http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/wo...cables.html?hp
Transparency in government is a good thing. Should I hope for more?
Pfc Bradley Manning. Hero or traitor?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/wo...cables.html?hp
Transparency in government is a good thing. Should I hope for more?
Pfc Bradley Manning. Hero or traitor?
Last edited by minorwork; 28th November 2010 at 07:06 PM. Reason: adding image
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
I would count him among George Washington and Sherman as military heroes.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
I would say hero. But its a tough one, if one person dies because of the leaks then he could easily be seen as a traitor.
You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. : Dick Cheney
Well, from the Wikipedia article on the release:
The US has only itself to blame.On 26 November, via his lawyer Jennifer Robinson, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange sent a letter to the US Department of State, asking for information regarding people who could be placed at "significant risk of harm" by the diplomatic cables release.[7][8] Harold Koh, Legal Adviser of the Department of State, refused the proposal, stating, "We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials."
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
I won't say the lad is a hero outright. But the publishing of the information is very helpful in that the citizenry is able to gain more of an inside look at how the government works.
What bothers me most is that Defense/State clamoured that there were so many innocent people, who's lives were at risk. This was an attempt to use pressure in order to keep Wikileaks cowed. And when the information came out, Surprise, Surprise, all the names had already been redacted.
This is precisely what is wrong with Big Government. The larger it becomes, the more obtrusive it becomes. As a consequence the Individual Liberties lost, are your(second person plural) own.
What I am saying in a round about way is Bravo Wikileaks!
Strictly within the context of honoring his word and faithfully fulfilling the obligations he freely accepted when he chose to enter a field in which he'd be handling classified documents I don't see how he can be considered a hero. He violated the trust that the military and government placed in him. He decided by himself to reveal classified documents without concern for what the subsequent outcome might be. Anyone who has ever leaked classified documents to those not cleared to see them has had their reasons, some noble and some not noble at all, and rarely has the American public viewed them as heroic. The Rosenbergs were sentenced to death for their misappropriation of classified documents. Several people are currently in prison with life sentences for sharing classified information with those not entitled to it. We generally call them spies and their actions treason or espionage. In the past the only people who considered them heroes were the countries for which they worked. Kim Philby was a hero to the Soviet Union but not to the British.Hero or traitor?
Intelligence is a field in which one person rarely if ever has the whole picture. To decide for oneself that classified documents need to be released for whatever reason presumes that the person doing so has a reasonable knowledge of why the documents were classified in the first place and the ramifications of their release. That is certainly not the case for a low-ranked soldier in the American Army.
Perhaps this is one case where the documents will do more good than harm, when they ought to have not been classified in the first place. But Manning has no way to know that, so his violation of oaths he took and the secrecy agreements he signed is, within that context alone, inexcusable. He may not be a traitor in that he didn't sell the documents directly to a hostile foreign power, but his actions can't honestly be called heroic either.
I'll be amazed if any conservatives support his actions after the scorn they heaped on Ellsberg in the 70s. They can't possibly condone Manning's actions even if they expose actions taken by the Obama administration that the conservatives want to use as ammunition against it.
The Forum Rules
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
[John F. Kennedy]
The principal value of debate lies in the development of logical thought processes, and the ability to articulate your positions publicly.
[Senator Dick Clark of Iowa]
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
[Terry Pratchett]
WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning: Facebook page military rage - National google trends | Examiner.com
Traitor. Is on suicide watch.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Why traitor?Quote by: minorwork
WikiLeaks is now being considered a terrorist organization by the United States. My faith in democracy is shattered.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
Was he drunk or being coerced to break the procedures of his job? Would you hire this guy?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
That's besides the point. Why is he a traitor? You seem to ignore my question
This wiki leaks is really stuff that people want to know, but don't need to know. If they pay to know, then that is fine. If they walk into the president's office, being a civil servant, they should be told the truth, and this truth doesn;t hurt anyone or anything physically.
But, they should be more selective with what they tell. For example this Turkey relation thing, or the Saudi King asking for the US to attack Iran, well, that is now public. If the West wants to remain anonymouse on what they do, so to speak, then they should not document these things.
Is this treason? Spiling personal information about someone is an invasion of privacy, so, if they were to invade the diary of leaders they need to know that these things are not bad things, they are just true. If they want to know, tell them. If they think they are bad things, then they need to say why? It is all just politics, yes? Someone dies under special circumstances then it is a story.
To hide the truth is wrong, but to unsettle people and make them rebel is also wrong. If nobody rebels, as in goes to march on the street or strikes, then there is not a problem. Are people marching? No problem! If people read it and think all sorts of nasty things about the politicians, what would the people do in that position? If they would honestly say they would do the same things, then they are wise. If not, then they must be stupid, yes? The state is running, but the fact that they are still trying to uproot Al Queda is a good thing. The fact that it is a waste of money is another fact, but, heck, it is still a good waste of money!
!! Going to my destruction !!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks