5 ms·

>>>and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. Oh really? http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-manning-leaks-to-be-shown_48100432 http://www

>>>and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle. Oh really? http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-manning-leaks-to-be-shown_48100432 http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-ma... "The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday." "Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downloaded from a classified government computer network identified people as sources of information that would put them at risk of death, violence or incarceration if their involvement were publicly known" "Kozak said the greatest damage to State Department human-rights efforts was a "chilling effect" on foreign activists seeking U.S. help." "They can't be sure now whether what they say to us is going to remain confidential or whether it's going to be broadcast around," Kozak said." He basically outed a bunch of foreign activists that were helping us and put them in danger. Not exactly what I would refer to as "fiddle-faddle"

flexie 13y ago
Yes, really. No one has died and I have never heard of anyone of those being in danger. Michael Kozak, whom you quote, works for the State Department.
- jaegerpicker 13y ago
  How could you possibly know that? I'm all about war crimes being exposed but Manning did not do it the right way. 95% of the stuff he released was not needed and did put people in danger. A lot the people you and I have never heard of. I don't know for sure that no one died but you can't possibly know that no one has died. It seems very likely that if an informant or other foreign national in Iran(or other similar type country) was working with the US and was exposed that their fate isn't looking real healthy at the moment.
  - veridies 13y ago
    > 95% of the stuff he released was not needed It is my personal opinion (and the intent of the FOIA and laws regarding classification) that everything should be released unless it is damaging, which almost nothing Manning released could have been. The fact that the US government hasn't been able to point to a single death resulting from Manning's leaks implies to me that everything he released should have been public to begin with. You say that "95% of the stuff he released was not needed". I would argue that 95% of it needed to be released.
    - jaegerpicker 13y ago
      >>which almost nothing Manning released could have been Again how do we know that? How do we as not involved in the Intelligence game at that level know? I'm not about letting anyone off on war crimes. They need brought up on charges and now. However little details can easily lead to lots of other bits of information. Manning didn't think about that, he just opened the firehose. There is no clear answers but endangering others for no real reason has to have consequences. >>The fact that the US government hasn't been able to point to a single death resulting from Manning's leaks implies to me that everything he released should have been public to begin with. Again how do you know that? Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't. To point to deaths mean they but the others in the chain of intelligence at risk.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - joering2 13y ago
    > How could you possibly know that? okay, but how would YOU possibly know otherwise?? Just because state official told you?? like those don't lie?? Just pay attention exactly to their words: they can say anything they want to, unless they "show me the money", give me a proof, they can keep blabbing regardless if they are state employee or president of the Milky Way himself!
    - jaegerpicker 13y ago
      I get your point but these are peoples lives, you have HAVE to side on caution. Getting people killed just because we believe, that the government MIGHT be lieing with no proof the other way, isn't good enough. That's more blood that we as American people don't need.
      - aqme28 13y ago
        This is indeed peoples lives. Should Manning be prosecuted aggressively and have his life ruined because he may have caused vague damages?
        jaegerpicker 13y ago
        There is nothing vague about endangering others when disclosing large amount of data. If he had just wanted to disclose the war crimes then I'd be incredibly outraged at his prosecution but he was reckless and put others into danger because of it. A whistle blower also has the responsibility to only disclose the important data, he failed at that.
        aqme28 13y ago
        Again, he didn't put anyone in danger so stop saying he did.
        jaegerpicker 13y ago
        He did, he released info that could, COULD, have lead to other informants directly. You have no idea rather or not anyone actually came to harm, neither do I, but the possibility is plain because of his actions and irresponsibility. If I drive drunk I'm arrested because I MIGHT harm someone with my irresponsibility. No different here, he released info that could lead directly to other intelligence agents, that puts them directly into harms way.
- kbradero 13y ago
  and what about all the people already killed by drones and collateral's? who in gov is in prison at least 35 years ?
pandeiro 13y ago
Your "foreign activists... helping us" deserves to be qualified. Helping "us" do what? Meddle in other state's domestic politics? Set up arms deals? Intellectual property treaties? Overthrow democratically elected governments? The "State Department human-rights effort" is not exactly world-renown for its ethics. Quite the opposite.
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  >>>The "State Department human-rights effort" is not exactly world-renown for its ethics. Quite the opposite. I guess helping people in oppressive regimes doesn't count to you then?? I guess this $28 million was wasted then huh? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/u-s-funds-help-democracy-activists-evade-internet-crackdowns.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/u-s-funds-help-demo... "The U.S. State Department is set to announce $28 million in grants to help Internet activists, particularly in countries where the governments restrict e-mail and social networks such as those offered by Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and Google Inc. (GOOG)" "The program, which has drawn Republican criticism and budget cuts, has produced software that is spreading widely in Iran and Syria, helping pro-democracy activists avoid detection, said Dan Baer, deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor."
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    I wonder how many billions go to helping subvert other sovereignties? Can we have some cherry picked examples for that?
    - aspensmonster 13y ago
      Well, you can start with Iran. The reason it's such a mess today is because of our own meddling in 1953. Well, meddling isn't really the right word. More like a CIA-backed coup to overthrow Mossadegh and install a brutal dictator, all because BP didn't like Mossadegh's decision to push legislation nationalizing the oil fields. There's also Indonesia. We weren't exactly doing the communists any favors there either. We didn't mind that hundreds of thousands of people were being slaughtered then. We tacitly accepted it at best, because we didn't want another domino to fall in the wrong direction.
aqme28 13y ago
Can we please stop with this myth? The State Department itself has said that the cables were "not damaging." "...State Department officials concluded late last year that the publication of leaked United States diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks 'was embarrassing but not damaging.' Robert Gates, Defense Secretary at the time: "Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest." http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/u-s-officials-reportedly-said-wikileaks-revelations-were-not-damaging/?_r=1&gwh=5C2072DCEF61351895DD1C258EBDC5D6 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/u-s-officials-re...
- mpyne 13y ago
  There is a difference between "consequences for foreign policy" and "consequences for the people actually on the ground". Swift action on the part of the military and State Dept. after the leaks is what helped make it possible for there to be, in the end, little consequence to foreign policy and little to no fatalities for the people they knew about. That does not mean, however, that there was no existential threat between the time the leaks were published and the time when that action was finally complete. The fact that the State Dept. might have been able to salvage the situation doesn't mean there was never a problem in the first place.
veritas20 13y ago
and what about Scooter Libby?
coryfklein 13y ago
Are we even sure it's a bad thing that these "foreign activists" are intimidated by Manning's disclosures? Considering the things our government does, it is pleasing to discover that people helping the government are being intimidated.
easytiger 13y ago
Don't quote hyperbole, show evidence of specific instances of this and let them stand on their own merit.
baddox 13y ago
When information leaks, and that results in supposed harm to people, why is it appropriate to blame the leaker of the information rather than the people who committed the actual acts described by the information?
AsymetricCom 13y ago
Your quotes are meaningless without context or even who spoke them. "Manning is a national hero, who has shown us that we no longer can accept the illusion of rule of law."

