Wikileaks traitor withering away

[Infohawk]

They very well could be. No, I don't think Bush is a great guy but he should go to trial for any crimes not just be punished or judged guilty from the start just like everyone else. Some former hacker who went to jail himself and is a known glory seeker claiming they have a confession doesn't mean shit.

It's normal for people to be held before trial. Justice is not instantaneous. Sounds like you shouldn't be judging George Bush. After all it could very well be that everything you've heard about him is a fabrication.

 

[Throckmorton]

Is the only thing you're leaking Woody Harrelson's private information? If so then no that leak isn't justified. If however that information is part of evidence of crimes and corruption then yes that leak is justified.

The leaks were thousands of pages of unrelated information. There was no reason for everything to be leaked.

 

[fed3r2198]

The leaks were thousands of pages of unrelated information. There was no reason for everything to be leaked.

Unrelated to what?

 

[JSt0rm]

Unrelated to what?

unrelated to Throckmorton's view of right and wrong.

 

[pcgeek11]

Unrelated to what?

To each other....

 

[fed3r2198]

It's normal for people to be held before trial. Justice is not instantaneous. Sounds like you shouldn't be judging George Bush. After all it could very well be that everything you've heard about him is a fabrication.

I said nothing about his being held before a trial. And feel free to point out what I judged Bush guilty of, where I said he should be punished without a trial?

 

[dali71]

95% of what is said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

 

[Infohawk]

I said nothing about his being held before a trial. And feel free to point out what I judged Bush guilty of, where I said he should be punished without a trial?

I didn't say you think he should be punished without a trial. Is said you passed judgment on him, which you did when you said he's not a good guy. Really people are doing the same thing about Manning that you are doing to Bush. Passing judgment based on commonly-accepted facts.

 

[fed3r2198]

I didn't say you think he should be punished without a trial. Is said you passed judgment on him, which you did when you said he's not a good guy. Really people are doing the same thing about Manning that you are doing to Bush. Passing judgment based on commonly-accepted facts.

Uh, if someone doesn't like Manning as a person I really don't care one way or the other.

 

[Craig234]

The leaks were thousands of pages of unrelated information. There was no reason for everything to be leaked.

Remember, it ended up in the hands of an organization *who filters what it releases*.

The reason a small percent of the leaked documents has reached the public is because they are being gone over by teams of journalists the Wikileaks team is setting up (and not by the ones they offered the government the chance to set up as well, which the government declined). So NOT 'everything was leaked' to the public.

There were hundreds of thousands of pages at least - did you expect one person to review them all and censor each sensitive bit?

That's completely impractical. He *did not leak all the documents straight to the public, much less to an 'enemy'.*.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Remember, it ended up in the hands of an organization *who filters what it releases*.

The reason a small percent of the leaked documents has reached the public is because they are being gone over by teams of journalists the Wikileaks team is setting up (and not by the ones they offered the government the chance to set up as well, which the government declined). So NOT 'everything was leaked' to the public.

There were hundreds of thousands of pages at least - did you expect one person to review them all and censor each sensitive bit?

That's completely impractical. He *did not leak all the documents straight to the public, much less to an 'enemy'.*.

This is such a fucking idiocy, you are swallowing every fucking drop of their shit without question.

You are wrong.

 

[xj0hnx]

That's completely impractical. He *did not leak all the documents straight to the public, much less to an 'enemy'.*.

It doesn't matter if he leaked them to the public, Wikileaks, or Islamshortguy himself, he leaked classified documents, and that is what he is accused of. Your's, or anyone else's personal feelings about whether the information inside the documents should have been released or not is completely, 100% irrelevant.

 

[Craig234]

pathetic

I'll explain this again for you, dali, since you need a lot of help.

On the issue, the question, of whether the right here has valid points or not when they say things about the left, rather than a pissing match of fact-free assertions, I am providing *data* with the dozens and dozens of times I cite specific examples of how they nearly always are wrong.

A valid response is to say "Craig234, you said the right was wrong in what they said about liberals, in that example, but they were right, and here's my argument."

But that hasn't been done once - not successfully, not even unsuccessfully - in countless examples. Instead, we get the idiocy like you posted.

Not getting the point that the score is a shutout, with my many, many examples of where they are wrong, and the zero that have been defended.

Someone not an idiot might start to get the idea.

If you can show even one example I said is wrong isn't, do so. You have the right to expose yourself as an idiot as you just did, but I don't see why you would.

Hell, the right is even welcome to counter with "maybe everything we say about liberals is wrong, but you are too", and provide counter-examples. They haven't.

You clearly have zero interest in the truth, hence your complete dodge of discussing the facts and your simple substance-free attacks, showing you have no point.

