|
Just because doing the right thing is difficult and may entail a degree of personal risk, doesn't justify abdicating your responsibility to do the right thing. Chelsea Manning had plenty of opportunity to contact journalists, explain what she had, and ensure that the material would be curated. That's not what she wanted to do, and her actions should be judged with that understanding.
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Just because doing the right thing is difficult and may entail a degree of personal risk, doesn't justify abdicating your responsibility to do the right thing. Chelsea Manning had plenty of opportunity to contact journalists, explain what she had, and ensure that the material would be curated. That's not what she wanted to do, and her actions should be judged with that understanding. Except she did that. And got brushed off by wapo and nyt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Also, doing something in a sub-optimal way (especially when the person involved is as young as she was) isn't necessarily worthy of condemnation, especially when the person in question has already been punished (in this case to an absurdly excessive extent). In hindsight her leaks seem to have been a net positive. As others have mentioned, there isn't really any proof that they caused any harm, and the good they caused is pretty easy to identify. Discussing how she could have done things better is reasonable, but not in the context of blanket condemnation of both her actions and her as a person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
If Manning can use Tor to hang in Wikileaks chat and leak files to Wikileaks while deployed, why couldnt she use Tor to contact journalists and leak files to them while deployed? Why all the nonsense running to payphones? Why the urgency to leak the first time before she returned to duty?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except she did that. And got brushed off by wapo and nyt. No she did not do that. WaPo and NYT told her that they'd have to actually speak with her and look over the files before guaranteeing her a story. That is a totally reasonable request, and it is not a brush-off at all. She balked because she wanted to dump all the files and be sure that they'd all get released without any further involvement on her part. So she found an organization that would be just as cavalier and irresponsible with other people's lives as she was. JeffersonClay posted:If Manning can use Tor to hang in Wikileaks chat and leak files to Wikileaks while deployed, why couldnt she use Tor to contact journalists and leak files to them while deployed? Why all the nonsense running to payphones? Why the urgency to leak the first time before she returned to duty? I expect that she learned about Tor and basic internet security by interacting with the Wikileaks folks. She certainly could have contacted WaPo and the NYT anonymously without performing movie-style shenanigans, but my guess is that she wouldn't have known how until she was already in contact with Assange. Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Kaal posted:No she did not do that. WaPo and NYT told her that they'd have to actually speak with her and look over the files before guaranteeing her a story. That is a totally reasonable request, and it is not a brush-off at all. She balked because she wanted to dump all the files and be sure that they'd all get released without any further involvement on her part. So she found an organization that would be just as cavalier and irresponsible with other people's lives as she was. i wonder why she wanted to dump the files and get away. it's not like her whole life could've been destroyed/ended if she was exposed 
Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If Manning can use Tor to hang in Wikileaks chat and leak files to Wikileaks while deployed, why couldnt she use Tor to contact journalists and leak files to them while deployed? Why all the nonsense running to payphones? Why the urgency to leak the first time before she returned to duty? Because journalists were and still are very bad at doing that. See Snowden having to walk through his reporters on exactly how to do operational security. Kaal posted:No she did not do that. WaPo and NYT told her that they'd have to actually speak with her and look over the files before guaranteeing her a story. That is a totally reasonable request, and it is not a brush-off at all. She balked because she wanted to dump all the files and be sure that they'd all get released without any further involvement on her part. So she found an organization that would be just as cavalier and irresponsible with other people's lives as she was. The NYTs didn't even reply to her and Wapo wouldn't commit to publishing information at all, which it is understandable that if you're going to leak information you want to give it to an organization that will publish it. And you're still ignoring she was only in the US for a limited time before she had to return to deployment. She didn't have time to cultivate relationships in person with reporters like Deep Throat. Do you think it would have been better for the world if Manning had never leaked at all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i wonder why she wanted to dump the files and get away. it's not like her whole life could've been destroyed if she was exposed Ironically she probably would have been a lot less likely to be exposed if she had used an actual journalist, because it was Wikileak's lack of document vetting that led directly to her arrest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Ironically she probably would have been a lot less likely to be exposed if she had used an actual journalist, because it was Wikileak's lack of document vetting that led directly to her arrest. lol you're so full of poo poo. Manning reached out to Lamo herself directly. Wikileaks can't be blamed for that, but I'm sure you'll try.