The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
I still don't see the reasoning behind this aside from Manning being a left-wing cause célèbre. You're sentenced, you do your time, if you're really really sorry and promise not to do it again you get parole.
How good long prison sentences are at deterring crime is debatable.
Espionage is different than other crimes, both because of how incredibly damaging it is and because of the type of person who does it. The average murderer or thief isn't a narcissistic attention-seeker but you get a lot of those with spying. There's an acronym, MICE, which is Money, Ideology, being Compromised, and Ego. Long prison sentences discourage everything except being compromised- if you're a narcissistic asshole who wants fame or fortune, the possibility of spending most of your life in jail is a hell of a deterrent.
Citation for your reasoning that Manning's release is because she's popular with the left please. Obama has historically taken a hard stance against leaks regardless of who's making them.
And then I guess citation for your belief that long prison sentences deter people seeking attention and that Manning is narcissistic. Nobody commits a crime thinking they'll get caught. Nor do I consider seven or so years a light sentence.
I would contend that Obama released her not because he's a huge fan but rather because she's routinely expressed remorse. Obama also doesn't have a hard on for wasting tax dollars needlessly imprisoning people.
Quid on
+18
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Marcus it would appear that Manning would be another example of your preference for simply hurting someone for no other reason than malice.
Now let's make something clear, I've argued fiercely that what she did was wrong, illegal, and that her conviction was fair.
What I don't agree with has been her years of cruel and unusual treatment. It accomplishes nothing and wastes tax dollars. And if we're honest would likely become even crueler under the next administration.
Given she'll never be in a position to repeat her actions I'm not sure what the opposition to commuting her sentence would be beyond petty cruelty. And if that's all then it's a flagrant disregard for the principles put forth by our constitution.
If the last person to do it was (in essence) pardoned after being lavished media attention and praise from the public, then hey! You can do it too and get to be a minor celebrity/media darling. In fact, thanks to this idiotic decision I fully expect this sort of treasonous exposing of secrets to pick up.
Six years in prison is nothing now?
If anything, this shows potential whistleblowers that you'd better be in a country unfriendly to the US government when you leak secrets, because Snowden fared best due to fleeing fastest.
Or that whistleblowers should follow the process which exists rather than go outside the process and break the law.
Except we already know that the people following those processes are ostracized at best. They're blacklisted from getting work again, and their concerns are never addressed.
So when people say "fuck it" and leak the details? It's pretty understandable, really.
Marcus it would appear that Manning would be another example of your preference for simply hurting someone for no other reason than malice.
Now let's make something clear, I've argued fiercely that what she did was wrong, illegal, and that her conviction was fair.
What I don't agree with has been her years of cruel and unusual treatment. It accomplishes nothing and wastes tax dollars. And if we're honest would likely become even crueler under the next administration.
Given she'll never be in a position to repeat her actions I'm not sure what the opposition to commuting her sentence would be beyond petty cruelty. And if that's all then it's a flagrant disregard for the principles put forth by our constitution.
If the last person to do it was (in essence) pardoned after being lavished media attention and praise from the public, then hey! You can do it too and get to be a minor celebrity/media darling. In fact, thanks to this idiotic decision I fully expect this sort of treasonous exposing of secrets to pick up.
Six years in prison is nothing now?
If anything, this shows potential whistleblowers that you'd better be in a country unfriendly to the US government when you leak secrets, because Snowden fared best due to fleeing fastest.
Or that whistleblowers should follow the process which exists rather than go outside the process and break the law.
Except we already know that the people following those processes are ostracized at best. They're blacklisted from getting work again, and their concerns are never addressed.
So when people say "fuck it" and leak the details? It's pretty understandable, really.
Again, she didn't "leak the details" She leaked 700,000 documents. She didn't leak the details because there is no way she knew what details she was leaking.
And what did she blow the whistle on? What illegal program or activity did she attempt to bring to light? And just cause I know this will get brought up, she had leaked almost all the Iraq War Docs and Afghan docs before she ever found/saw the Collateral "Murder" video.
