3 ms·

>Prosecutors called him an anarchist hacker and traitor who indiscriminately leaked classified information he had sworn to protect, knowing it would be seen by

by pvnick 13y ago

>Prosecutors called him an anarchist hacker and traitor who indiscriminately leaked classified information he had sworn to protect, knowing it would be seen by al-Qaida. They showed that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden obtained copies of some of the documents WikiLeaks published before bin Laden was killed by U.S. Navy Seals in 2011. This is a terrifying precedent and opens the door to charge any whistleblower with "adhering to [the United States's] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and thus treason. Even if Manning is not given the death penalty, depending on tomorrow's verdict, we may see one of the final nails in the coffin of investigative journalism. I am honestly very nervous right now.

untog 13y ago
I think it is arguable that the Manning verdict will only be relevant to other people who leak data indiscriminately. I know there is a giant slippery slope in all of this, but the "aid and comfort" would be very difficult to pin on, oh, let's say Snowden. He carefully picked what to leak, and who to leak to.
anologwintermut 13y ago
Well, no. Lets apply that test to two other famous Whistleblower . Snowden: Did he leak information he was supposed to protect ? Yes. Did he do so indiscriminately, no. He knew exactly what he was leaking and believed it would not cause damage. How about Daniel Elsberg? Leak info he was supposed to protect. Most certainly. Did he do so indiscriminately?An even more resounding no. Manning, on the other hand literally leaked stuff he never read and which he had no way of knowing couldn't do damage. Is that an absurd standard to apply to a random person, to a journalist even, sure. Not to people under obligations to protect classified information. Certainly not someone subject to the UCMJ. If he had just leaked the "collateral murder" video or anything else that he had read and found damning, it would be a hell of a lot harder to argue he was reckless. But he leaked everything and is lucky that there wasn't anything in there that would have gotten someone killed.

by pvnick 13y ago

untog 13y ago

I think it is arguable that the Manning verdict will only be relevant to other people who leak data indiscriminately. I know there is a giant slippery slope in all of this, but the "aid and comfort" would be very difficult to pin on, oh, let's say Snowden. He carefully picked what to leak, and who to leak to.

anologwintermut 13y ago

Well, no. Lets apply that test to two other famous Whistleblower . Snowden: Did he leak information he was supposed to protect ? Yes. Did he do so indiscriminately, no. He knew exactly what he was leaking and believed it would not cause damage. How about Daniel Elsberg? Leak info he was supposed to protect. Most certainly. Did he do so indiscriminately?An even more resounding no. Manning, on the other hand literally leaked stuff he never read and which he had no way of knowing couldn't do damage. Is that an absurd standard to apply to a random person, to a journalist even, sure. Not to people under obligations to protect classified information. Certainly not someone subject to the UCMJ. If he had just leaked the "collateral murder" video or anything else that he had read and found damning, it would be a hell of a lot harder to argue he was reckless. But he leaked everything and is lucky that there wasn't anything in there that would have gotten someone killed.