7 ms·

I thought this was an interesting tidbit from the Center for Constitutional Rights. "While the "aiding the enemy" charges (on which Manning was rightly acquitt

by falk 13y ago

I thought this was an interesting tidbit from the Center for Constitutional Rights. "While the "aiding the enemy" charges (on which Manning was rightly acquitted) received the most attention from the mainstream media, the Espionage Act itself is a discredited relic of the WWI era, created as a tool to suppress political dissent and antiwar activism, and it is outrageous that the government chose to invoke it in the first place against Manning. Government employees who blow the whistle on war crimes, other abuses and government incompetence should be protected under the First Amendment. We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy, while those responsible for the war crimes remain free. If the government equates being a whistleblower with espionage or aiding the enemy, what is the future of journalism in this country? What is the future of the First Amendment? Manning’s treatment, prosecution, and sentencing have one purpose: to silence potential whistleblowers and the media as well. One of the main targets has been our clients, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, for publishing the leaks. Given the U.S. government’s treatment of Manning, Assange should be granted asylum in his home country of Australia and given the protections all journalists and publishers deserve. We stand in solidarity with Bradley Manning and call for the government to take heed and end its assault on the First Amendment." http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-condemns-manning-verdict%2C-questions-future-of-first-amendment http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-condemns-m...

bwaldrep 13y ago
By volunteering to join the military and obtain security clearance, Manning waived his First Amendment right to disclose anything he saw fit. If he only broke the law to reveal evidence of government wrongdoing, then there might be a case that he was just a whistleblower. However, leaking hundreds of thousands of additional classified documents that demonstrate no government wrongdoing is indefensible. While some may believe that the incriminating leaks were excusable, the rest of his behavior should not be forgotten. Honing in on one aspect of Manning's actions does not justify making him a martyr or painting this trial as purely an assault on the First Amendment.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > By volunteering to join the military and obtain security clearance, Manning waived his First Amendment right Quoting this for importance. Soldiers do not have the same First Amendment rights as other citizens; they do not have the same set of rights at all. I can probably dig up something more credible than my own hearsay if needed.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    I decided to actually look it up. Short form: I was technically wrong, but not inaccurate. Long form: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6130400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6130400
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Soldiers have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, so a soldier who sees evidence of gov't wrongdoing suddenly has a dilemma on his or her hands. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). source: http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
    - saraid216 13y ago
      It's only a dilemma if and only if whistleblowing is the only possible route for upholding the Constitution in the face of government wrongdoing.
      - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        No, the use of a "route" that is known to be ineffective doesn't count.
marze 13y ago
Well said.
mpyne 13y ago
> We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy Why do people continue using the flawed argument that because someone does good thing X, that it necessarily excuses a multitude of bad things Y? If all he did was to leak war crimes and nothing else we'd be treating Pfc. Manning like we treated Pfc. Justin Watt (as a hero who uncovered horrific crimes [1]). But, that's not all he did, and so that's not how we treat him. There's a reason Snowden was so careful to note in his first interview how different his own behavior was from Manning's. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings#Cover_up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings#Cover_up
- nutate 13y ago
  And at the same time Snowden left the US, leaving him to answer to a whole other set of allegations.
- killerpopiller 13y ago
  What "bad things" did he do? Those cables showed a myriad of illegal or at least very questionable actions of the US-gov. It showed the US foreign policy as what it really is, a menace to none-US societies.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > What "bad things" did he do? He leaked classified diplomatic cables that, however interesting, did not reveal war crimes or really crimes of any sort. This isn't just a theoretical point: Would you allow the IT staff at your company to post "interesting" emails by management to your competitors, or the public at large? Even the very public organization I develop for still has private mailing lists.
    - bradleyland 13y ago
      While I agree with you to some degree that indiscriminate sharing of government information is not the same as whistleblowing, we should avoid any metaphors referencing corporations. Corporations cannot put you in jail for life; our government can. The government is held to a different standard, and rightly so. You work for a company, the government works for you.

by falk 13y ago

bwaldrep 13y ago

By volunteering to join the military and obtain security clearance, Manning waived his First Amendment right to disclose anything he saw fit. If he only broke the law to reveal evidence of government wrongdoing, then there might be a case that he was just a whistleblower. However, leaking hundreds of thousands of additional classified documents that demonstrate no government wrongdoing is indefensible. While some may believe that the incriminating leaks were excusable, the rest of his behavior should not be forgotten. Honing in on one aspect of Manning's actions does not justify making him a martyr or painting this trial as purely an assault on the First Amendment.

saraid216 13y ago
> By volunteering to join the military and obtain security clearance, Manning waived his First Amendment right Quoting this for importance. Soldiers do not have the same First Amendment rights as other citizens; they do not have the same set of rights at all. I can probably dig up something more credible than my own hearsay if needed.
- saraid216 13y ago
  I decided to actually look it up. Short form: I was technically wrong, but not inaccurate. Long form: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6130400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6130400
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Soldiers have also sworn to uphold the Constitution, so a soldier who sees evidence of gov't wrongdoing suddenly has a dilemma on his or her hands. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). source: http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
  - saraid216 13y ago
    It's only a dilemma if and only if whistleblowing is the only possible route for upholding the Constitution in the face of government wrongdoing.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      No, the use of a "route" that is known to be ineffective doesn't count.

marze 13y ago

Well said.

mpyne 13y ago

> We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy Why do people continue using the flawed argument that because someone does good thing X, that it necessarily excuses a multitude of bad things Y? If all he did was to leak war crimes and nothing else we'd be treating Pfc. Manning like we treated Pfc. Justin Watt (as a hero who uncovered horrific crimes [1]). But, that's not all he did, and so that's not how we treat him. There's a reason Snowden was so careful to note in his first interview how different his own behavior was from Manning's. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings#Cover_up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings#Cover_up

nutate 13y ago
And at the same time Snowden left the US, leaving him to answer to a whole other set of allegations.
killerpopiller 13y ago
What "bad things" did he do? Those cables showed a myriad of illegal or at least very questionable actions of the US-gov. It showed the US foreign policy as what it really is, a menace to none-US societies.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > What "bad things" did he do? He leaked classified diplomatic cables that, however interesting, did not reveal war crimes or really crimes of any sort. This isn't just a theoretical point: Would you allow the IT staff at your company to post "interesting" emails by management to your competitors, or the public at large? Even the very public organization I develop for still has private mailing lists.
  - bradleyland 13y ago
    While I agree with you to some degree that indiscriminate sharing of government information is not the same as whistleblowing, we should avoid any metaphors referencing corporations. Corporations cannot put you in jail for life; our government can. The government is held to a different standard, and rightly so. You work for a company, the government works for you.