(02:12:23 PM) bradass87: so ... it was a massive data spillage ... facilitated by numerous factors ... both physically, technically, and culturally
(02:13:02 PM) bradass87: perfect example of how not to do INFOSEC
(02:14:21 PM) bradass87: listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history [...]
(02:17:56 PM) bradass87: weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis ... a perfect storm [...]
(02:22:47 PM) bradass87: i mean what if i were someone more malicious
(02:23:25 PM) bradass87: i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?
(02:23:36 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: why didn't you?
(02:23:58 PM) bradass87: because it's public data [...]
(02:24:46 PM) bradass87: it belongs in the public domain
(02:25:15 PM) bradass87: Information should be free
Manning was just an Anonymous wannabe with a TS clearance.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
Russia or China would not have released it into the wild. They'd have just sat on it as "kompromat" - a big difference!
+5
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Also that chat log just illustrates how profoundly stupid Manning is, or at least was.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
It's like spraying a machine gun into a crowd because "bullets want to be free," not because you actually want to kill anybody. You're not malicious.
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
The thing with people like Snowden or Manning is they don't understand what whistleblowing is actually about. It's more the "information should be, like free man" ideology. It's why they end up doing what they do, which is just dumping a ton of unedited and non-specific information and hoping someone else does the work for them.
Manning wasn't a whistleblower. She deserved to be punished for what she did, not protected.
What she didn't deserve was the kind of treatment she got though. I'm glad Obama commuted the sentence so at least that heinous shit is over with.
+14
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Also that chat log just illustrates how profoundly stupid Manning is, or at least was.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
It's like spraying a machine gun into a crowd because "bullets want to be free," not because you actually want to kill anybody. You're not malicious.
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
If the concern is release of sensitive information to enemies, there is no difference. Adjectives like "sinister" don't really apply here. <Country of interest> gains access to <classified piece of information>. The end.
In theory, information is classified because damage will be caused if the wrong people get ahold of it. Whether that's through malice and a sale for money, or through wikileaks and made available freely.
You could argue that damage is marginally less only because we know of the release, rather than it potentially going unnoticed for some period of time.
in practice lots of shit is classified because it gives an advantage to your side, or because it being known would damage your PR.
like, the collateral murder video wasn't some super sensitive information that would endanger many if released, it was just an astonishingly bad piece of PR for the US. it was not a threat, it was embarrassing. and the point she makes is that releasing it to the public prevents it from being used as blackmail material, or kompromat as Badger mentions. and ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
i mean, it's fair to say Manning demonstrated bad judgement in giving shit to wikileaks, with it's bad track record on curation, but to be fair at that time it was not so clear that Wikileaks was going to be bad, or was so clearly infiltrated by russian agents.
ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
Also that chat log just illustrates how profoundly stupid Manning is, or at least was.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
It's like spraying a machine gun into a crowd because "bullets want to be free," not because you actually want to kill anybody. You're not malicious.
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
If the concern is release of sensitive information to enemies, there is no difference. Adjectives like "sinister" don't really apply here. <Country of interest> gains access to <classified piece of information>. The end.
In theory, information is classified because damage will be caused if the wrong people get ahold of it. Whether that's through malice and a sale for money, or through wikileaks and made available freely.
You could argue that damage is marginally less only because we know of the release, rather than it potentially going unnoticed for some period of time.
in practice lots of shit is classified because it gives an advantage to your side, or because it being known would damage your PR.
like, the collateral murder video wasn't some super sensitive information that would endanger many if released, it was just an astonishingly bad piece of PR for the US. it was not a threat, it was embarrassing. and the point she makes is that releasing it to the public prevents it from being used as blackmail material, or kompromat as Badger mentions. and ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
i mean, it's fair to say Manning demonstrated bad judgement in giving shit to wikileaks, with it's bad track record on curation, but to be fair at that time it was not so clear that Wikileaks was going to be bad, or was so clearly infiltrated by russian agents.
It was always clear that Wikileaks was nothing but a techno-anarchy shop at best, and that any "curation" would be a joke.
