4 ms·

If Manning had just released documents related to specific illegal activities this would be a different conversation. That's not what he did though, in your do

If Manning had just released documents related to specific illegal activities this would be a different conversation. That's not what he did though, in your doctor analogy what he did would be releasing the medical files of all 200 of his patients because he saw evidence of child abuse in one of them.

monsterix 13y ago
Ever thought of the guys who were behind the machine gun for God's sake?
- mokus 13y ago
  If Manning were aware of particular abuses, why didn't he release documents only about those particular abuses? If he wasn't, why did he release anything? This sounds like a case of "I know the evidence is in there somewhere, so let's throw it all out there and see what sticks." When prosecutors do this, we call it a "fishing expedition", and we don't like it at all. Why should we like it _more_ when a vigilante does it? If I am pissed at my employer and decide to steal and publish all the internal documents I can, and I get lucky and some of them are incriminating, that doesn't excuse what I did. It just means that both I and my employer are criminals, instead of only me.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - monsterix 13y ago
    So you agree that the employer is a criminal, but we're yet to see any action against the remaining criminals.
    - mokus 13y ago
      Yes, I most definitely agree that anyone out joyriding and shooting up civilians is a criminal, and it's outrageous that we haven't seen any action against them. I just don't think that that makes Manning any less of a criminal, which it seems some people are trying to assert. If you are not one of them then I apologize for interpreting your comments that way, but it does seem the most natural interpretation of a very short emotional appeal in response to an argument supporting Manning's sentence.
belorn 13y ago
I agree. however, sometimes that can be a hard judgement call to decide. Say if a nurse find proof that a doctor is sexually assaulting children. Would it be wrong if the nurse gave all that doctors patient files the press (given that the officials refuses to act)? If not, then what should the expected behavior be? When it came to trial, how should sentencing be done? 35 years? What would be appropriate sentencing for the nurse if the number of patient files was in the thousands, but only a hundred or so had proof of criminal activity?

monsterix 13y ago

Ever thought of the guys who were behind the machine gun for God's sake?

mokus 13y ago
If Manning were aware of particular abuses, why didn't he release documents only about those particular abuses? If he wasn't, why did he release anything? This sounds like a case of "I know the evidence is in there somewhere, so let's throw it all out there and see what sticks." When prosecutors do this, we call it a "fishing expedition", and we don't like it at all. Why should we like it _more_ when a vigilante does it? If I am pissed at my employer and decide to steal and publish all the internal documents I can, and I get lucky and some of them are incriminating, that doesn't excuse what I did. It just means that both I and my employer are criminals, instead of only me.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- monsterix 13y ago
  So you agree that the employer is a criminal, but we're yet to see any action against the remaining criminals.
  - mokus 13y ago
    Yes, I most definitely agree that anyone out joyriding and shooting up civilians is a criminal, and it's outrageous that we haven't seen any action against them. I just don't think that that makes Manning any less of a criminal, which it seems some people are trying to assert. If you are not one of them then I apologize for interpreting your comments that way, but it does seem the most natural interpretation of a very short emotional appeal in response to an argument supporting Manning's sentence.

belorn 13y ago

I agree. however, sometimes that can be a hard judgement call to decide. Say if a nurse find proof that a doctor is sexually assaulting children. Would it be wrong if the nurse gave all that doctors patient files the press (given that the officials refuses to act)? If not, then what should the expected behavior be? When it came to trial, how should sentencing be done? 35 years? What would be appropriate sentencing for the nurse if the number of patient files was in the thousands, but only a hundred or so had proof of criminal activity?