If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   WikiLeaker Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, at least according to the Berkeley City Council   (sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com) divider line 364
    More: Hero, Bradley Manning, Berkeley City Council, San Francisco Chronicle  
•       •       •

17262 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Dec 2010 at 2:49 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



364 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-08 04:17:47 PM
Finger51: He Put Lives In Danger

His own!

/I WIN!
 
2010-12-08 04:18:58 PM
WhyteRaven74: tukatz: Add that to traitor and he should be shot as traitors are...

So you would prefer to be in the dark about the truth? Really?


Leaking documents *can* be heroic -- or it can also just be the act of a douche-bag. Secrecy is not inherently a bad thing, it depends on context & has a legitimate place.
 
2010-12-08 04:18:59 PM
WhyteRaven74: tukatz: Add that to traitor and he should be shot as traitors are...

So you would prefer to be in the dark about the truth? Really?


Ignorance is bliss.
 
2010-12-08 04:20:17 PM
ConsideringPorn
If the recent financial crisis is any indication, I'd say we have earned paid for the option to hear for ourselves, what is discussed, by those we entrust, behind closed doors.

I'm sympathetic to that argument... certainly, open governance is lacking and certainly it's necessary. But is this really the best way to do that -- leaving it up to college freshman-aged Army Pfcs to haphazardly spew enormous gobs of documents marked "secret" at the public until something worthy of discussion is found?

TofuTheAlmighty
Yikes, Fark has a bunch of bloodthirsty authoritarians as members.

Been remarking on that for years... gotta say though, I see both sides of this particular coin. There's a time and a place for leaking, but what Manning released (as far as we know) was not about secret concentration camp networks and alien mind control conspiracies. In fact he almost certainly didn't even know what he was releasing, since the volume of material was so great and unspecific in nature. I'm not sure you have to be a bloodthirsty authoritarian to find that behavior irresponsible and unhelpful.
 
2010-12-08 04:20:48 PM
Debeo Summa Credo: Crosshair: Exactly. The way I see it, these leaks could very well SAVE lives, American and other nationalities, by working to make these foreign endeavors that much sorter. Showing the public how our governments imperialism is serving interests other than their own.

Imagine if some of the secrets from Vietnam had come out sooner. How many fewer total names might there be on the Vietnam wall?

Imagine if all the secrets our diplomats had during the cold war were 'exposed'? The Soviets could've used them to their advantage, with the minimal impact of hurting us greatly in the Cold War and potentially pushing the world toward nuclear war! That would've been awesome! Oh Julian Assange, why weren't you born a generation earlier you classified information exposing hero!

/jk, I hope Assange gets shivved in jail
//can't understand why anyone in America, far right or radical left, would defend this colossal turdbag


This, so many times this. The world needs secrets, the people thinking that "all information should be free" are in for a rude awakening when all that information falls into the wrong hands.

You bunch of sad hypocrites, you'd risk the lives of your own people to feel righteous about "freeing" information intended to protect your ass from harm in the first place.

Cheering for Assange is like planting a knife in the back of every Afghan/Iraqi citizen that passed on a location of an IED, or any other information that prevented the loss of life in any way possible.

Was it all good? Hell no, humans as a species always have and always will have rotten apples. Is exposing it all to parade the bad stuff really worth harming those that tried to do good? Please. FFS. What "righteousness" is left when they threaten to release all their unredacted information? That's pure blackmail.

But please, fire away with you MacBooks to prove that somehow, Assange's AWing has made this world a better place.
 
2010-12-08 04:20:58 PM
So, from this thread, I've learned two things:

1) It's treasonous to chip away at the wall of government secrecy.

2) There are a shiat-ton of cowards on Fark.
 
2010-12-08 04:21:20 PM
BigNumber12: X-boxershorts: Ask Sec Def Gates...he'll tell you, not a single human being has been endangered by anything that's been released.


So clearly we should encourage the theft and publishing of state secrets.


OK by me. If they don't have anything to hide, why are they afraid?
 
