4 ms·
This is an important and interesting discussion, and I appreciate your viewpoint from the "inside" as it were. Let me try to explain my civilian perspective. A
by sxcurry 14y ago
This is an important and interesting discussion, and I appreciate your viewpoint from the "inside" as it were. Let me try to explain my civilian perspective.
As one of the (unwilling) funders of the Afghan war, I believe it's in my best interest to have as much truthful information available to me as possible, although of course there are a very few specific things that need to be kept secret, at least for a time. However, as the leaked documents showed, we as funders were being provided a very distorted picture of what was actual happening. As the LA Times said, commenting on the leaks, "no democracy can or should fight a war without the consent of its people, and that consent is only meaningful if it is predicated on real information."
With respect to the harmful effects of what was leaked:
"In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore 'there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."
Manning's motives may not have been completely pure, but I still strongly believe that he did the right thing.
- mpyne 14y agoI don't at all disagree with ensuring that the public has all of the information available to them that can possibly be provided; that's already how it's supposed to work. I'm not on the inside of the Army but I'll say that much of what was leaked (as described by the Guardian, et al) was not that surprising, but that's because I was paying attention to existing public-source news, blogs, etc. But if Manning managed to only leak material that was already kind of out there, that was only by sheer luck (the first nuclear bomb killed no one after all; it was detonated in the middle of nowhere). > With respect to the harmful effects of what was leaked This is what we call "no harm; no foul". It's not something I believe in with regard to classified information (at least when you can't be bothered to actually read through the classified information). The reasoning is simple: Let's say for example that I tie you down and move to shoot you and realize I'm out of ammo. So I duck out of the hut to get more, and when I return you've been freed by a passing bystander. No harmful effects came to you, right? So I should just be free to go, right? No harm, no foul, after all.