Bradley manning, hero or villian?

[Vegosiux]

Well then, feel free to say why exactly him being upset about those being compromised is comparable to him being upset about being caught committing a crime.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. You are not entitled to me explaining anything for your benefit. So far I am still giving you the benefit of doubt that you're honestly interested in what I actually think, and not, say, trying to get more words out of me that you can misinterpret.

But, whence, you ask, the analogy?

Well, he's upset at the person who pointed out an act that potentially endangers people instead of the person(s) who actually committed the act that potentially endangers people.

I could have also made the analogy of doing something behind your spouse's back you know she wouldn't like, then when you get dumped, you blame whoever told her what you did.

Or the analogy of cheating on a test, then blaming the supervising teacher when you get a negative grade.

Or the analogy of driving getting caught speeding, and blaming the cops for the fact you have to pay a fine.

Oh any other analogy of misdirected anger.

 

[Veylon]

Just out of curiosity: whose bright idea was is to let this guy have access to all of our secret information, anyway? I mean, we're not talking about General Manning or even Sergeant Manning, we're talking about Private Manning. Why did he have access to all these secrets to begin with?

For all we know, every random enlisted guy in a similar position sold out his country for piles of foreign currency except him, who gave it all up for free. I feel pretty sure that there's a few somebodies with bags full of rubles and won who are upset about dirty rotten traitor Manning bringing about the derailment of their gravy train by making their access worthless.

 

[Vegosiux]

Right, except you unless you're calling those things mentioned crimes, then your analogy is failing since the anger is properly directed unless you can show he HAD to compromise those as well to show crimes.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that follows. Also, are you asking me to show objective necessity? Because if you're doing that, you and I both know you're using a rather cheap tactic. And if you're not asking me to show objective necessity, you will need to accept any justification from any feasible perspective as valid.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'm asking you to show that it was needed to display the crimes. I'm not sure what perspective has to do with that, either they are needed to show it or they are not. I'm not talking about the necessity of showing the crimes, I'm talking about what was necessary to be able to show them. Or hell, even useful to help show them.

Again, needed according to whom? If you asked the man himself, he'd likely tell you it had to be done and that's why he did it.

That's what I mean when I am talking perspective and "objective necessity" which is something you know a consensus on cannot exist.

 

[YicklePigeon]

Too many have either turned a blind eye to or done heinous crimes throughout the history of humankind, citing "we were only following orders", however, those of good conscience simply cannot do that all the time. Pvt. Manning had two options: be a mindless drone who sleeps with the US flag or expose the atrocities of the US government.

He was not a villain or a hero, instead he was being vigilant in the face of those who would clothe themselves in good deeds.

 

[Balimaar]

What makes the U.S. so damn special? There's nothing we do that justifies the war crimes Manning exposes. If anything, the fact that our government is willing to do such atrocities shows it is they who deserve contempt. This type of fanatic nationalism is what leads to dictatorships. Do you really want to pave the way for this generations Fascist party?

The US has been getting away with it for at least 67 years 11 months and 27 days.

Just out of curiosity: whose bright idea was is to let this guy have access to all of our secret information, anyway? I mean, we're not talking about General Manning or even Sergeant Manning, we're talking about Private Manning. Why did he have access to all these secrets to begin with?

For all we know, every random enlisted guy in a similar position sold out his country for piles of foreign currency except him, who gave it all up for free. I feel pretty sure that there's a few somebodies with bags full of rubles and won who are upset about dirty rotten traitor Manning bringing about the derailment of their gravy train by making their access worthless.

Now THAT is a good question!

 

[Vegosiux]

Why do you insist it must be according to anyone? Had to be done does not explain why all the information released was relevant to crimes.

Because I suspect you are asking me to "indisputably, objectively" show how it had be done, in a way that any rational person would have to conclude that it indeed had to be done. And you know there is no such consensus since interpretations of the incident differ vastly from person to person. And I suspect that you're trying to play that card in order to undermine my analogy that talked about misplaced anger, yet you're desperately struggling with a misdirection in order to make it look like I meant it to be about crime

Actually, yes, objective necessity can exist. When we're talking about what is necessary to achieve a certain goal, set within certain parameters. Like you're given a ton of information, how much do you need to release to reveal crimes? All of it? That the President drank a glass of water on Tuesday would not be relevant, for example. We can objectively rule that out. We can look at each diplomatic cable and see if it actually involves a crime for instance. If it's just diplomats keeping information of policy or intent from people, well guess what? That's not a crime, it doesn't need to be released. You're muddying the issue more than it really is.

You know what? Maybe you should just go tit for tat with your government. You're entitled to know about all the phone calls and dinner dates of your government officials if they feel entitled to record yours. Which, according to another whistleblower, they seem to.

