4 ms·

There are a lot of bullet points there, but not many seem to be actual crimes committed by the USA. Isn't that what whistleblowing is about? Specific crimes rel

There are a lot of bullet points there, but not many seem to be actual crimes committed by the USA. Isn't that what whistleblowing is about? Specific crimes related to the agency you are directly blowing the wistle on? Not wholesale release or everything you can get your hands on?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
d23 13y ago
That's the main issue I'm trying to wrap my head around. Did he release the equivalent of 500 pounds of information and a few grams of it turned out to be bad? Or was it a larger percentage?
terhechte 13y ago
I had the opposite feeing so I went back and combed through. Imho it is 12 US crimes vs. 9 non-crimes. Sometimes I had a bit of trouble deciding whether it can be constituted a crime or not. Here's my list of decisions (a = crime, b = non-crime): a b a a a b a b a b b b a b a a a a b b a
- wmil 13y ago
  "U.S.-backed 2009 coup" is really misstating what happened. First of all, the US was pressuring Honduras to re-instate the president. Next, there were complex constitutional issues. The US ambassador's opinion isn't more important than the Honduran supreme court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_cr...
grannyg00se 13y ago
I think they're all things that the public should know. Unless it's crucial to national security these should not be hidden from the public. We should know what our employees are doing on our behalf. I think that is what whistleblowing is all about. It doesn't have to be a specific crime, just a revelation of behaviour that was previously being kept secret for unjust reason.
- enoch_r 13y ago
  Do you think that diplomats in foreign countries should have any channels of communication that aren't monitored by the host government? I suspect that most diplomatic cables aren't classified to keep US citizens in the dark--they're classified because candid assessments of situations and personalities are essential to good diplomacy.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  The government already has people whose job it is to ensure that material is classified appropriately. There is most likely both a volume issue and a err on the side of caution issue. While many of us disagree with all items that are classified I doubt you will find any organization which we would all agree upon that could make good decisions. Any such organization not within government would have to thoroughly vetted to insure their integrity and that all documents until accepted as non classified are treated as classified
  - baddox 13y ago
    > The government already has people whose job it is to ensure that material is classified appropriately. And, clearly, Bradley Manning believed that the public's definition of "appropriately" might differ significantly from the government's.
alan_cx 13y ago
There is no way a person at Manning's level could be expected to cherry pick effectively. How can he decide what is in the public interest, know what evidence is enough, know what evidence is dangerous, and so on. Yes to a point, but we must accep that its a highly complex set of decisions that have to be made. For a low level person to whistle-blow the only effective way to do it is to grab as much as possible, and give it to a person or people who can do that sorting for him. Now, in a decent open democracy, there should be such people who do have the authority, clearance and moral independence, who we can all trust to do that for a whistle-blower. But, the problem is two fold, 1) who do we trust, and 2) the content of the documents proves that the US government could not be trusted. So, he had to give the lot to some one he trusted would do morally the right thing, and release what was necessary. At that point in time, wikileaks was big and had a decent reputation. His case was, AFAIK, the first to go wrong, and the first to show that wikileaks was not robust and smart enough to do the job properly. Of course after the even, people slag wikileaks off and say he shouldn't have gone there. In hind sight, yes. With Snowden, I guess that the Guardian and its lawyers are being very damn careful about what they release. I guess they have information that would be dangerous and they are probably rightly sitting on it. But here were possibly see a much better filtering and vetting process. No, not one governments like, but one that give us enough information to point fingers, but not enough to get people killed. But, for a "simple" whistle-blower, they have no choice but to grab all they can, and trust people who know what they are doing to filter the material to a) prove a case or accusation, and b)protect the innocent and vulnerable. In that I include agents and what not legitimately intelligence gathering. Manning's mistake was a reasonable one. He was right at the time to think wikileaks was a reasonable route, but obviously that has since been tarnished. Of course what we really need is this independent, trust-able, official route for whistle-blowers. But Im not sure how that can really happen satisfactorily. Hence the incredible value of decent journalists.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  > There is no way a person at Manning's level could be expected to cherry pick effectively. How can he decide what is in the public interest, know what evidence is enough, know what evidence is dangerous, and so on. This is exactly what whistleblowing is about. You understand and have evidence that a specific crime is being committed, and you release info about that specific crime. If you don't have a grasp of what is going on, then the proper response isn't "hey I'm not sure what I'm doing or looking at, so let me publish everything I can get my mits on because I think there is something fishy."
duwease 13y ago
Let me ask a question from a different angle.. since the rationale for classifying these was "to protect national security", how many actually met this criteria, crime or no?
- wmil 13y ago
  That wasn't the rationale. Diplomatic cables are classified for many reasons, and it's completely legitimate.
gasull 13y ago
FTA: > U.S. tried to get Spain to curb its probes of Gitmo torture and rendition. > U.S. knew all about massive corruption in Tunisia back in 2006 but went on supporting the government anyway, making it the pillar of its North Africa policy. > U.S. pressured the European Union to accept GM — genetic modification, that is. ...
baddox 13y ago
Perhaps some of them not crimes, but most are certainly abuses of the government classification system.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

d23 13y ago

That's the main issue I'm trying to wrap my head around. Did he release the equivalent of 500 pounds of information and a few grams of it turned out to be bad? Or was it a larger percentage?