Your attack was the picture of a broken record - saying "you provide a huge number of examples to back up your point how often the right is wrong about liberals".

Ouch, you told me. It's convenient when your opponent makes your point for you when he attacks .

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It doesn't matter if he leaked them to the public, Wikileaks, or Islamshortguy himself, he leaked classified documents, and that is what he is accused of. Your's, or anyone else's personal feelings about whether the information inside the documents should have been released or not is completely, 100% irrelevant.

In the sense that a crime was committed, this is exactly how it is, he betrayed the trust he was given and knew the conseqences for doing so.

In a moral sense, it's even worse than that, it's betrayal of everything he swore that he'd uphold.

Some don't get this, but he betrayed everyone, including Craig, they don't know that because they don't have any clue what it entails to actually be in a position where what you know is so important that releasing that information may get hundreds of people killed.

And no, no one would ever know about them being killed, not Craig either so he would assume that no harm was done.

 

[Craig234]

This is such a fucking idiocy, you are swallowing every fucking drop of their shit without question.

You are wrong.

Tirade without a word of substance - an embarrassment for you. You seem to have some sort of anger problem where you can't think straight and just rant.

Of course, informing someone who has that problem that they have it is a very effective thing to do. They always listen and recognize the problem.

I'm sure you will be thanking me for informing you of this quickly.

 

[Argo]

This is a tough call. I'm not 100% sure I buy the whole "he's a hero" mindset, since he potentially weakened his country.

To draw a parallel, what if somebody in the 1960s gave away some US secrets to USSR, just because they believe communism was a better regime. Does that excuse them, since essentially they were operating in the interests of the country? Or maybe not, because only 2% of Americans would agree with him. While 30% agree with what Manning did?

Furthermore, who gets to decide whether it's in the country's best interest? As seen from this thread, there are people with different opinions. I believe this is the reason why we have laws in this country. Yes, it can be a burden sometimes (for example, police cannot search suspects house without a warrant) and yes sometimes that could mean the criminal gets away - but Pfc. Manning broke one of our laws, and now he must pay.

And whether that was a worthy sacrifice, will only be known by him, and our future generations.

 

[Craig234]

In the sense that a crime was committed, this is exactly how it is, he betrayed the trust he was given and knew the conseqences for doing so.

Well, sort of a captain obvious point there.

In a moral sense, it's even worse than that, it's betrayal of everything he swore that he'd uphold.

Not so much. As I've said, we've don't know his motives - spiteful, noble, etc.

But to speculate - something justified easily by your baseless assertions - when someone with classified access comes across information he's supposed to - has agreed to, since organizations always get such agreement - keep secret, but which shows wrongdoing by the authority in charge of the secrecy or those relying on its secrecy to protect their wrongs - it's easy for him to run into another conflicts, say, with his defending the constitution - much less his moral responsibilities.

Back in Iran-Contra, there were plenty of people who had said they would protect the confidentiality of documents that showed the government was illegally breaking the law - and the constitution - with its programs such as sponsoring terrorism, killing civilians, congress had explicitly outlawed it from doing. Now, did they 'betray everything' by violating the confidentiality agreement, and exposing the wrongdoers?

Now, don't go running off to talk about differences between the two situations and try to hide your error - we're talking about your UNIVERSAL DEFENSE for confidentiality.

You didn't say ONE WORD that would allow an exception for the Iran-Contra example, or others, real and hypothetical - so let's start with dealing with that error.

Or do you think - as your words said - that every bit of confidential information no matter how bad the crimes it covers up, deserves to be protected?

What a good little soldier boy you are, if you follow orders that well - and that's not a compliment, it's pointout out the moral vacuum you have in that case.

Your pick - your were wrong to say what you said, or you are wrong to defend it.

Some don't get this, but he betrayed everyone, including Craig, they don't know that because they don't have any clue what it entails to actually be in a position where what you know is so important that releasing that information may get hundreds of people killed.

A complete lie, mindless BS drivel straw man the weakest would use to defend their idiocy. Show me one point where I said there should not be any secrets.

And no, no one would ever know about them being killed, not Craig either so he would assume that no harm was done.

Actually, soldier boy, we would know about them very likely, because the government and military would like to SCREAM THEM FROM THE TREETOPS to try to demonize the leakers, to make a martyr of the person killed, to have a far stronger argument against these leaks. Have no doubt they're keeping a close eye on people who might possible be victims of violence as a result of the leaks, to create poster children for fighting leakers.

The fact the Secretary of Defense had to say there has been no substantive damage they've been able to find is the actual situation. He'd say otherwise if he could.

These things aren't perfect - exposing thousands of classified documents, as Assange himself said last week, isn't perfect and there could be situations someone is killed.

Contrast that to your hysteric BS implying hundreds have been killed and we just haven't heard about it, without logic.

