4 ms·

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 liei

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.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Dude, he released documents containing information about villages that were cooperating with the U.S. and even information on informants by name. Don't you remember when Assange was pissed off at a journalist at The Guardian for leaking the password to the cables in his book and thereby revealing the actual names? Assange tried to turn it into a blame game instead of admitting that they hadn't properly redacted the documents.

4 ms·

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 liei

by jaegerpicker 13y ago

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.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Dude, he released documents containing information about villages that were cooperating with the U.S. and even information on informants by name. Don't you remember when Assange was pissed off at a journalist at The Guardian for leaking the password to the cables in his book and thereby revealing the actual names? Assange tried to turn it into a blame game instead of admitting that they hadn't properly redacted the documents.