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The NYTs didn't even reply to her and Wapo wouldn't commit to publishing information at all, which it is understandable that if you're going to leak information you want to give it to an organization that will publish it. And you're still ignoring she was only in the US for a limited time before she had to return to deployment. She didn't have time to cultivate relationships in person with reporters like Deep Throat. She left a voicemail with the NYT public desk, and was frustrated that WaPo wasn't going to instantly commit to publishing information that it had never seen or had an opportunity to vet. That's not due diligence in the slightest. Meanwhile, she'd apparently been chatting with Wikileaks folks on IRC for months. She had ample opportunity to reach out to responsible journalists, both before she had leave, and throughout her leave and she didn't. It seems pretty clear that what she wanted to do was provide her Wikileaks friends with a big scoop, and she didn't really care that much who she hurt in the process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:She left a voicemail with the NYT public desk, and was frustrated that WaPo wasn't going to instantly commit to publishing information that it had never seen or had an opportunity to vet. That's not due diligence in the slightest. Meanwhile, she'd apparently been chatting with Wikileaks folks on IRC for months. She had ample opportunity to reach out to responsible journalists, both before she had leave, and throughout her leave and she didn't. It seems pretty clear that what she wanted to do was provide her Wikileaks friends with a big scoop, and she didn't really care that much who she hurt in the process. Do you think it would have been better for the world if Manning had never leaked at all rather than leak to wikileaks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
What is happening here is that a small handful of imperial bootlickers are trying to deflect from the fact that a very brave person felt morally sickened by what she saw happening and decided to attempt to inform the public, which by and large agreed that it was sick, vile conduct unbecoming of the United States. This brave person was then put into a cell and tortured for over half a decade by a supposedly very liberal president. Since there was no real harm caused from this leak(http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/338621-no-real-harm-caused-by-chelsea-manning-leaks-report) and no real way to defend it morally, they instead play endless "what if?" games, question motives to degenerate the messenger, and muddy up the water with distortions. Don't fall for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you think it would have been better for the world if Manning had never leaked at all rather than leak to wikileaks? I think it would have certainly been better for the world if Manning had used a real journalist with real ethical principles rather than just throwing it all out there and not caring what happened. The idea that the end justifies the means here is pretty bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Kaal posted:She left a voicemail with the NYT public desk, and was frustrated that WaPo wasn't going to instantly commit to publishing information that it had never seen or had an opportunity to vet. That's not due diligence in the slightest. Meanwhile, she'd apparently been chatting with Wikileaks folks on IRC for months. She had ample opportunity to reach out to responsible journalists, both before she had leave, and throughout her leave and she didn't. It seems pretty clear that what she wanted to do was provide her Wikileaks friends with a big scoop, and she didn't really care that much who she hurt in the process. how long should she have kept sensitive info like that on her person and kept herself at risk of being discovered? also, who did she hurt?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:also, who did she hurt? kaal, by not going through the proper channels
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol you're so full of poo poo. Manning reached out to Lamo herself directly. Wikileaks can't be blamed for that, but I'm sure you'll try. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, since Lamo has specifically said that it was his concern about Wikileaks as an organization, and specifically their habit of dumping unvetted sensitive material, that made him decide to turn Manning in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Just because doing the right thing is difficult and may entail a degree of personal risk, doesn't justify abdicating your responsibility to do the right thing. Chelsea Manning had plenty of opportunity to contact journalists, explain what she had, and ensure that the material would be curated. That's not what she wanted to do, and her actions should be judged with that understanding. The military abdicated their responsibility to do the right thing and they get a free pass on that, so why doesn't Manning get that same pass? She was a soldier just like the war criminals who got off consequences-free. Hell, cops get a free pass on shooting innocent people all the time because (they claimed) doing the right thing was difficult and involved some personal risk. Why are information leaks being held to a higher standard than literal murder?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Granted, if I was her, I would certainly be paranoid, that isn't a sign of mental illness but a reaction to circumstance. Personally, it sounded like she wanted to at least give the standard press a shot but quickly got cold feet and went back to probably her strong plan B which was WikiLeaks, who she knew would absolutely get it out there. Btw, I still find WikiLeaks useful even if they have an obvious axe to grind. I am for all the information I can get. (I personally also couldn't really care about Assange one way or another.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Kaal? yronic heroism? Kilroy fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
I mean it's not really shocking that people here are still dragging their heels about this. These threads used to be absolutely filled with folks shilling for Assange because they loved his anti-authority politics. Now that public sentiment on Wikileaks has shifted against him they mostly limit themselves to Manning. But the fundamental facts remain here, that what they did was hugely irresponsible, that Manning and Assange did it for pretty juvenile reasons, and that the ultimate impact is unknowable because of the ongoing war but certainly put a lot of innocent people at risk (people that a lot of Wikileaks supporters ignore and treat as collaborators). And at the end of the day, the ideas that the ends justify the means here, or that the people in these documents deserve collective punishment, or that vigilante populism is preferable to responsible journalism, are absolutely incompatible with principled liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Kaal posted:absolutely incompatible with principled liberalism