You should not use the word "moral". You defined it ENTIRELY as the defense of the confidential documents, without ONE WORD for any other issue - like whether the THINGS IN THE DOCUMENTS were moral, your definition implying nothing can be immoral so that it should be exposed, the only duty is to protect power.

To be fair, you have usually been doing better than this.

 

[Throckmorton]

The government has a vested interest in covering up the revenge killings that the Taliban has promised they would carry out. We need informants, and if Afghans are afraid of their names being leaked and subsequent retaliation, of course they aren't going to cooperate.

You think a journalist who releases his secret sources' identities is going to be able to get more sources in the future?

 

[Phokus]

In the sense that a crime was committed, this is exactly how it is, he betrayed the trust he was given and knew the conseqences for doing so.

In a moral sense, it's even worse than that, it's betrayal of everything he swore that he'd uphold.

Some don't get this, but he betrayed everyone, including Craig, they don't know that because they don't have any clue what it entails to actually be in a position where what you know is so important that releasing that information may get hundreds of people killed.

And no, no one would ever know about them being killed, not Craig either so he would assume that no harm was done.

In a moral sense, he gave me clarity on America's despicable torture policy, of an innocent person even. He's a god damned hero. You would protect a corrupt and morally repugnant government in his shoes, that's all you're saying.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well, sort of a captain obvious point there.



Not so much. As I've said, we've don't know his motives - spiteful, noble, etc.

But to speculate - something justified easily by your baseless assertions - when someone with classified access comes across information he's supposed to - has agreed to, since organizations always get such agreement - keep secret, but which shows wrongdoing by the authority in charge of the secrecy or those relying on its secrecy to protect their wrongs - it's easy for him to run into another conflicts, say, with his defending the constitution - much less his moral responsibilities.

Back in Iran-Contra, there were plenty of people who had said they would protect the confidentiality of documents that showed the government was illegally breaking the law - and the constitution - with its programs such as sponsoring terrorism, killing civilians, congress had explicitly outlawed it from doing. Now, did they 'betray everything' by violating the confidentiality agreement, and exposing the wrongdoers?

Now, don't go running off to talk about differences between the two situations and try to hide your error - we're talking about your UNIVERSAL DEFENSE for confidentiality.

You didn't say ONE WORD that would allow an exception for the Iran-Contra example, or others, real and hypothetical - so let's start with dealing with that error.

Or do you think - as your words said - that every bit of confidential information no matter how bad the crimes it covers up, deserves to be protected?

What a good little soldier boy you are, if you follow orders that well - and that's not a compliment, it's pointout out the moral vacuum you have in that case.

Your pick - your were wrong to say what you said, or you are wrong to defend it.



A complete lie, mindless BS drivel straw man the weakest would use to defend their idiocy. Show me one point where I said there should not be any secrets.



Actually, soldier boy, we would know about them very likely, because the government and military would like to SCREAM THEM FROM THE TREETOPS to try to demonize the leakers, to make a martyr of the person killed, to have a far stronger argument against these leaks. Have no doubt they're keeping a close eye on people who might possible be victims of violence as a result of the leaks, to create poster children for fighting leakers.

The fact the Secretary of Defense had to say there has been no substantive damage they've been able to find is the actual situation. He'd say otherwise if he could.

These things aren't perfect - exposing thousands of classified documents, as Assange himself said last week, isn't perfect and there could be situations someone is killed.

Contrast that to your hysteric BS implying hundreds have been killed and we just haven't heard about it, without logic.

You should not use the word "moral". You defined it ENTIRELY as the defense of the confidential documents, without ONE WORD for any other issue - like whether the THINGS IN THE DOCUMENTS were moral, your definition implying nothing can be immoral so that it should be exposed, the only duty is to protect power.

To be fair, you have usually been doing better than this.

Your evaluation of present facts means absolutely nothing, so i didn't read it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

In a moral sense, he gave me clarity on America's despicable torture policy. He's a god damned hero. You would protect a corrupt and morally repugnant government in his shoes, that's all you're saying.

It was known since three years back, nothing new came out of the released documents except details that didn't add anything but names.

I would protect classified information with my life, for your sake among others, but you wouldn't appreciate it until it was your life on the line because you like everyone else can't think further than your own well being and who you can blame for your own misery next.

I find you and those like you without honor, without integrity and without any sense of what is real outside your own brain.

I'd pity you if you were worth it, you're not.

 

[Phokus]

It was known since three years back, nothing new came out of the released documents except details that didn't add anything but names.

I would protect classified information with my life, for your sake among others, but you wouldn't appreciate it until it was your life on the line because you like everyone else can't think further than your own well being and who you can blame for your own misery next.

