4 ms·
He seemed to have a stance that all information should be public by definition. According to Daniel Ellsberg, this is not true: "The public has been very misl
by gruseom 13y ago
He seemed to have a stance that all information should be public by definition.
According to Daniel Ellsberg, this is not true:
"The public has been very misled about Manning, I would say," Ellsberg says. "They talk about his being indiscriminate. That's simply false. Like me and like Snowden, he had access to communications intelligence higher than top secret. He gave none of that out."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/03/208602113/pentagon-papers-leaker-daniel-ellsberg-praises-snowden-manning http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/03/208602113/pen...
- tptacek 13y agoIt was not humanly possible, given the time scales involved, even in the most generous interpretation, for Manning to have reviewed all or even most of the material he released. Also: how would Ellsburg know what Snowden had access to? That knowledge is part of the premise of his assertion.
- gruseom 13y agoYour first sentence is true, but doesn't change the point that if Manning did hold back more sensitive material, he must not have thought that all information should be public by definition. Also: how would Ellsberg know what Snowden had access to? Good question. I don't know the answer to that in either case.