2010-12-08 04:21:21 PM
Treason is still punishable by death. That turd needs to be lined up against a wall and shot. Or maybe made to wear something that's not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabulous. (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

PS
Eat shiat Berkley.
 
2010-12-08 04:21:49 PM
WhyteRaven74: CIA and NSA documents have been leaked? That would a nice bombshell. Of course actually getting the documents out of the CIA or NSA could be rather problematic. Once you're up to where you can get documents you can't so much as take a pencil into certain rooms and you can't take a pencil in the room out of it. I'm not kidding, security is that tight.

Are you saying that our diplomatic correspondence contains no national intelligence? That reports from our diplomatic posts don't go to the President every single morning, to enable him to make educated national policy decisions? You don't think that extensive notes on our Army's schedules and movements and vulnerabilities straight from the front lines count as "intelligence?"

WhyteRaven74: First rule of diplomacy going back to the start of diplomacy, never say anything you wouldn't want everyone else to hear. Lots of diplomats over the centuries have ended up causing a lot of problems for themselves by being rather impolitic, if not worse, in their comments, which then got around to someone else who took umbrage.

You're right. Our diplomats should only say nice things about their host nations. We should throw away any unpleasant information about foreign countries that might help our government make informed decisions, because oh my God, there's a chance that it might someday be leaked! Particularly since Americans are now apparently advocating for the decriminalization of stealing classified documents.
 
2010-12-08 04:22:47 PM
belgianguy: I'm farking belgian, what do I know?

I agree.
 
2010-12-08 04:22:53 PM
PFC. Manning committed espionage.

He needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under the
Universal Code of Military Justice.
 
2010-12-08 04:23:55 PM
douchebag/hater: I'm another coward.

We know. Among other unsavory personality traits you have.
 
2010-12-08 04:24:04 PM
BigNumber12: WhyteRaven74: First rule of diplomacy going back to the start of diplomacy, never say anything you wouldn't want everyone else to hear. Lots of diplomats over the centuries have ended up causing a lot of problems for themselves by being rather impolitic, if not worse, in their comments, which then got around to someone else who took umbrage.

You're right. Our diplomats should only say nice things about their host nations. We should throw away any unpleasant information about foreign countries that might help our government make informed decisions, because oh my God, there's a chance that it might someday be leaked! Particularly since Americans are now apparently advocating for the decriminalization of stealing classified documents.



Indeed. If an ambassador learns anything "unpleasant" during the course of discussions with foreign leaders, he should just keep it to himself rather than sending it back to Washington. They don't need to know -- because if you don't want it public, you shouldn't say it. Besides, it would ruin the surprise.
 
2010-12-08 04:25:33 PM
BTW I love the same people who say the government can't be trusted to do anything right are the ones screaming the loudest the government shouldn't be doubted about what it classified. Cognitive dissonance, it's what's for dinner.
 
2010-12-08 04:25:52 PM
I am sure he is already having a great time @ the ministry of love, by the time they get done with him, he'll be lucky to remember his own name.


1984 anyone?

... is this thing on?
 
2010-12-08 04:26:51 PM
chu2dogg:

that are part of the wider umbrella "Global War On Terrorism". GWOT for short

natashafacilitator.files.wordpress.com

You do know that it was originally called The War Against Terrorism ... right?

/ true (new window)
// cool story bro
 
2010-12-08 04:27:24 PM
WhyteRaven74: BTW I love the same people who say the government can't be trusted to do anything right are the ones screaming the loudest the government shouldn't be doubted about what it classified. Cognitive dissonance, it's what's for dinner.

Of whom do you speak? I've certainly never made the former argument.
 
2010-12-08 04:29:38 PM
WhyteRaven74: BTW I love the same people who say the government can't be trusted to do anything right are the ones screaming the loudest the government shouldn't be doubted about what it classified. Cognitive dissonance, it's what's for dinner.

People actually don't fall into the cute little categories you want to put them in.
 