terhechte 13y ago

I had the opposite feeing so I went back and combed through. Imho it is 12 US crimes vs. 9 non-crimes. Sometimes I had a bit of trouble deciding whether it can be constituted a crime or not. Here's my list of decisions (a = crime, b = non-crime): a b a a a b a b a b b b a b a a a a b b a

wmil 13y ago
"U.S.-backed 2009 coup" is really misstating what happened. First of all, the US was pressuring Honduras to re-instate the president. Next, there were complex constitutional issues. The US ambassador's opinion isn't more important than the Honduran supreme court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_cr...

grannyg00se 13y ago

I think they're all things that the public should know. Unless it's crucial to national security these should not be hidden from the public. We should know what our employees are doing on our behalf. I think that is what whistleblowing is all about. It doesn't have to be a specific crime, just a revelation of behaviour that was previously being kept secret for unjust reason.

enoch_r 13y ago
Do you think that diplomats in foreign countries should have any channels of communication that aren't monitored by the host government? I suspect that most diplomatic cables aren't classified to keep US citizens in the dark--they're classified because candid assessments of situations and personalities are essential to good diplomacy.
Shivetya 13y ago
The government already has people whose job it is to ensure that material is classified appropriately. There is most likely both a volume issue and a err on the side of caution issue. While many of us disagree with all items that are classified I doubt you will find any organization which we would all agree upon that could make good decisions. Any such organization not within government would have to thoroughly vetted to insure their integrity and that all documents until accepted as non classified are treated as classified
- baddox 13y ago
  > The government already has people whose job it is to ensure that material is classified appropriately. And, clearly, Bradley Manning believed that the public's definition of "appropriately" might differ significantly from the government's.

alan_cx 13y ago

There is no way a person at Manning's level could be expected to cherry pick effectively. How can he decide what is in the public interest, know what evidence is enough, know what evidence is dangerous, and so on. Yes to a point, but we must accep that its a highly complex set of decisions that have to be made. For a low level person to whistle-blow the only effective way to do it is to grab as much as possible, and give it to a person or people who can do that sorting for him. Now, in a decent open democracy, there should be such people who do have the authority, clearance and moral independence, who we can all trust to do that for a whistle-blower. But, the problem is two fold, 1) who do we trust, and 2) the content of the documents proves that the US government could not be trusted. So, he had to give the lot to some one he trusted would do morally the right thing, and release what was necessary. At that point in time, wikileaks was big and had a decent reputation. His case was, AFAIK, the first to go wrong, and the first to show that wikileaks was not robust and smart enough to do the job properly. Of course after the even, people slag wikileaks off and say he shouldn't have gone there. In hind sight, yes. With Snowden, I guess that the Guardian and its lawyers are being very damn careful about what they release. I guess they have information that would be dangerous and they are probably rightly sitting on it. But here were possibly see a much better filtering and vetting process. No, not one governments like, but one that give us enough information to point fingers, but not enough to get people killed. But, for a "simple" whistle-blower, they have no choice but to grab all they can, and trust people who know what they are doing to filter the material to a) prove a case or accusation, and b)protect the innocent and vulnerable. In that I include agents and what not legitimately intelligence gathering. Manning's mistake was a reasonable one. He was right at the time to think wikileaks was a reasonable route, but obviously that has since been tarnished. Of course what we really need is this independent, trust-able, official route for whistle-blowers. But Im not sure how that can really happen satisfactorily. Hence the incredible value of decent journalists.

res0nat0r 13y ago
> There is no way a person at Manning's level could be expected to cherry pick effectively. How can he decide what is in the public interest, know what evidence is enough, know what evidence is dangerous, and so on. This is exactly what whistleblowing is about. You understand and have evidence that a specific crime is being committed, and you release info about that specific crime. If you don't have a grasp of what is going on, then the proper response isn't "hey I'm not sure what I'm doing or looking at, so let me publish everything I can get my mits on because I think there is something fishy."

duwease 13y ago

Let me ask a question from a different angle.. since the rationale for classifying these was "to protect national security", how many actually met this criteria, crime or no?

wmil 13y ago
That wasn't the rationale. Diplomatic cables are classified for many reasons, and it's completely legitimate.

gasull 13y ago

FTA: > U.S. tried to get Spain to curb its probes of Gitmo torture and rendition. > U.S. knew all about massive corruption in Tunisia back in 2006 but went on supporting the government anyway, making it the pillar of its North Africa policy. > U.S. pressured the European Union to accept GM — genetic modification, that is. ...

baddox 13y ago

Perhaps some of them not crimes, but most are certainly abuses of the government classification system.