 

[Vegosiux]

What makes the U.S. so damn special? There's nothing we do that justifies the war crimes Manning exposes. If anything, the fact that our government is willing to do such atrocities shows it is they who deserve contempt. This type of fanatic nationalism is what leads to dictatorships. Do you really want to pave the way for this generations Fascist party?

The US has been getting away with it for at least 67 years 11 months and 27 days.

Which is...not that long, is it? I mean...sure the historical cycles are shortened as spread of information gets faster and faster, but just short of 70 years isn't a long time to be getting away with anything, if you look back at most historical powers.

 

[Vegosiux]

Suspect away, it isn't true. I'm just asking that you show that those things had to be compromised as well to reveal all the crimes. The anger is not misplaced if he didn't need to compromise those as well. I'm asking you to show that it is misplaced by showing that all he did was the equivalent of revealing crimes. It's the difference between telling someone's wife they cheated on her, and telling someone's wife they cheated on her then telling everyone at work what porn sites he's visited at home.

If you do that you might be a bit of a dick. But the other guy still cheated on his wife and trying to misdirect from that by going "Hey, that guy is a dick!"

But, this changes the initial situation a bit. If the anger is directed not at the act of revealing information itself, but the scope of such an act, arguments are different. From the post I quoted, it was not clear which one it was.

Is that even supposed to be a serious position or just a joke? There are plenty of valid reasons for them to not divulge all that information. Just saying "While they do it to us!" looks just like you're deciding to just say ridiculous things at me because you're displeased.

It's kind of halfway between the two, leaning on the serious side. While I don't seriously expect anything like that has any chance to happen, I maintain the position that information should be subject to equivalent exchange too. If an entity expects me to divulge information an trust the with it, they need to show some willingness to do the same. If they outright spy on me, I'll get cranky. To use one of my favorite game quotes; Beware of him who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

So why I don't seriously think there's grounds for a full disclosure, I also think that if they go and spy on people, they might as well disclose what they're doing with all that information.

 

[ecoho]

I think hes an idiot nothing more nothing less. yes what he exposed was well, bad would be an understatement but he did it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. If he actually cared he would have approached a congressman who would then have the events investigated and the appropriate punishments would have taken place, instead he goes and just flaunts the info to everyone so that everyone knows hes the one who blew the whistle.(and before someone chimes in with the whole "the government would just hide this and not do anything" please go watch the news for 10 mins cause politicians turn on each other like ravenous sharks when they see blood in the water.)

 

[jpoon]

Glad he did it, at least some have the balls to speak out against the utter bullshit the military is doing out there. Not a criminal, not a villain at all. Just an american that's has the guts to put his own life in the crossfire. We need more like him.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

This here is a mess. I don't think governments should have to keep secrets in the first place, apart from, y'know, future plans that will not cause the deaths of any innocent people. The government keeps these things secret because they know it'd upset the public if they knew, which is precisely the reason why they shouldn't be happening at all. It's not right. In fact, I think it's a little childish. I think that the only secrets should ones that are actually kept for the sake of the people, not ones that are just kept for the sake of covering up what the military and government have done.

This guy isn't a villain at all. As things stand, I think hero's a bit of a strong word, but he is something along those lines.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

He did what was right. I understand the response by the United States government against him, in that all governments try to protect their sensitive documents. However, it's too bad they have responded in that way.

 

[YicklePigeon]

I think hes an idiot nothing more nothing less. yes what he exposed was well, bad would be an understatement but he did it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. If he actually cared he would have approached a congressman who would then have the events investigated and the appropriate punishments would have taken place, instead he goes and just flaunts the info to everyone so that everyone knows hes the one who blew the whistle.(and before someone chimes in with the whole "the government would just hide this and not do anything" please go watch the news for 10 mins cause politicians turn on each other like ravenous sharks when they see blood in the water.)

Pvt. Manning had contacted The New York Times (incidentally the same paper that ran the Pentagon Papers), Politico and The Washington Post before going to Wikileaks (source The Huffington Post, 28th February 2013 [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bradley-manning-ny-times-washington-post-politico-wikileaks_n_2782539.html]).

Further, Pvt. Manning didn't flaunt the information so that everyone knew it was him. Instead, he had asked for help from a former hacker who turned him in (source: New York Times, 7th June 2010 [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/world/08leaks.html?ref=bradleyemanning]). That's right, this has been going on for more than three years.

Additionally, no politician in their right mind (assuming they have one) would investigate the "great US military complex" with it's rape culture, homophobia, that it commits mindless atrocities and with all that money invested in it (oh and the many private contractors also)... so to investigate on the word of a Private who could only prove he was right by leaking classified material? If I was in Pvt. Manning's position, I wouldn't have went that route either and, indeed, would have went to the press as well.

And this [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?ref=world] is a link to the New York Times' article on that particular video.