(no subject)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Comments

[i.livejournal.com]

Claiming the US has no case against Manning is silly.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

We condemn him for telling the truth about our killing and lies, which was clearly against the rules.

[i.livejournal.com]

He's not a bad guy. That's not the point. Obama should pardon him. That's not the point either. He committed at the very least the crimes he has pled guilty to, and will be convicted.

[trog.livejournal.com]

Exposing the criminal activity of government should not be a crime.

[i.livejournal.com]

Assuming that anything he exposed was actually against the law, you are correct. He exposed far more that was decidedly not against any laws. He definitely committed treasonous acts and has admitted so.

[american-geist.livejournal.com]

Whether you agree or not with what he did, there really isn't any doubt that he did it, or that it was illegal. Fish has been straining lately.

[catlin.livejournal.com]

The question falls under the idea that you should have a right to betray a secret, if that secret is wrong.

[american-geist.livejournal.com]

Right. But it's not about whether it's moral or not, it's whether he broke the law, which he clearly did. There is no statute in the law that says you can use your security clearance to leak state department cables if you find it morally compelling to do so.

Of course, the justice department could have decided not to prosecute him as whistleblower, but that's entirely different from claiming that there is no case against him, as there clearly is. (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/army-manning-hearing/)

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

There's also the problem that, along with releasing what can VERY arguably be seen as whistleblowing a notable issue that the Department of Defense needs to address, he released a bunch of tangential information that was not suspect and caused potential security risks. My understanding is that some of the cables he provided in the infodump named middle eastern informants, for example.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Right. I have always had trouble considering Manning or much of the Wikileaks project for that matter to be actual "whistleblowing". Whistleblowers have historically been people who have actual knowledge of wrongdoing going public with the proof of it. If Manning had done this or if Wikileaks had been encouraging REAL whistleblowers to come forward and use the site as a means of putting their information out there, I'd be applauding.

Grabbing everything you can and making it public with no discernment between that which is legitimately secret that which is merely embarrassing and that which is criminal does not fit the bill in my opinion. It is far more in the vein of the belief that nothing should ever be secret which is simply not the same as whistleblowing.