flexie 13y ago

Yes, really. No one has died and I have never heard of anyone of those being in danger. Michael Kozak, whom you quote, works for the State Department.

jaegerpicker 13y ago
How could you possibly know that? I'm all about war crimes being exposed but Manning did not do it the right way. 95% of the stuff he released was not needed and did put people in danger. A lot the people you and I have never heard of. I don't know for sure that no one died but you can't possibly know that no one has died. It seems very likely that if an informant or other foreign national in Iran(or other similar type country) was working with the US and was exposed that their fate isn't looking real healthy at the moment.
- veridies 13y ago
  > 95% of the stuff he released was not needed It is my personal opinion (and the intent of the FOIA and laws regarding classification) that everything should be released unless it is damaging, which almost nothing Manning released could have been. The fact that the US government hasn't been able to point to a single death resulting from Manning's leaks implies to me that everything he released should have been public to begin with. You say that "95% of the stuff he released was not needed". I would argue that 95% of it needed to be released.
  - jaegerpicker 13y ago
    >>which almost nothing Manning released could have been Again how do we know that? How do we as not involved in the Intelligence game at that level know? I'm not about letting anyone off on war crimes. They need brought up on charges and now. However little details can easily lead to lots of other bits of information. Manning didn't think about that, he just opened the firehose. There is no clear answers but endangering others for no real reason has to have consequences. >>The fact that the US government hasn't been able to point to a single death resulting from Manning's leaks implies to me that everything he released should have been public to begin with. Again how do you know that? Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't. To point to deaths mean they but the others in the chain of intelligence at risk.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- joering2 13y ago
  > How could you possibly know that? okay, but how would YOU possibly know otherwise?? Just because state official told you?? like those don't lie?? Just pay attention exactly to their words: they can say anything they want to, unless they "show me the money", give me a proof, they can keep blabbing regardless if they are state employee or president of the Milky Way himself!
  - jaegerpicker 13y ago
    I get your point but these are peoples lives, you have HAVE to side on caution. Getting people killed just because we believe, that the government MIGHT be lieing with no proof the other way, isn't good enough. That's more blood that we as American people don't need.
    - aqme28 13y ago
      This is indeed peoples lives. Should Manning be prosecuted aggressively and have his life ruined because he may have caused vague damages?
      - jaegerpicker 13y ago
        There is nothing vague about endangering others when disclosing large amount of data. If he had just wanted to disclose the war crimes then I'd be incredibly outraged at his prosecution but he was reckless and put others into danger because of it. A whistle blower also has the responsibility to only disclose the important data, he failed at that.
        aqme28 13y ago
        Again, he didn't put anyone in danger so stop saying he did.
        jaegerpicker 13y ago
        He did, he released info that could, COULD, have lead to other informants directly. You have no idea rather or not anyone actually came to harm, neither do I, but the possibility is plain because of his actions and irresponsibility. If I drive drunk I'm arrested because I MIGHT harm someone with my irresponsibility. No different here, he released info that could lead directly to other intelligence agents, that puts them directly into harms way.
kbradero 13y ago
and what about all the people already killed by drones and collateral's? who in gov is in prison at least 35 years ?