Manning had no idea what she'd released. And didn't care. Again, "bullets want to be free" doesn't unkill the people in the crowd after spray a gun indiscriminately.
Anybody who goes through the clearance process should have known better. Manning just didn't care. It was just a lot of "information wants to be free" bullshit ideological nonsense. Which is why she's lucky to be getting out now, and not rotting for another two decades.
I imagine she has had plenty of time to ponder the morality of what she did. Since she seems to be a writer these days, I suspect we will get some insights into whether she has changed her mind on her actions or would do them again if given the chance.
Also that chat log just illustrates how profoundly stupid Manning is, or at least was.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
It's like spraying a machine gun into a crowd because "bullets want to be free," not because you actually want to kill anybody. You're not malicious.
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
If the concern is release of sensitive information to enemies, there is no difference. Adjectives like "sinister" don't really apply here. <Country of interest> gains access to <classified piece of information>. The end.
In theory, information is classified because damage will be caused if the wrong people get ahold of it. Whether that's through malice and a sale for money, or through wikileaks and made available freely.
You could argue that damage is marginally less only because we know of the release, rather than it potentially going unnoticed for some period of time.
in practice lots of shit is classified because it gives an advantage to your side, or because it being known would damage your PR.
like, the collateral murder video wasn't some super sensitive information that would endanger many if released, it was just an astonishingly bad piece of PR for the US. it was not a threat, it was embarrassing. and the point she makes is that releasing it to the public prevents it from being used as blackmail material, or kompromat as Badger mentions. and ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
i mean, it's fair to say Manning demonstrated bad judgement in giving shit to wikileaks, with it's bad track record on curation, but to be fair at that time it was not so clear that Wikileaks was going to be bad, or was so clearly infiltrated by russian agents.
The Collateral Murder video was a bunch of bullshit and easily demonstrated that Wikileaks was going to be bad. Fucking Stephen Colbert nailed Assange's ass to the wall over it easily. He fully admitted the whole thing was selectively edited for political purposes and that this is what Wikileaks did.
Also that chat log just illustrates how profoundly stupid Manning is, or at least was.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
It's like spraying a machine gun into a crowd because "bullets want to be free," not because you actually want to kill anybody. You're not malicious.
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
If the concern is release of sensitive information to enemies, there is no difference. Adjectives like "sinister" don't really apply here. <Country of interest> gains access to <classified piece of information>. The end.
In theory, information is classified because damage will be caused if the wrong people get ahold of it. Whether that's through malice and a sale for money, or through wikileaks and made available freely.
You could argue that damage is marginally less only because we know of the release, rather than it potentially going unnoticed for some period of time.
in practice lots of shit is classified because it gives an advantage to your side, or because it being known would damage your PR.
like, the collateral murder video wasn't some super sensitive information that would endanger many if released, it was just an astonishingly bad piece of PR for the US. it was not a threat, it was embarrassing. and the point she makes is that releasing it to the public prevents it from being used as blackmail material, or kompromat as Badger mentions. and ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
i mean, it's fair to say Manning demonstrated bad judgement in giving shit to wikileaks, with it's bad track record on curation, but to be fair at that time it was not so clear that Wikileaks was going to be bad, or was so clearly infiltrated by russian agents.
The Collateral Murder video was a bunch of bullshit and easily demonstrated that Wikileaks was going to be bad. Fucking Stephen Colbert nailed Assange's ass to the wall over it easily. He fully admitted the whole thing was selectively edited for political purposes and that this is what Wikileaks did.
"Information should be freeee...so I'm going to edit and crop and selectively release and time my releases and..."
Yeah they don't exactly live up to the name. But she provided the data that led -to- that video so you can't exactly use it as an argument against her judgement.
Also that chat log just illustrates how profoundly stupid Manning is, or at least was.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
It's like spraying a machine gun into a crowd because "bullets want to be free," not because you actually want to kill anybody. You're not malicious.
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
If the concern is release of sensitive information to enemies, there is no difference. Adjectives like "sinister" don't really apply here. <Country of interest> gains access to <classified piece of information>. The end.
