471–480 of 797 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which leaked documents would have warranted a harsher sentence?
Judging by the sensitivity of the documents is not how you judge the ethics of it. That by chance the damage from the leak wasn't a lot worse does not count in Manning's favor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really believe that the government should be able to do whatever it wants in any area with no transparency or oversight? That's what you're saying — that nobody should be allowed to disclose something that government officials don't want them to, without any further consideration — but I have trouble believing that's what you mean to say.
>That's what you're saying No thats not what's being said. I would hope we could all be above strawmen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data to find the things most relevant and important for the American public to know. Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released. Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse with no regard to it's whistleblowing value. Some…
> Some of that information was dangerous and harmful. So dangerous and harmful that it harmed no one.
not fully of course but and it's hard to quantify it also deeply damaged americas ability to respond to the events correctly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have; most notably the Republicans when LBJ crushed them in a landslide ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... ). Or even -- again, the Republicans -- as recently as 2008 when Obama won ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... ), and the Democrats has a supermajority across all three houses and beat McCain by a larger margin than Trump beat Clinton. I won't wad…
> the Democrats has a supermajority across all three houses In 2008 they did not have a 'supermajority', usually interpreted to mean a veto-proof or filibuster-proof majority, in any house of Congress. Also, today Republicans control both houses and the Governer's seat in approx. 33% of states. Finally, the Dems can't win in some states due to gerrymandering and voting laws that prevent even a majority of Democratic…
I'm not saying the Democrats weren't roundly drubbed in the last election, just refuting the belief that this might be the worst position a political party has been in since WW2. I hadn't thought of the state legislature, however! That's a good point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a fair way of looking at it (and consistent with prevailing definitions). However, Manning strongly suspected wrongdoing, made herself aware of it, and leaked a video in which it was blindingly obvious. She doesn't fall under your exclusion at all.
None of that is true as far as I'm aware. Do you have a source that Manning knew of the video ahead of time?
From "Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team or AW team video", a statement by Manning to the US Army:
The video depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other war porn type videos depicting combat. However, the recording of audio comments by the aerial weapons team crew and the second engagement in the video of an unarmed bongo truck troubled me.
As Showman and a few other analysts and officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away from this debate, instead conducting some research on the event. I wanted to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007.
Using Google I searched for the event by its date by its general location. I found several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-mannin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope Obama stays around. He's done so well at building up the Democratic party in the past 8 years, here's hoping he stays around and does the same thing for the next 8!
Obama's legacy in 3 words: President Donald Trump
facepalm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Others would say -- and I would say also -- that in general, the public has benefited greatly from the disclosures in the more pertinent cable leaks. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that Manning didn't simply dump these to "the public"; she gave them to Assange and his people, who (after some falling out with each other, and a lapse in some basic security practices) managed to leak the passphrase to one of thei…
> the public has benefited greatly > from the disclosures in the more > pertinent cable leaks Examples?
Here's one of my personal favorites (summarized by Reuters):
"You know the movie 'The Godfather'? We've been living it for the last few months," a businessman involved in the dispute was quoted in the cable as telling an official from the U.S. diplomatic mission in Tripoli.
The cable, which was made available to Reuters by a third party, centers on a bottling plant in Tripoli that was shut down for three months. It had been seized by troops loyal to Mutassim Gaddafi, a son of Muammar, who at the time was feuding with one of his brothers, Mohammed. (Another State Department cable suggests a third Gaddafi son, Saadi -- better known as the family's professional soccer player -- may also have been involved in the squabble, though no details of his role are given.)
Eventually, the American diplomatic mission in Tripoli, known then as the U.S. Liaison Office, sent a firm protest to the Libyan government. The document states that around the same time, Mohammed Gaddafi, possibly under pressure from his sister Aisha, a family peacemaker, apparently agreed that shares owned by the Libyan Olympic Committee, which he led, would be sold to a third party.
Shortly afterward, the cable says, Mutassim's men left the Coke plant, ending the family standoff, but not before employees of the plant received threats of bodily harm and a Gaddafi cousin was stuffed in the trunk of a car.
Really, it shouldn't be hard to satisfy your own curiosity on this topic. Unless you think we're better off not knowing about this stuff, that is.
"If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ caseWikiLeaks added" - wikileaks [https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Classifying material should not be a way for the Government to hide corruption and wrongdoing. Whistle blowing is the only way that prevents that. Chelsea Manning acted on her conscience, which is the best we can expect anyone to do. The governments punishment was to prevent that happening again.
Snowden released a large volume of information to well qualified journalists who very carefully combed through the data to find the things most relevant and important for the American public to know. Information that was legitimately classified and had no whistleblowing value simply wasn't released. Manning released a large volume of information to the public en masse with no regard to it's whistleblowing value. Some…
But it's clear to me that actions of both Snowden and Manning were moral but illegal.
Regardless of motivation, they both exposed serious crimes. We are all better off because of the risks they took, and there was very little damage to offset the obvious benefits.
The moral yet illegal is exactly what commutation is for. Kudos to Obama for exposing himself to vicious criticism to do the right thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
also being tortured in custody and put into solitary is much for the crime. I don't understand why Obama had to wait so long (couldn't he have, at least done it two or three months ago?) and why he's letting Chelsea stay in the pen till summer? Why not let her out more or less now?
Because the date of Manning's release (May 17th) is international LGBT day