4 ms·
Manning isn't a whistleblower. He just mass stole information and released it. Couldn't even known or read everything.
by MysticFear 13y ago
Manning isn't a whistleblower. He just mass stole information and released it. Couldn't even known or read everything.
- ThomPete 13y agoSo all the government need to do is to prove that someone accidentally got more than the main part of the documentation they want to leak and they are not whistleblowers anymore? What a peculiar logic.
- mbreese 13y agoWithin reason, yes. If they were leaking things indiscriminately, then they shouldn't be considered a whistleblower, even if some of their leaked information was about something that the public had a legitimate interest in knowing. These aren't black and white issues, so think more in terms of what a "reasonable" person would consider. If your goal is to expose a particular program - then you should be leaking only things relevant to that program. Throwing in diplomatic cables between embassies because you can just isn't relevant. And it weakens your argument for whistleblower protection.
- ThomPete 13y agoHow fortunate that those allowing the crimes can set up the rules for how they can be judged.
- sliverstorm 13y agoSo what you are saying is "how unfortunate that the 'reasonable person' clause is used in law"?
- ThomPete 13y agoYou know. I think it fairly hard to imagine how reasonable you can be when you had access to some of that content he had. Reasonable makes no sense in this discussion.
- TylerE 13y agoWhat manning did was use a Punt Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun) to kill a fly.
- SwellJoe 13y agoIf you consider the systemic problems in the US military industrial complex to be a "fly", including the cover up of mass murder of civilians, I'd hate to see what you consider a big problem.
- TylerE 13y agoI was speaking purely in relative terms. Compare the actions of Manning and Snowden.
- SwellJoe 13y agoFair enough, but the state is pursuing Snowden with similar fervor. Do you believe he will be afforded reasonable whistleblower protections for being more judicious in his revelations? I suspect the state will demonize him in the same way, and seek to send another message to whistleblowers that revealing state crimes will cost you your life.
- TylerE 13y agoI think he has a reasonable shot at it. Notice how many high-ranking pols have publically spoken up in support of Snowden...something that never happened with Manning.
- rayiner 13y agoWhat about 699,000 documents "more than the main part"?
- ThomPete 13y agoWhat about it? Apparently not enough documents to aiding the enemy which to me is the good news.
- mpyne 13y agoWell, had the judge not imposed the extra element on the base version of the UCMJ "aiding the enemy" charge he very well could have been convicted of that too. The UCMJ is sometimes incredibly broad, and that's no less the case here. Certainly there is no minimum document count needed to be convicted. A single document would suffice, in fact.
- ThomPete 13y agoSo basically "collateral damage" should only be illegal when we are talking about whistleblowers.
- anigbrowl 13y agoWhy didn't he blow the whistle in the ear of a sympathetic Congressman or even a US journalist? What peculiar logic.
- tomp 13y agoThat's the definition of a whistleblower, not of a spy.