In theory, information is classified because damage will be caused if the wrong people get ahold of it. Whether that's through malice and a sale for money, or through wikileaks and made available freely.
You could argue that damage is marginally less only because we know of the release, rather than it potentially going unnoticed for some period of time.
in practice lots of shit is classified because it gives an advantage to your side, or because it being known would damage your PR.
like, the collateral murder video wasn't some super sensitive information that would endanger many if released, it was just an astonishingly bad piece of PR for the US. it was not a threat, it was embarrassing. and the point she makes is that releasing it to the public prevents it from being used as blackmail material, or kompromat as Badger mentions. and ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
i mean, it's fair to say Manning demonstrated bad judgement in giving shit to wikileaks, with it's bad track record on curation, but to be fair at that time it was not so clear that Wikileaks was going to be bad, or was so clearly infiltrated by russian agents.
The Collateral Murder video was a bunch of bullshit and easily demonstrated that Wikileaks was going to be bad. Fucking Stephen Colbert nailed Assange's ass to the wall over it easily. He fully admitted the whole thing was selectively edited for political purposes and that this is what Wikileaks did.
"Information should be freeee...so I'm going to edit and crop and selectively release and time my releases and..."
Yeah they don't exactly live up to the name. But she provided the data that led -to- that video so you can't exactly use it as an argument against her judgement.
Well, we already know she didn't do it because she thought Wikileaks was trustworthy but because she aligned ideologically with them on the issue of state secrecy.
Also that chat log just illustrates how profoundly stupid Manning is, or at least was.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
It's like spraying a machine gun into a crowd because "bullets want to be free," not because you actually want to kill anybody. You're not malicious.
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
If the concern is release of sensitive information to enemies, there is no difference. Adjectives like "sinister" don't really apply here. <Country of interest> gains access to <classified piece of information>. The end.
In theory, information is classified because damage will be caused if the wrong people get ahold of it. Whether that's through malice and a sale for money, or through wikileaks and made available freely.
You could argue that damage is marginally less only because we know of the release, rather than it potentially going unnoticed for some period of time.
in practice lots of shit is classified because it gives an advantage to your side, or because it being known would damage your PR.
like, the collateral murder video wasn't some super sensitive information that would endanger many if released, it was just an astonishingly bad piece of PR for the US. it was not a threat, it was embarrassing. and the point she makes is that releasing it to the public prevents it from being used as blackmail material, or kompromat as Badger mentions. and ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
i mean, it's fair to say Manning demonstrated bad judgement in giving shit to wikileaks, with it's bad track record on curation, but to be fair at that time it was not so clear that Wikileaks was going to be bad, or was so clearly infiltrated by russian agents.
It was always clear that Wikileaks was nothing but a techno-anarchy shop at best, and that any "curation" would be a joke.
Manning had no idea what she'd released. And didn't care. Again, "bullets want to be free" doesn't unkill the people in the crowd after spray a gun indiscriminately.
Anybody who goes through the clearance process should have known better. Manning just didn't care. It was just a lot of "information wants to be free" bullshit ideological nonsense. Which is why she's lucky to be getting out now, and not rotting for another two decades.
I get that you hate whatever this ideology is, but it's besides the point. your bizarre analogy is also besides the point.
and your assertion that it was always clear to everyone that wikileaks would handle the information badly is just an assertion. manning didn't think so, plenty of other people didn't think so. 2010 was a different time, wikileaks honestly hadn't released much of the shit they later got shit for to base your conclusion on.
but that's really also besides the point. because you claimed that releasing the info to wikileaks to be free was the same as selling it to Russia or China (our "enemies"???). It clearly isn't. only Russia or China having that info makes it damaging, everyone having it renders it inert as material to blackmail or embarrass.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Also that chat log just illustrates how profoundly stupid Manning is, or at least was.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
It's like spraying a machine gun into a crowd because "bullets want to be free," not because you actually want to kill anybody. You're not malicious.
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
If the concern is release of sensitive information to enemies, there is no difference. Adjectives like "sinister" don't really apply here. <Country of interest> gains access to <classified piece of information>. The end.
