Soldier who leaked documents to wikileaks

[BellaBellucci]

Just as an aside, SOPA would give the government the technical ability to block websites such as WikiLeaks. There would be no legal authority to do so, but since when has that ever stopped them?

[EDIT: Actually, they would have the authority under their own copyrights, but there would obviously be an obscene conflict of interest.]

~BB~

[onmyknees]

So, when our governments commit crimes no one should expose them? Our governments should then operate in complete secrecy? I mean, who and what do governments serve? Again, who will hold governments accountable if they act in complete and utter secrecy and commit crimes? (And, yes, many things that governments do must be done in secret. Unquestionably. But no one was harmed by these leaks.)
What about, say, The New York Times for releasing the Pentagon Papers? Were they rat scumbags? What about the likes of Bob Woodward... who releases government secrets all the time... and is paid quite well. Is he a rat scumbag?
And, too, what's the role of a journalist? Is a journalist merely a stooge to serve corporate and state power? Or is the role of a journalist to expose crimes, to expose wrongdoings?
And even President Obama, prior to becoming president, PRAISED whistleblowers as being healthy for democracy.

Ben....you're mixing apples and oranges. First off all...you cannot say these leaks hurt no one. We don't know that. There were tens of thousands of documents....You're inconsistent. So if a leak hurts no one that you know of, ( and with all due respect....how would you know? ) and in your opinion is benign, then it's ok? Or if a leak is used indirectly to put covert operations in danger....is that acceptable because of your need to know? Do you really think if a mission was compromised directly or indirectly by these leaks, the Pentagon would broadcast that on the 6 o'clock news. Who makes that call in the information is non life threatening......you? Assange? You can't go down that road. Your entire premise is flawed. These leaks originated from within the military, and that puts it an entirely different legal arena than the Pentagon Papers. And the apparent motives of Manning are far from patriotic....I think you'll see at the trial that mom and apple pie were the farthest things from his mind....I don't see why you can't grasp that.

[BellaBellucci]

Ben....you're mixing apples and oranges. First off all...you cannot say these leaks hurt no one. We don't know that. There were tens of thousands of documents....You're inconsistent. So if a leak hurts no one that you know of, ( and with all due respect....how would you know? ) and in your opinion is benign, then it's ok? Or if a leak is used indirectly to put covert operations in danger....is that acceptable because of your need to know?

I'm going to step in here, because I had the same argument and because I feel like you're deflecting yours towards me onto Ben in an attempt to pacify me.

These hypothetical situations you mention are morally relative. The intention was to shed light on the darkness of secrecy that, while it could be used for peaceful purposes, could also be used for destructive purposes. Clearly Vietnam and Iraq have taught you nothing.

Who makes that call in the information is non life threatening......you? Assange? You can't go down that road. Your entire premise is flawed. These leaks originated from within the military, and that puts it an entirely different legal arena than the Pentagon Papers. And the apparent motives of Manning are far from patriotic....I think you'll see at the trial that mom and apple pie were the farthest things from his mind....I don't see why you can't grasp that.

Who makes that call? Well, if our government is us, then the answer, inevitably, is us (granted Manning did sign that right away as a member of the military and so should punished reasonably). This is not a government for the people and by the people and hasn't been for quite some time.

As to your final statement, for someone who argued that I couldn't possibly have known whether or not Manning and Assange knew that they would have to pay the consequences for their actions, you seem awfully smug in your assertion that there was some sort of dark motive to all of this.

I mean, really, what could that purpose be? You really think they've found glory in all of this? You're off your rocker! That's like saying that I protest Grooby for the exposure when the truth is that the more I fight with them, the less exposure I receive. I do it anyway because Seanchai a hypocrite, and a liar, and an exploiter who has created a micro-culture around his loose, self-serving morality like most of these politicians, and so it's the right thing to do.

~BB~

[russtafa]

like dog chasing his tail

[BellaBellucci]

like dog chasing his tail

You're right. I'm done. I made my point. You either implicitly trust your government or you don't. Obviously, as long as ours is run by corporatists, I don't.

~BB~

[onmyknees]

I'm going to step in here, because I had the same argument and because I feel like your deflecting yours towards me onto Ben in an attempt to pacify me.

These hypothetical situations you mention are morally relative. The intention was to shed light on the darkness on secrecy that, while it could be used for peaceful purposes, could also be used for destructive purposes. Clearly Vietnam and Iraq have taught you nothing.