I find you and those like you without honor, without integrity and without any sense of what is real outside your own brain.

I'd pity you if you were worth it, you're not.

No, actually i pointed out earlier that the cable revealed that the US put diplomatic pressure on germany to not prosecute those involved.

I don't expect you to read this since you're a moral coward:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831

I have a feeling that you'd be the type of asshole that would have not stepped in during the Mai Lai Massacre (and probably would have participated 'under orders') and would have witheld that information from the press instead of leaking it because of you HAVE no sense of integrity/honor/brains.

 

[fed3r2198]

The government has a vested interest in covering up the revenge killings that the Taliban has promised they would carry out. We need informants, and if Afghans are afraid of their names being leaked and subsequent retaliation, of course they aren't going to cooperate.

You think a journalist who releases his secret sources' identities is going to be able to get more sources in the future?

If your assumption were correct the government would have covered up the taliban threat of killing informants.

Why wouldn't the government have done the same in other cases?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6vMT7WGBAM

You have made the claim that if the Taliban executed an informant we would never hear about it, but I've read many stories and seen many videos of this happening before I'd heard of wikileaks.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I have a great idea, let's let the least of the people who are allowed to access classified documents spread them at their own will, since they obviously are heroes for doing so and know better than those who made them classified documents...

It makes perfect sense and makes a LOT of people true heroes, right?

Fucking retards..

 

[Craig234]

This is a tough call. I'm not 100% sure I buy the whole "he's a hero" mindset, since he potentially weakened his country.

To draw a parallel, what if somebody in the 1960s gave away some US secrets to USSR, just because they believe communism was a better regime. Does that excuse them, since essentially they were operating in the interests of the country? Or maybe not, because only 2% of Americans would agree with him. While 30% agree with what Manning did?

Furthermore, who gets to decide whether it's in the country's best interest? As seen from this thread, there are people with different opinions. I believe this is the reason why we have laws in this country. Yes, it can be a burden sometimes (for example, police cannot search suspects house without a warrant) and yes sometimes that could mean the criminal gets away - but Pfc. Manning broke one of our laws, and now he must pay.

And whether that was a worthy sacrifice, will only be known by him, and our future generations.

You know what's clean? There's a memo showing the President saying "our secret plan to destroy the United States just because it's fun is in place! Burn this document after my aide, who has promised to keep it secret, hands it to you!" And then the aide leaks the document to the Congress, and the nation is saved. Not much controversy - well, some like John of Sheffield who say the leaker betrayed his duty. But not most.

You know what never happens? That clean scenario.

Fact is, the US government lied to the US people, big lies, for decades, across presidents, on Vietnam.

When Ellsberg considered leaking evidence of that, oen fact was, doing so could 'provide aid and comfort to our enemy'. It might harm the 'war cause', it might get people killed as it affected the war. So, should he have just done nothing and kept silent, and let the lies continue?

Hardly.

Fact is, it's not that simple - but it's far, far easier to err on the side of NOT leaking, and saying "well, if thousands are killed by wrongdoing, a least the person didn't leak."

If ONE person is killed by an excessive, that seems far more harmful than thousands killed by protecting the system of our elected (or other countries' not so elected) officials. This is natural. Do YOU want to be the guy who gets a group somewhere killed? Of course not, so just play along and keep the wrongs secret.

So am I saying, be reckless and do the opposite just leak in case some good comes of it? Not at all.

What I am saying is that the price of NOT leaking when there is clear reason to do so can be very high - you might be part of a machine doing great wrong.

Daniel Ellsberg's position was, he morally could not be part of that, and keep the secrets he knew about the lies. He was disappointed that Congress was too scared to act on the information - and so he went to the press. He was worried, and was proven right to worry, that even if the public were informed of the lies, they might not do much about it. But wasn't the nation SERVED by having the fact its leaders had lied to the people so much on war exposed? So that it better put a stop to a wrong war as well?

When you go looking for the 'clean' scenario to justify a leak, you won't find it.

But even if it's found Manning leaked for spitefulness and not a noble reason, falling far short of your standards - look at the overturning of one or more dictators as a result, and recognize the simple fact that these things are complex, without simple answers, and that if you take the simple answer against the leak, the dictators stays in power.

Opposing or supporting leaks simply, both are very harmful. The fact is - you don't get clean answers.

Don't just ask, 'what if a leak caused harm?" Also ask, "how do we prevent overclassification leading to the strengthening of corrupt organizations?"

How do YOU bring down a Tunisian government and have democracy possibly take hold, if not with this leak? You don't. So do you just say, 'corrupt power is ok'?

It's not easy weighing. But as Mencken said, 'For every problem, there is a solution, neat, simple, and wrong.' That's the simple 'leaks are bad or good' solutions.