In theory, information is classified because damage will be caused if the wrong people get ahold of it. Whether that's through malice and a sale for money, or through wikileaks and made available freely.
You could argue that damage is marginally less only because we know of the release, rather than it potentially going unnoticed for some period of time.
in practice lots of shit is classified because it gives an advantage to your side, or because it being known would damage your PR.
like, the collateral murder video wasn't some super sensitive information that would endanger many if released, it was just an astonishingly bad piece of PR for the US. it was not a threat, it was embarrassing. and the point she makes is that releasing it to the public prevents it from being used as blackmail material, or kompromat as Badger mentions. and ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
i mean, it's fair to say Manning demonstrated bad judgement in giving shit to wikileaks, with it's bad track record on curation, but to be fair at that time it was not so clear that Wikileaks was going to be bad, or was so clearly infiltrated by russian agents.
The Collateral Murder video was a bunch of bullshit and easily demonstrated that Wikileaks was going to be bad. Fucking Stephen Colbert nailed Assange's ass to the wall over it easily. He fully admitted the whole thing was selectively edited for political purposes and that this is what Wikileaks did.
this is also hella besides the point, and as mentioned she couldn't possibly have access to that knowledge if time is still flowing the way it has always done.
but yes, wikileaks did make it clear that they made an edit to point out how unarmed civilians were shot and people helping the wounded were also shot.
Also that chat log just illustrates how profoundly stupid Manning is, or at least was.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
It's like spraying a machine gun into a crowd because "bullets want to be free," not because you actually want to kill anybody. You're not malicious.
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
If the concern is release of sensitive information to enemies, there is no difference. Adjectives like "sinister" don't really apply here. <Country of interest> gains access to <classified piece of information>. The end.
In theory, information is classified because damage will be caused if the wrong people get ahold of it. Whether that's through malice and a sale for money, or through wikileaks and made available freely.
You could argue that damage is marginally less only because we know of the release, rather than it potentially going unnoticed for some period of time.
in practice lots of shit is classified because it gives an advantage to your side, or because it being known would damage your PR.
like, the collateral murder video wasn't some super sensitive information that would endanger many if released, it was just an astonishingly bad piece of PR for the US. it was not a threat, it was embarrassing. and the point she makes is that releasing it to the public prevents it from being used as blackmail material, or kompromat as Badger mentions. and ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
i mean, it's fair to say Manning demonstrated bad judgement in giving shit to wikileaks, with it's bad track record on curation, but to be fair at that time it was not so clear that Wikileaks was going to be bad, or was so clearly infiltrated by russian agents.
The Collateral Murder video was a bunch of bullshit and easily demonstrated that Wikileaks was going to be bad. Fucking Stephen Colbert nailed Assange's ass to the wall over it easily. He fully admitted the whole thing was selectively edited for political purposes and that this is what Wikileaks did.
this is also hella besides the point, and as mentioned she couldn't possibly have access to that knowledge if time is still flowing the way it has always done.
but yes, wikileaks did make it clear that they made an edit to point out how unarmed civilians were shot and people helping the wounded were also shot.
"Information should be freeee...so I'm going to edit and crop and selectively release and time my releases and..."
For the record: The full unedited footage was also released and is available on the web. It's 40 minutes long though, and mostly boring.
No, they made it clear they were selectively editing footage to achieve "maximum possible political impact". This entirely the point. This is the key point. And given that Assange flat out states that this is "the promise that we make to our sources", the idea that she didn't know at the time is also bullshit.
She leaked a pile of information to a guy who told her that, yes, we will use this information for our own political ends.
This is not whistleblowing. This is leaking classified intel to create political propaganda. This is no different then the GWB Admin's Valerie Plame bullshit.
+2
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Much like the housing meltdown, techno-anarchists being techno-anarchists was as obvious is foresight as it is in hindsight. I was alive in 2010. It was obvious in 2010. That not everybody cared to see this is their fault.
not all techno-anarchists are irresponsible crazies. for the record, I don't think there was that much harm done by the release of the manning documents. but i mentioned the point explicitly granting that it may have been bad judgement, I just think that it doesn't make her "profoundly stupid".