Who makes that call? Well, if our government is us, then the answer, inevitably, is us. This is not a government for the people and by the people and hasn't been for quite some time.

As to your final statement, for someone who argued that I couldn't possibly have known whether or not Manning and Assange knew that they would have to pay the consequences for their actions, you seem awfully smug in your assertion that there was some sort of dark motive to all of this.

I mean, really, what could that purpose be? You really think they've found glory in all of this? You're off your rocker! That's like saying that I fight with Seanchai for the exposure when the truth is that the more I fight with him, the less exposure I receive. I do it anyway because he's a hypocrite, and a liar, and an exploiter like most of these politicians, so it's the right thing to do.

~BB~

You don't get to vote on health care, yet you are "we the people". Don't be silly Bella....this is a representative democracy. We elect people who make decisions for us. If we don't like those decisions, we elect new people to more closely reflect our opinions. Maybe we should put these decisions out to initiative in referendum like California does....only to have the courts over rule the will of the people? We only have 30% voter participation as it is, so that's a huge fucking red herring. Where does your right to know end, and the need to protect covert operations begin? You were no doubt celebrating when the Seals blow a hole in Bin Laden's head....did they run that past you first? Did you vote on that? Grow up Bella. The world is a very bad place filled with lots of dangerous people , and I don't feel the need to know every detail of how my government is keeping me and my community safe. You moral absolutists make me laugh.
And I could give a rat's ass why they did it...glory, money, patriotism.....you don't seem to understand it doesn't matter. Manning doesn't get to make that decision. Maybe if he was a reporter for the NY Times you'd have a leg to stand on, but under these circumstances...you don't, and neither does he. There are no do overs.

[BellaBellucci]

You don't get to vote on health care, yet you are "we the people". Don't be silly Bella....this is a representative democracy.

Ok, I lied. I'm not quite done because the nonsense is still spewing here. You should do some research. We're not a representative democracy, we're a constitutional republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

The operative word there, for those who don't know what the hell they're talking about, is 'Constitutional.'

We elect people who make decisions for us. If we don't like those decisions, we elect new people to more closely reflect our opinions. Maybe we should put these decisions out to initiative in referendum like California does....only to have the courts over rule the will of the people? We only have 30% voter participation as it is, so that's a huge fucking red herring.

Well hey, maybe if people weren't kept ignorant of most subjects and the media didn't do the bidding of both their governmental and corporate overlords, we'd have more voter participation? What you're spouting is the red herring.

Where does your right to know end, and the need to protect covert operations begin? You were no doubt celebrating when the Seals blow a hole in Bin Laden's head....did they run that past you first? Did you vote on that? Grow up Bella. The world is a very bad place filled with lots of dangerous people , and I don't feel the need to know every detail of how my government is keeping me and my community safe. You moral absolutists make me laugh.

Wait. I'm the moral absolutist? Are you brain damaged? I argue the devil's position more than anybody here. It's you who would be led, with the rest of your fellow sheeple, to a totalitarian state.

Ironically, I obviously didn't get to vote on Bin Laden's execution, although I still believe he could have and should have been brought to trial, and the way the 'covert op' was handled guaranteed that it would never happen even though President Carter, duly elected by the people, outlawed the assassination of foreign political leaders. What do you have to say about that that isn't rooted in post-9/11 terminology like 'enemy combatant?' Prior to the enactment of the new laws, Bin Laden could have been considered a political leader, and even afterward he remained at the top of the FBI's most wanted list (a civilian agency) for nearly as long as Whitey Bulger after already having been on it since the original WTC car bombing.

In short, the military should be limited in its role as a retrieval force for extraditions, and neither they, nor the executive branch, should act as judge, jury, and executioner.

~BB~

[BBaggins06]

Was Bin Laden really a political leader? In the 21st century, you can't have politics without lobbyists.

[Christastic]

Wikileaks exposed actual wrongdoing; criminal activity covered up by the government. I don't see how anyone can argue that exposing those things is wrong simply because Manning possibly broke a law to do it. Sometimes the law is wrong.

[atomic1975]

It's all bull, just as the whole "Assange puppet-master" propaganda nonsense is a smokescreen. The whole point of wikileaks is that the people running it don't know who their sources are. If this wasn't the case it would have come out long before now.