Yeah, it’s wonderful how through his own actions Assange has managed to turn Wikileaks’ public perception from a brave little fighter against corruption into an agency of the corrupt.
I agree with most (everyone?) in this thread.
I just would not compare a whistleblower do to crashing a car while drunk. What a whistleblower do is a service to the community, while what a drunk in a car do is a disservice.
Putting whislebowers in jail is basically the death of Socrates.
Socrates was accused of a crime that maybe was not inocent, and sentenced to dead. He was able to avoid it, but he still took it, because his stance was “the law is the law”. Withouth law, there can’t be justice. With the law sometimes theres no justice, but we still obey the law so we can have a society. The alternative is to escape from society and live like a god or a animal, in the wild. But accepting the law is part of the social contract.
It happens in a backstabbing unit. Those units get a lot better once you get a culture change- usually from a new commander or Chief.
The NCO’s job is to improve the people they supervise, not to use them to try and gain rank. My time in the military was mostly good, except for a few months when I was in one of those units. People were volunteering to go to Korea just to get out of that unit.
This is a perfectly valid view point on him and one shared by most of the government, including I suspect Obama.
I am a retired E-7 with 23 years of experience. I have seen and been in many units that had problems. An NCO punishing people to make a name for themselves was never the problem (not saying it doesn’t happen, but there are usually bigger problems that are the cause). That sounds like an excuse made by the people getting punished to me.
If I had an airman who made a mistake with classified data due to their own laziness/neglect and I let it go with just a warning, that could show others that the unit doesn’t take classified material seriously. If others start being lazy, it could snowball into a larger problem. It depends on the circumstances of course, but 99.9% of NCOs aren’t punishing someone just to make themselves look good. The punishment needs to fit the crime as well, obviously.
Oh, I believe you might be right- but I saw it, but I was in a pretty rotten unit with some major problems the first couple of years I was there- the last year it got a lot better when new command came in.
Outside of that one shitbag who was protected by a bigger shitbag chief, every other person in my unit was quality, and one of them would be the only Republican I’d ever vote for (I fully expect him to end up in the Utah state legislature when he gets out)
Its a little known fact, but I strictly respond only to post number 48, of any thread.
For your future reference.
In the seven years since WikiLeaks published the largest leak of classified documents in history, the federal government has said they caused enormous damage to national security.
But a secret, 107-page report, prepared by a Department of Defense task force and newly obtained by BuzzFeed News, tells a starkly different story: It says the disclosures were largely insignificant and did not cause any real harm to US interests.
Regarding the hundreds of thousands of Iraq-related military documents and State Department cables provided by the Army private Chelsea Manning, the report assessed “with high confidence that disclosure of the Iraq data set will have no direct personal impact on current and former U.S. leadership in Iraq.”
The report also determined that a different set of documents published the same year, relating to the US war in Afghanistan, would not result in “significant impact” to US operations. It did, however, have the potential to cause “serious damage” to “intelligence sources, informants and the Afghan population,” and US and NATO intelligence collection efforts. The most significant impact of the leaks, the report concluded, would likely be on the lives of “cooperative Afghans, Iraqis, and other foreign interlocutors.”
I am shocked—shocked—to find that leaking is going on in here!
But let us admit that Buzzfeed is perhaps not the most reliable of sources.
What I always pointed out is that it doesn’t really matter if Manning’s leaks caused harm, because Manning had ZERO idea what he was leaking. He just leaked a massive amount of data, with the sole goal of causing harm (coupled with a desire for personal glory).
Also, if I was incorrect in calling manning “he”, I dunno what the protocol is, since she was a he when it happened. It’s kind of beside the point, and not meant as some intentional slight.
Agreed. It’s great that there may not be any actual harm to the US, but when Manning first dumped these documents, he didn’t know or care what specifically was in them.
For those, like @Timex, genuinely wondering what standard protocol is for pronoun usage for past actions of a trans individual. For the reader-averse, SOP is to use their stated-preferred identification for all conversation, past or present reference.
The protocol is to use current pronouns or current names in that situation. Edit: Damn it, Armando!
Makes sense. Same reason you would say “Marie Curie was born in 1867” even though her name was different when she was born.
It makes sense, but it still feels off when referring to historical events and the names of the people at the time they were involved in those events. Especially for people famous for an event who later change.
Like say Bruce Jenner. It feels wrong to say “Caitlyn Jenner won the gold medal in the decathlon in the 1976 Olympic Games.”
I try, but it always feels wrong and inaccurate.
It’s about consideration for the person, not whether it feels right or wrong.
That said, historical stuff can be viewed in a different context. I’ve had to learn some of this stuff through very worthwhile experience.
What if we think she’s a dickhead for leaking classified material without good reason?
Does it feel wrong to say, “Muhammad Ali won the gold medal in boxing in the 1960 Olympic Games”?
This is a very good argument.
I’ve met some whistleblowers in my time.