+1
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Also that chat log just illustrates how profoundly stupid Manning is, or at least was.
If she were "someone more malicious" she could have sold the information to Russia or China. But instead she releases it to wikileaks so it can "be free"....and Russia and China get it regardless. Same outcome!
It's like spraying a machine gun into a crowd because "bullets want to be free," not because you actually want to kill anybody. You're not malicious.
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
If the concern is release of sensitive information to enemies, there is no difference. Adjectives like "sinister" don't really apply here. <Country of interest> gains access to <classified piece of information>. The end.
In theory, information is classified because damage will be caused if the wrong people get ahold of it. Whether that's through malice and a sale for money, or through wikileaks and made available freely.
You could argue that damage is marginally less only because we know of the release, rather than it potentially going unnoticed for some period of time.
in practice lots of shit is classified because it gives an advantage to your side, or because it being known would damage your PR.
like, the collateral murder video wasn't some super sensitive information that would endanger many if released, it was just an astonishingly bad piece of PR for the US. it was not a threat, it was embarrassing. and the point she makes is that releasing it to the public prevents it from being used as blackmail material, or kompromat as Badger mentions. and ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
i mean, it's fair to say Manning demonstrated bad judgement in giving shit to wikileaks, with it's bad track record on curation, but to be fair at that time it was not so clear that Wikileaks was going to be bad, or was so clearly infiltrated by russian agents.
The Collateral Murder video was a bunch of bullshit and easily demonstrated that Wikileaks was going to be bad. Fucking Stephen Colbert nailed Assange's ass to the wall over it easily. He fully admitted the whole thing was selectively edited for political purposes and that this is what Wikileaks did.
this is also hella besides the point, and as mentioned she couldn't possibly have access to that knowledge if time is still flowing the way it has always done.
but yes, wikileaks did make it clear that they made an edit to point out how unarmed civilians were shot and people helping the wounded were also shot.
"Information should be freeee...so I'm going to edit and crop and selectively release and time my releases and..."
For the record: The full unedited footage was also released and is available on the web. It's 40 minutes long though, and mostly boring.
No, they made it clear they were selectively editing footage to achieve "maximum possible political impact". This entirely the point. This is the key point. And given that Assange flat out states that this is "the promise that we make to our sources", the idea that she didn't know at the time is also bullshit.
She leaked a pile of information to a guy who told her that, yes, we will use this information for our own political ends.
This is not whistleblowing. This is leaking classified intel to create political propaganda. This is no different then the GWB Admin's Valerie Plame bullshit.
whistleblowing is a political act. manning certainly knew she was committing a political act. to paraphrase her words, she wanted to "show the true costs of war".
to label it as propaganda is absurd though, unless you call any action to highlight a point propaganda.
like unless you show how their edit was deceptive or misleading you seem to have no point. your rephrasing of my sentence is not contra my sentence, it is just saying the same thing in different words.
Posts
Citation for your reasoning that Manning's release is because she's popular with the left please. Obama has historically taken a hard stance against leaks regardless of who's making them.
And then I guess citation for your belief that long prison sentences deter people seeking attention and that Manning is narcissistic. Nobody commits a crime thinking they'll get caught. Nor do I consider seven or so years a light sentence.
I would contend that Obama released her not because he's a huge fan but rather because she's routinely expressed remorse. Obama also doesn't have a hard on for wasting tax dollars needlessly imprisoning people.
Except we already know that the people following those processes are ostracized at best. They're blacklisted from getting work again, and their concerns are never addressed.
So when people say "fuck it" and leak the details? It's pretty understandable, really.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
Again, she didn't "leak the details" She leaked 700,000 documents. She didn't leak the details because there is no way she knew what details she was leaking.
And what did she blow the whistle on? What illegal program or activity did she attempt to bring to light? And just cause I know this will get brought up, she had leaked almost all the Iraq War Docs and Afghan docs before she ever found/saw the Collateral "Murder" video.
