5 ms·

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.