Chelsea Manning sentence commuted


#61

So she betrayed all of them, and endangered then all? She’s a worthless piece of shit.

Manning is not, in any sense, a whistleblower. Not even close.


#62

The government should be arresting document leakers! I legally singed a contract to protect the information given to me, if I break that oath, the government should do everything in their powers to arrest me. Assange doesn’t give a shit what he leaks, he recently doxed almost every woman in Turkey. He does not care, he’s not some hero out to stop government injustice. He used Manning for his own fame.


#63

So the leak by Manning did not lead to any new information for the public? Or was it just that none of the information was the kind of information you think should be leaked?


#64

It may have, but that was not her intention. She was trying to get attention. She didn’t sort through any of the information, she just copied everything she had access to and gave it to Assange.


#65

So if you don’t intend to be a whistleblower, you don’t count as a whistleblower, even if the result to everyone except yourself is the same? I mean, I can certainly see a logical basis for that argument, but I don’t know why it would matter.


#66

Of course not. Haphazardly releasing classified documents that someone might have found useful does not make you a whistle-blower. If he genuinely wanted to be a whistle-blower he could have read the documents, edited them, and then gave them to a trusted source (like a journalist).

There is really little doubt Wikileaks is about being a whistle-blower at this point. They are after fame and fortune. They did not use Manning for his info, but for the attention it would get them (and possible a paycheck from the enemies of the US).


#67

I completely agree that WikiLeaks has gone completely to the dark side at this point. They have way too much of an agenda to claim any sort of non-bias anymore.


#68

Anymore? Why do you think they ever had any credibility?


#69

At one point their apparent agenda was to release information that the government and people in power were hiding from us for nefarious purposes. That is no longer the case. Now they are cherry picking data and getting on a bullhorn trying to influence us.

You seriously can’t tell that there’s been a shift in the way they operate? My old, conservative friends were literally calling for hit squads on Assange around the time of Manning. Now he’s the hero of info wars. Bit of a shift.


#70

Leaking information does not make you a whistleblower.

Snowden is an example of a whistleblower. He knew of something being done which he felt was illegal and wrong, and he then released information to prove it. He knew exactly what information he was releasing, and it was a purposeful act to expose a specific act of wrongdoing he believed to have taken place. This is what a whistleblower is.

Manning did none of that. He released a mountain of data, without even knowing what its contents were. He was not whistleblowing anything.

This is basically because Manning is a complete imbecile. She is not a bright person, and behaved like an idiot.


#71

We don’t know who was paying them then or now. They never really showed any intent to do good, they just said they were trying to do so. I am not sure anything they released did anything but cause more tension in the world. They certainly were acting against the US while ignoring pretty much every other government that does fucked up things (is Russia’s cyber security really good or they just an all around honest government?).

Wikileaks agenda didn’t shift, your friends (and mine) shifted. Before it was “They hate America,” but since they helped Trump win, today, they are ok with it. Wikileaks didn’t change, your friends did.


#72

After Manning was convicted, a man was convicted of rape and was out of jail within three months.

Another person got drunk, got behind the wheel, killed four people, was convicted, and didn’t get sentenced to jail at all. That was considered so outrageous that another judge reviewed the case… and sentenced him to two years.

What Manning did may have been stupid, but it was not as bad as rape. It doesn’t even come close to killing multiple innocent people from behind the wheel. And I think she’s been punished enough for her stupidity.


#73

[quote=“Timex, post:70, topic:128062, full:true”]
Manning did none of that. He released a mountain of data, without even knowing what its contents were. He was not whistleblowing anything.[/quote]

Manning’s accompanying readme.txt to the Iraq War logs:

Between March and April in 2010 she also looked for videos (including the collateral murder video) to also give to Wikileaks. Human beings are complicated, she is capable of believing the Afghanistan/Iraq wars contained alot of horrific things that people should know about, as well as enjoy the fact that she felt like she could be herself with her Wikileaks contact at the same time.

She also contacted the New York Times and The Washington Post to see if they were interested before giving anything to Wikileaks.


#74

I don’t disagree, but treason is a serious crime as well. Also military members fall into an entirely different set of laws than civilians. The UCMJ can be pretty harsh. As I said above, mishandling classified information is a very serious offense that results in severe punishment. This is why my old military friends hated Hillary even more so than they already did. The common argument I saw from my old coworkers is that if an Airman did what Hillary did with her email, they could very well be put in jail for it (they aren’t wrong). Mishandling classified information in the military is a serious offense.


#75

And yet she still released thousands of documents that had no relevance.

As well as source data that was sanitized to protect herself, not others.


#76

Going through thousands of documents is hard, it’s often impossible for a single individual to know if something is relevant or not and whether there is information in there that could endanger someone. So should nothing be leaked ever? That is probably going to be your view, but I feel like this is where the publisher has to step in and process the information and decide on the appropriate way to release it.

As far as I know that’s how it’s usually done. Wikileaks is a thorough and reputable publisher right?


#77

It’s almost like you shouldn’t just shit out everything you can get your hands on. Wild.


#78

Well, since her life depended on it, maybe she should have thought it through a bit more or taken the time to go through it?

And, as your sarcasm acknowledges, Wikileaks was probably the last group she wanted to give it to if she wanted to do any good with it. I am biased, but I don’t ever remember feeling they were ever a trustworthy source. They were never known for being responsible despite their cries of “we’re just journalists!”

I am not saying there is no place for whistle-blowers in the military, I am saying there is a way to go about it, and going to an anti-US entity is probably not the best way. You should probably also scrub the info extremely carefully for obvious reasons. If you are doing it because Assange seems nice, you might want to rethink it.


#79

[quote=“LeeAbe, post:78, topic:128062, full:true”]And, as your sarcasm acknowledges, Wikileaks was probably the last group she wanted to give it to if she wanted to do any good with it. I am biased, but I don’t ever remember feeling they were ever a trustworthy source. They were never known for being responsible despite their cries of “we’re just journalists!”
[/quote]

Wikileaks are far from an even-handed publisher of sensitive information, but where we will never agree is that I believe strongly they did do alot of good with the Iraq and Afghanistan War logs. I am not American, so I don’t have to salute your flag, maybe that makes it easier for me.

It was said perfectly earlier in the thread, “alot of people could have gotten killed!”. They didn’t though, unlike the 160k+ of innocent people who were killed and documented in these war logs. I don’t see anyone going to jail for those actual murders, and I think that’s why I will never understand anyone who wants Manning to serve more time than she already has.


#80

Manning was charged with aiding the enemy, but was acquitted. So she didn’t commit treason.

Last August, a Coast Guardsman was court-martialed for rape. He was sentenced to seven years in Chesapeake.

Shortly before Manning was convicted, a naval officer got drunk, got in the car with four passengers, and ended up killing two of his passengers in a crash. A third passenger was paralyzed. He was court-martialed for homicide. He was sentenced to six years.

The UCMJ may be harsh, but it should nevertheless be proportionate. And I still think Manning has been punished enough.