2010-12-08 04:29:38 PM
All_Farked_Up: Finger51: All_Farked_Up: He Put Lives In Danger



One name. Just one.

Mark Arbib


You mean the Australian citizen Mark Arbib who spied on Australia and is alive and well and still serving the Federal Labor Party? That Mark Arbib? How is his life in danger? Dingos?
 
2010-12-08 04:30:31 PM
I don't kow if you know this woman.

zocalo.laneta.apc.org

Her name is Lydia Cacho, she's a Mexican journalist and a book writer. She's very passionate about Human Rights, Woman Rights, Indigenous Rights, but especially on Children Rights. Years ago, she was doing an investigation on a child prostitution ring owned and partly operated by a Mexican businessman, Jean Succar Kuri. She had all sort of information implicating him and several Mexican politicians, but they did not like that, so a friend of his (Kamel Nacif) called in a few favors with the governor of Chiapas, Pablo Salazar, and ha her arrested. They even wanted to arrange her to be killed in prison by one of the inmates, but a friend of her released phone conversation tapes of them talking about the arrangement. She was immediately released, but both Kuri and Nacif fled to the country to the US, where they are protected from extraditing laws, despite the fact that one is a known child predator, and the other an accomplice.

She risked life and limb for her journalistic efforts, and despite the fact that by releasing the tapes she committed a crime (invasion of privacy), she was not persecuted as such, and was even defended y the Supreme Court of Justice. She's a god-damned hero for simply doing her job.

And quite honestly, I'm putting Bradley Manning and Julian Assange right along with her for showing courage against a group of old wrinkled men.
 
2010-12-08 04:31:27 PM
deadz: I am sure he is already having a great time @ the ministry of love, by the time they get done with him, he'll be lucky to remember his own name.


1984 anyone?

... is this thing on?


Right back at you.
 
2010-12-08 04:32:31 PM
mrexcess: Been remarking on that for years... gotta say though, I see both sides of this particular coin. There's a time and a place for leaking, but what Manning released (as far as we know) was not about secret concentration camp networks and alien mind control conspiracies. In fact he almost certainly didn't even know what he was releasing, since the volume of material was so great and unspecific in nature. I'm not sure you have to be a bloodthirsty authoritarian to find that behavior irresponsible and unhelpful.

The balance that the US has historically made between leakers and publishers I think gets it about right - criminalize the leaking, whereas publishing leaked info is protected by the first amendment. Thus, I agree that Manning should be prosecuted while Wikileaks, newspapers, etc. are left alone. I am deeply displeased by politicians' bullying of Amazon, Visa, Paypal, Mastercard, etc. because chilling effects are extremely widespread and uniformly detrimental.

As for the contents of the leak itself, I try to look past the first-order effects i.e. what malpractices are now sitting in the sunlight. We all know the US government is extraordinarily secretive (which has only gotten worse since 9/11) and unchecked secrecy is begging for abuse. The more likely that leaks can happen and expose misdeeds, the less likely that those in power will abuse their power.
 
2010-12-08 04:32:55 PM
BigNumber12: Are you saying that our diplomatic correspondence contains no national intelligence?

If it's marked confidential or even secret, it's not going to contain very much. Even secret/noforn won't contain very much. But something marked confidential won't contain much cause it wouldn't be wise. Pretty much anyone with a post in the diplomatic service would still be able to see it. So it's not exactly information that even the State Department is worried about being kept under tight wraps.
 
2010-12-08 04:35:14 PM
CygnusDarius:

Her name is Lydia Cacho, she's a Mexican journalist and a book writer. She's very passionate about Human Rights, Woman Rights, Indigenous Rights, but especially on Children Rights. Years ago, she was doing an investigation on a child prostitution ring owned and partly operated by a Mexican businessman, Jean Succar Kuri. She had all sort of information implicating him and several Mexican politicians, but they did ...

www.tvweekonline.ca

/ Hey, I saw that episode :)
 
2010-12-08 04:35:37 PM
chu2dogg: Finger51: All_Farked_Up: He Put Lives In Danger



One name. Just one.

stop being obtuse.