pandeiro 13y ago

Your "foreign activists... helping us" deserves to be qualified. Helping "us" do what? Meddle in other state's domestic politics? Set up arms deals? Intellectual property treaties? Overthrow democratically elected governments? The "State Department human-rights effort" is not exactly world-renown for its ethics. Quite the opposite.

at-fates-hands 13y ago
>>>The "State Department human-rights effort" is not exactly world-renown for its ethics. Quite the opposite. I guess helping people in oppressive regimes doesn't count to you then?? I guess this $28 million was wasted then huh? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/u-s-funds-help-democracy-activists-evade-internet-crackdowns.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/u-s-funds-help-demo... "The U.S. State Department is set to announce $28 million in grants to help Internet activists, particularly in countries where the governments restrict e-mail and social networks such as those offered by Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and Google Inc. (GOOG)" "The program, which has drawn Republican criticism and budget cuts, has produced software that is spreading widely in Iran and Syria, helping pro-democracy activists avoid detection, said Dan Baer, deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor."
- cinquemb 13y ago
  I wonder how many billions go to helping subvert other sovereignties? Can we have some cherry picked examples for that?
  - aspensmonster 13y ago
    Well, you can start with Iran. The reason it's such a mess today is because of our own meddling in 1953. Well, meddling isn't really the right word. More like a CIA-backed coup to overthrow Mossadegh and install a brutal dictator, all because BP didn't like Mossadegh's decision to push legislation nationalizing the oil fields. There's also Indonesia. We weren't exactly doing the communists any favors there either. We didn't mind that hundreds of thousands of people were being slaughtered then. We tacitly accepted it at best, because we didn't want another domino to fall in the wrong direction.

aqme28 13y ago

Can we please stop with this myth? The State Department itself has said that the cables were "not damaging." "...State Department officials concluded late last year that the publication of leaked United States diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks 'was embarrassing but not damaging.' Robert Gates, Defense Secretary at the time: "Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest." http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/u-s-officials-reportedly-said-wikileaks-revelations-were-not-damaging/?_r=1&gwh=5C2072DCEF61351895DD1C258EBDC5D6 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/u-s-officials-re...

mpyne 13y ago
There is a difference between "consequences for foreign policy" and "consequences for the people actually on the ground". Swift action on the part of the military and State Dept. after the leaks is what helped make it possible for there to be, in the end, little consequence to foreign policy and little to no fatalities for the people they knew about. That does not mean, however, that there was no existential threat between the time the leaks were published and the time when that action was finally complete. The fact that the State Dept. might have been able to salvage the situation doesn't mean there was never a problem in the first place.

veritas20 13y ago

and what about Scooter Libby?

coryfklein 13y ago

Are we even sure it's a bad thing that these "foreign activists" are intimidated by Manning's disclosures? Considering the things our government does, it is pleasing to discover that people helping the government are being intimidated.

easytiger 13y ago

Don't quote hyperbole, show evidence of specific instances of this and let them stand on their own merit.

baddox 13y ago

When information leaks, and that results in supposed harm to people, why is it appropriate to blame the leaker of the information rather than the people who committed the actual acts described by the information?

AsymetricCom 13y ago

Your quotes are meaningless without context or even who spoke them. "Manning is a national hero, who has shown us that we no longer can accept the illusion of rule of law."