagon Papers and knew full well the import of what he leaked (to an American paper, btw, not Soviet, N. Vietnamese, or neutral party). Despite having a Top Secret clearance Ellsberg didn't leak other classified information that he may have had access to, as it didn't pertain to the lies that the government was feeding the public at the time.

arcadeparade 14y ago
That's all true, but how does it make what Manning did a bad thing? What I think it comes down too is whether or not you think the U.S is a force for good in the world or not.
- mpyne 14y ago
  Just pretend that one of those diplomatic cables contained information about the location within Kyrgyzstan of various nuclear weapons physics packages that were coming up for inspection and disassembly by an American team of experts working on reducing the threat of nuclear weapons from the former USSR ending up in Islamist hands, including approximate location and schedule. If the possibility of that kind of laser-guided information about where to find enriched nuclear material (for a fission bomb or dirty bomb) doesn't scare you, you're not paying attention. And that's even assuming that America is the worst thing to happen to the world ever.
  - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
    "Just pretend that..." Why? It didn't, so this is a non-issue. Just pretend that they contained evidence of <insert some hypothetical systemic atrocity>, and now that we know, your mother and children are safe. Do you see why these are not useful thought experiments?
    - mpyne 14y ago
      > Why? It didn't, so this is a non-issue. The reason we can pretend is that we're acting just like Pfc. Manning did; he didn't know what all he was leaking either. If I was designing a casualty procedure for a nuclear reactor with unknown conditions I would have to assume worst-case scenario. If I was designing a Ruby gem to convert arbitrary input into executable code I would have to assume worst-case scenario. And likewise here, if I'm going to move classified information of unknown contents then I should at least consider worst-case assumptions of what that data might contain. At least I bother to call it pretending. Manning just assumed it would be either "WAR CRIME" or relatively innocuous and got lucky.
      - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
        The difference is that if your nuclear reactor failed to account for a particular type of disaster that never actually materialized, we would not talk about how you are responsible for radiation poisoning the entire population and charge you accordingly. If the vulnerability in your ruby gem was found and fixed before any reports of actual attacks, and no reports of attacks ever came out, we would not claim that you are responsible for some arbitrary number of businesses getting owned.
        mpyne 14y ago
        Would we still blame a company for leaking 6.5 million hashed passwords if the hackers decided for whatever strange reason not to take advantage of it? Would we blame someone for putting arsenic in their spouse's meal if the spouse coincidentally passed up dinner that night? Would we blame someone who killed a family of 5 by driving drunk on the road even though he or she is way too impaired to think straight? Whatever else I believe, I believe people are responsible for their own actions. If I mess up and things still don't go screwy it's luck, not a positive reflection on me.