I will if you will.
 
2010-12-08 04:36:14 PM
logruszed: oneodd1: yeah, celebrate someone who has yet to be convicted of committing treason but most likely did and endorse breaking those laws. Way to go Berkeley you communist asses.

You mean like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin? They were traitors to the legal authority of their day, you know.


They also had the stones to found their own nation, and knew full well they'd be killed if they lost.
 
2010-12-08 04:36:42 PM
ghare: OK by me. If they don't have anything to hide, why are they afraid?


Hollow idealistic rhetoric. Of course we have things to hide, numbnuts. Missile launch codes, the President's movement schedule, details of our weapons systems... any of these ring a bell? Do you believe that the rest of the world will happily open their books and participate if we call for a big worldwide intelligence-sharing fest, because we just want to be 'fair' with everyone? I would ask if you genuinely believe that we live in a world where everything could be freely revealed to everyone, where we never had to conceal information from people because nobody would ever think of using it to cause harm, but I suspect that you actually do.
 
2010-12-08 04:39:10 PM
veedeevadeevoodee: CygnusDarius:

Her name is Lydia Cacho, she's a Mexican journalist and a book writer. She's very passionate about Human Rights, Woman Rights, Indigenous Rights, but especially on Children Rights. Years ago, she was doing an investigation on a child prostitution ring owned and partly operated by a Mexican businessman, Jean Succar Kuri. She had all sort of information implicating him and several Mexican politicians, but they did ...



/ Hey, I saw that episode :)


... I choose to laugh this time.

/I wish it was fiction, though
 
2010-12-08 04:39:40 PM
The stupid in this thread is awe inspiring.
 
2010-12-08 04:41:16 PM
logruszed: oneodd1: yeah, celebrate someone who has yet to be convicted of committing treason but most likely did and endorse breaking those laws. Way to go Berkeley you communist asses.

You mean like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin? They were traitors to the legal authority of their day, you know.


They may have been enemies of the government--but they weren't traitors. Traitors betray an allegiance, like Manning who took an oath to defend the country and Constitution when he enlisted. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson--they never swore any allegiance to King and Crown.
 
2010-12-08 04:41:53 PM
TofuTheAlmighty: So, from this thread, I've learned two things:

1) It's treasonous to chip away at the wall of government secrecy.

2) There are a shiat-ton of cowards on Fark.


Good to see you took the message of the rally to restore sanity to heart.

I may disagree with you but i'm pretty sure you're not hilter.
 
2010-12-08 04:42:51 PM
NorCalLos: Does anyone know where I can find a well-written editorial that lays out the arguments for and against Wikileaks, as well as for and against this hero/traitor? Nothing against Fark threads...

Just go with your gut.

/that's what everybody else seems to be doing
 
2010-12-08 04:43:13 PM
Fact: Every country in the world engages in espionage, and every country has secrets, secrets which are beneficial to them (and you) to keep a secret. That doesn't mean you, as a citizen of any particular country, are entitled to know those secrets, or who in particular the government is spying on.

Why exactly do some of you think this is a "freedom of the press" issue? Where does it stop? What else do you want to know, exactly? What do you want made public, everything up to and including critical security intelligence?

Without entering the realm of hyperbole, some of you would cheer if information leaked that DID directly link to the death of some Americans (note: I'm not implying that any of Wikileaks material did this.)
 
2010-12-08 04:43:56 PM
WhyteRaven74: GT_bike: 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

And none of that is the legal definition as it exists in the US.


Oh I see what you did there:
i441.photobucket.com

i441.photobucket.com

In the U.S., the framers of the Constitution defined treason narrowly - as the levying of war against the U.S. or the giving of aid and comfort to its enemies -.

You know, the enemies named in the documents he downloaded.

Again changing the definition of enemy, aid and comfort etc...in your mind doesn't actually alter what he did. I'll allow arguing on the degrees of aid and comfort and defcon level of enemy but beyond that you can keep dribbling on your shoes and pants as you continue to piss in the wind.