I mean read the her chat logs with Lamo
Manning was just an Anonymous wannabe with a TS clearance.
Russia or China would not have released it into the wild. They'd have just sat on it as "kompromat" - a big difference!
I would say a US person giving information directly to Russia/China seems a lot more sinister than releasing it publically.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Manning wasn't a whistleblower. She deserved to be punished for what she did, not protected.
What she didn't deserve was the kind of treatment she got though. I'm glad Obama commuted the sentence so at least that heinous shit is over with.
in practice lots of shit is classified because it gives an advantage to your side, or because it being known would damage your PR.
like, the collateral murder video wasn't some super sensitive information that would endanger many if released, it was just an astonishingly bad piece of PR for the US. it was not a threat, it was embarrassing. and the point she makes is that releasing it to the public prevents it from being used as blackmail material, or kompromat as Badger mentions. and ideally open-government advocates like wikileaks curate their material so as to avoid actual security damage. (e.g. one would not release information compromising an undercover operator in a terrorist cell or something.)
i mean, it's fair to say Manning demonstrated bad judgement in giving shit to wikileaks, with it's bad track record on curation, but to be fair at that time it was not so clear that Wikileaks was going to be bad, or was so clearly infiltrated by russian agents.
Boy, that's a funny one!
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I imagine she has had plenty of time to ponder the morality of what she did. Since she seems to be a writer these days, I suspect we will get some insights into whether she has changed her mind on her actions or would do them again if given the chance.
The Collateral Murder video was a bunch of bullshit and easily demonstrated that Wikileaks was going to be bad. Fucking Stephen Colbert nailed Assange's ass to the wall over it easily. He fully admitted the whole thing was selectively edited for political purposes and that this is what Wikileaks did.
"Information should be freeee...so I'm going to edit and crop and selectively release and time my releases and..."
Yeah they don't exactly live up to the name. But she provided the data that led -to- that video so you can't exactly use it as an argument against her judgement.
Well, we already know she didn't do it because she thought Wikileaks was trustworthy but because she aligned ideologically with them on the issue of state secrecy.
I get that you hate whatever this ideology is, but it's besides the point. your bizarre analogy is also besides the point.
and your assertion that it was always clear to everyone that wikileaks would handle the information badly is just an assertion. manning didn't think so, plenty of other people didn't think so. 2010 was a different time, wikileaks honestly hadn't released much of the shit they later got shit for to base your conclusion on.
but that's really also besides the point. because you claimed that releasing the info to wikileaks to be free was the same as selling it to Russia or China (our "enemies"???). It clearly isn't. only Russia or China having that info makes it damaging, everyone having it renders it inert as material to blackmail or embarrass.
this is also hella besides the point, and as mentioned she couldn't possibly have access to that knowledge if time is still flowing the way it has always done.
but yes, wikileaks did make it clear that they made an edit to point out how unarmed civilians were shot and people helping the wounded were also shot.
For the record: The full unedited footage was also released and is available on the web. It's 40 minutes long though, and mostly boring.
No, they made it clear they were selectively editing footage to achieve "maximum possible political impact". This entirely the point. This is the key point. And given that Assange flat out states that this is "the promise that we make to our sources", the idea that she didn't know at the time is also bullshit.
She leaked a pile of information to a guy who told her that, yes, we will use this information for our own political ends.
This is not whistleblowing. This is leaking classified intel to create political propaganda. This is no different then the GWB Admin's Valerie Plame bullshit.
not all techno-anarchists are irresponsible crazies. for the record, I don't think there was that much harm done by the release of the manning documents. but i mentioned the point explicitly granting that it may have been bad judgement, I just think that it doesn't make her "profoundly stupid".
whistleblowing is a political act. manning certainly knew she was committing a political act. to paraphrase her words, she wanted to "show the true costs of war".
to label it as propaganda is absurd though, unless you call any action to highlight a point propaganda.
like unless you show how their edit was deceptive or misleading you seem to have no point. your rephrasing of my sentence is not contra my sentence, it is just saying the same thing in different words.
(also all editing is selective.)