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I mean it's not really shocking that people here are still dragging their heels about this. These threads used to be absolutely filled with folks shilling for Assange because they loved his anti-authority politics. Now that public sentiment on Wikileaks has shifted against him they mostly limit themselves to Manning. But the fundamental facts remain here, that what they did was hugely irresponsible, that Manning and Assange did it for pretty juvenile reasons, and that the ultimate impact is unknowable because of the ongoing war but certainly put a lot of innocent people at risk (people that a lot of Wikileaks supporters ignore and treat as collaborators). And at the end of the day, the ideas that the ends justify the means here, or that the people in these documents deserve collective punishment, or that vigilante populism is preferable to responsible journalism, are absolutely incompatible with principled liberalism. reporting on war crimes and atrocities: juvenile posting on the internet about how heroes are poo poo because they aren't perfect: the pinnacle of maturity and responsibility
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
liberalism is garbage anyways so good
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Pages and pages of "well I agree with the principle of the thing but you idiot degenerates are doing it wrong!" was an old hat on the newsgroups, 25 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:liberalism is garbage anyways so good I forget how quickly this forum parrots "ironic" conservative talking points.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Principled liberalism: antifa are just as bad as the fascists. Not an ideology I want to draw examples from: try again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Kaal? yronic heroism? Trabisnikof? Chelsea Manning had a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the way the leaks were published, and you curse Manning. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what she knew. That handing the documents over to Wikileaks, while not 100% optimal, probably saved lives. And her actions, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saved lives. You don’t want to acknowledge the role of Wikileaks because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want her leaking those documents, you need her to leak those documents. Chelsea Manning uses words like truth, diligence, infosec. She uses these words as the backbone of a life spent exposing the powerful. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain Chelsea Manning to someone who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very knowledge that she provided, and then questions the manner in which she provided it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a laptop and get to work. Either way, I don’t give a drat what you think you are entitled to. Aaron Sorkin is a liberal 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I forget how quickly this forum parrots "ironic" conservative talking points. i love how american liberals literally cannot envision a world with more than two ideologies, good and bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Well by this logic any kind of welfare state can be framed as pointless because "the rich will just steal it back." welcome to the communist party
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Liberals and Leftists just aren't on the same side, especially when it comes to the US government/American nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I forget how quickly this forum parrots "ironic" conservative talking points.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Aaron Sorkin is a liberal A Few Good Men is also the only thing he's been involved in that's still actually pretty good as a work of art, sorry bro but West Wing is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Leftism: We're defined as being self-hating liberals. This is a totally new and different idea than all the other "reinventions" of American liberal politics, trust me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
two party system: stockholm edition
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Kaal? yronic heroism? Trabisnikof? Chelsea Manning had a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the way the leaks were published, and you curse Manning. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what she knew. That handing the documents over to Wikileaks, while not 100% optimal, probably saved lives. And her actions, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saved lives. You don’t want to acknowledge the role of Wikileaks because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want her leaking those documents, you need her to leak those documents. Chelsea Manning uses words like truth, diligence, infosec. She uses these words as the backbone of a life spent exposing the powerful. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain Chelsea Manning to someone who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very knowledge that she provided, and then questions the manner in which she provided it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a laptop and get to work. Either way, I don’t give a drat what you think you are entitled to. You need to reread my posts on the topic buddy. We agree greatly on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Leftism: We're defined as being self-hating liberals. This is a totally new and different idea than all the other "reinventions" of American liberal politics, trust me. Ah, and that ole lib standby: you're fooling yourself if you think the world can be any better, petulant child. It's honestly a sickness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:two party system: stockholm edition third party greens/leftists/progressives/anarchists/communists/socialists/liberals: no trust us it'll work this time
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Kaal posted:third party greens/leftists/progressives/anarchists/communists/socialists/liberals: no trust us it'll work this time Liberal: did I defeat the Nazis while staying true to my principles? Leftist: did I defeat the loving Nazis or not???
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Ah, and that ole lib standby: you're fooling yourself if you think the world can be any better, petulant child. I'm not going to lie, it's a mentality that utterly disgusts me. It's D&D nihilism/alcoholism applied to the entire world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Ah, and that ole lib standby: you're fooling yourself if you think the world can be any better, petulant child More like the idea that people should aspire to more political change than just changing terminology. Wake up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 01:14
|
|