It's not the content of what was diseminated that is at issue here, it is simply his actions and the legal oath he took to act differently. In fact, it could be argued that based on what he was doing (actions) he intended to actually retrieve significantly more valuable information. That he got lesser documents to the interpretation of Farkers and Berkeley-ites is irrelevant. He broke the oath of his commission.
 
2010-12-08 04:45:14 PM
veedeevadeevoodee: You do know that it was originally called The War Against Terrorism ... right?

GEESH!!! What is about people that are so stubborn about being remaining ignorant.

www.amervets.com
 
2010-12-08 04:45:35 PM
WhyteRaven74: If it's marked confidential or even secret, it's not going to contain very much. Even secret/noforn won't contain very much. But something marked confidential won't contain much cause it wouldn't be wise. Pretty much anyone with a post in the diplomatic service would still be able to see it. So it's not exactly information that even the State Department is worried about being kept under tight wraps.


You're missing the point. I'm actually not even sure what point you're making. That even though Manning went through all of the security procedures to gain access to secret material, it's completely alright for him to sneak 250,000 classified documents out through security and leak it to the press because WhyteRaven74 from the Internet doesn't think it's classified enough? Look up the word 'confidential.' It was marked that way because someone who knows more about that particular situation that the average Fark Armchair Revolutionary decided that it should probably only be read by the person it was intended for.
 
2010-12-08 04:45:35 PM
CygnusDarius: She was immediately released, but both Kuri and Nacif fled to the country to the US, where they are protected from extraditing laws, despite the fact that one is a known child predator, and the other an accomplice.

We'll be happy to give them back to Mexico, provided it takes their 2 million friends.
 
2010-12-08 04:45:47 PM
BigNumber12: ghare: OK by me. If they don't have anything to hide, why are they afraid?


Hollow idealistic rhetoric. Of course we have things to hide, numbnuts. Missile launch codes, the President's movement schedule, details of our weapons systems... any of these ring a bell? Do you believe that the rest of the world will happily open their books and participate if we call for a big worldwide intelligence-sharing fest, because we just want to be 'fair' with everyone? I would ask if you genuinely believe that we live in a world where everything could be freely revealed to everyone, where we never had to conceal information from people because nobody would ever think of using it to cause harm, but I suspect that you actually do.


Do you honestly believe that any of the Wikileaks documents are stuff like that? Or anywhere close to it?
 
2010-12-08 04:46:56 PM
TofuTheAlmighty
The balance that the US has historically made between leakers and publishers I think gets it about right - criminalize the leaking, whereas publishing leaked info is protected by the first amendment. Thus, I agree that Manning should be prosecuted while Wikileaks, newspapers, etc. are left alone. I am deeply displeased by politicians' bullying of Amazon, Visa, Paypal, Mastercard, etc. because chilling effects are extremely widespread and uniformly detrimental.

We're of pretty similar opinion then. I hate to say it, because Manning really does strike me as just a misguided kid in way over his head, but ultimately he was the problem here.

The more likely that leaks can happen and expose misdeeds, the less likely that those in power will abuse their power.

There we disagree, I actually worry about swinging too far in the other direction. This case is such a bad precedent-setter, it's likely to have a deleterious impact on attitudes & laws regarding press freedom and legitimate whistle-blowing. It will, and I think already has as in the cases you mention like Amazon and Visa, cause abuses of power to be ignored or even applauded.
 
2010-12-08 04:47:45 PM
BravadoGT: logruszed: oneodd1: yeah, celebrate someone who has yet to be convicted of committing treason but most likely did and endorse breaking those laws. Way to go Berkeley you communist asses.

You mean like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin? They were traitors to the legal authority of their day, you know.

They may have been enemies of the government--but they weren't traitors. Traitors betray an allegiance, like Manning who took an oath to defend the country and Constitution when he enlisted. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson--they never swore any allegiance to King and Crown.


Of course Washington swore allegiance to King and Crown - he was an officer in the British Army. Later, he denounced this allegiance publicly.

I don't have a dog in the fight but in no way should Wikileaks be held responsible. The kid that leaked the information is a different story. He never renounced his allegiance so he must be looked at as a spy, IMHO.
 
2010-12-08 04:50:56 PM
chu2dogg:

What is about people that are so stubborn about being remaining ignorant.

The War Against Terrorism = TWAT (vice GWOT)

/ thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2010-12-08 04:54:18 PM
I don't know how a private would get his hands on gadzillions of documents but who am I to argue with a Boing Boing poster linking him to the leaks? I'm not sure what those other guys are doing in the poster. I think they may be co-leakers.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/06/us-army-manning-wont.html
 
2010-12-08 04:54:32 PM
As the left makes this guy out to be a hero, it weakens their chances in coming elections.

Sweet!
 
2010-12-08 04:54:57 PM
Do you honestly believe that any of the Wikileaks documents are stuff like that? Or anywhere close to it?

blog.cleveland.com

This guy does (new window) ...
 
2010-12-08 04:55:06 PM
themetalking: Finger51: He Put Lives In Danger

His own!

/I WIN!


LOL. +1
 
2010-12-08 04:57:03 PM
CrackedEgg: katghoti: the_falling_duck: katghoti: Yea, let's celebrate someone who took it upon themselves to endanger the lives of people because he knowingly broke the law! Yea, law breakers, next we'll celebrate Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, hell even Iran and Kim Jong Il and finally the 9/11 attackers. They all did "what is right" as well.

shiat why doesn't Time put him as man of the year as well.

You know who else was Time's Man of the year?

/asswipes!



/You know who else broke the law...?

You know who else was a patriot and didn't endanger the lives of his spies and confidants?

What this jackwipe did was the same as Nathan Hale, not Washington.

Swing and a miss!

Nathan Hale was a hero of the American Revolution, spying against the British. You have him confused with Benedict Arnold.

SoxSweepAgain: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Berkeley, where espionage and treason gets you free drinks and a parking space next to the mayors.

Treason? Why? How?

GOOD FOR HIM. AMERICAN HERO.

PFC MANNING FTW.

/Expose more.

Treason as defined in Art. III of the US Constitution. Also, depending on exactly how they're wording the charges, they could find him in violation of the Espionage Act.

The usual punishment for treason for a member of the US military has been death by firing squad.


Dammit, you are right, I am wrong, it was Arnold. Sorry, my right-wing, sheep attitude confused the rational thinking part of my brain. Thank you.
 
2010-12-08 04:57:37 PM
Thoguh: Do you honestly believe that any of the Wikileaks documents are stuff like that? Or anywhere close to it?


You were the one making sweeping generalizations - I was just playing along.

So your G.E.D. in International Relations tells you that even though experienced diplomats who have been doing this their entire professional lives thought that a piece of correspondence should probably only be read by its intended recipient, you know better, amirite?

Next up on 'relatively speaking, it's not that important' - your bank will be releasing all of the information that they have on you, but because you only have $100 in your account, it's not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
 
2010-12-08 04:59:50 PM
Next up on 'relatively speaking, it's not that important' - your bank will be releasing all of the information that they have on you, but because you only have $100 in your account, it's not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

howiwastetime.files.wordpress.com
 
2010-12-08 05:01:48 PM
Opposite: As the left makes this guy out to be a hero, it weakens their chances in coming elections.

Sweet!


The left hasn't had any chances in any recent elections and still doesn't.
Unless this leak somehow means Bernie Sanders will be kicked out of office.
 
2010-12-08 05:02:46 PM
BigNumbers12
Next up on 'relatively speaking, it's not that important' - your bank will be releasing all of the information that they have on you, but because you only have $100 in your account, it's not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

shiat, someone call the station! They're airing 'comparing apples with oranges' instead of 'relatively speaking, it's not that important'.
 
Displayed 50 of 364 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report