Secret Government Report: Chelsea Manning Leaks Caused No Real Harm - Polidicks

[URL="https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-government-report-chelsea-manning-leaks-caused-no?utm_term=.dwRxLyxGx#.ohQKnrK1K"]Buzzfeed[/URL] [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/20/chelsea-manning-wikileaks-no-impact-us-war-pentagon"]The Guardian[/URL] [URL="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3868778/Wikileaks-Manning-Defense-Department-Damage.pdf"]The report[/URL] [QUOTE]Prosecutors said WikiLeaks' disclosures about Iraq and Afghanistan posed a major threat to US national security. But it turns out the classified document they cited — newly obtained by BuzzFeed News — said almost the exact opposite. In the seven years since WikiLeaks published the largest leak of classified documents in history, the federal government has said they caused enormous damage to national security. But a secret, 107-page report, prepared by a Department of Defense task force and newly obtained by BuzzFeed News, tells a starkly different story: It says the disclosures were largely insignificant and did not cause any real harm to US interests. Regarding the hundreds of thousands of Iraq-related military documents and State Department cables provided by the Army private Chelsea Manning, the report assessed “with high confidence that disclosure of the Iraq data set will have no direct personal impact on current and former U.S. leadership in Iraq.” The report also determined that a different set of documents published the same year, relating to the US war in Afghanistan, would not result in “significant impact” to US operations. It did, however, have the potential to cause “serious damage” to “intelligence sources, informants and the Afghan population,” and US and NATO intelligence collection efforts. The most significant impact of the leaks, the report concluded, would likely be on the lives of “cooperative Afghans, Iraqis, and other foreign interlocutors.” Details from the leaked documents were published by a consortium of international news organizations that included The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel. The June 15, 2011 report was obtained by BuzzFeed News in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed in 2015. Classified SECRET/NOFORN, meaning it was not to be shared with foreign nationals, the document was selectively cited by government prosecutors during Manning’s court-martial. Defense lawyers were not allowed to read it. More than half the report remains redacted.[/QUOTE] Figured this should be posted here in polidicks because the issue of government leaks has been super politically charged this past year, mods can move it if would be better in SH. Also using Buzzfeed as the main source because although they do not have the best reputation for factual reporting, this particular story is about the release of an internal document by the US government. I've also included The Guardian as another source, who have a better reputation. I can update this post if needed.

great you put a good woman through years of torment for literally no reason, thanks us government

Treason is treason, simple as that. She deserves her punishment.

It did hurt US Intelligence Sources in afganistan, however.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383609]Treason is treason, simple as that. She deserves her punishment.[/QUOTE] Becareful, boot polish is toxic.

She should be in prison. Whoops forgot the s... [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Transphobic shitpost" - Bengley))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Extended for terrible ban history. Sort it out." - Bengley))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383609]Treason is treason, simple as that. She deserves her punishment.[/QUOTE] [img]https://i.imgur.com/1lRPQUM.png[/img] the president of the united states has done much more treason than her, who was activley helping her country

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383609]Treason is treason, simple as that. She deserves her punishment.[/QUOTE] Must be nice having such a black and white perspective of the world. I hope you are never put in a situation where such a perspective is brought to bear heavily on your actions. The rest of us however will continue to think about the world more critically so we don't continue sliding into such despicable, totalitarian perspectives.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52383643]He should be in prison.[/QUOTE] Your useless and pointless disrespect is noted for what it is. Bigotry. [QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52383643]She should be in prison. Whoops forgot the s...[/QUOTE] And this kinda shit? It's not an apology. It's insincere.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52383643]He should be in prison.[/QUOTE] Woah what an impressive display of bigotry! Said nobody ever in response to one of these dumb posts. You just look dumb, gg.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52383670]Trump has nothing to do with this. Manning is guilty of treason and I'm sure violating a wealth of other articles within the UCMJ. If someone murders a rapist are they still a murderer? Manning is guilty regardless of whether you think they helped or not.[/QUOTE] No, and they weren't saying Trump had anything to do with this either. They were comparing the two. Not stating one had something to do with the other. Yes. They're still a murderer. Manning is still guilty of treason via whistleblowing, but the stated argument used by literally all of the right leaning posters I've ever seen, let alone the fucking pundits, was that she had cost american lives. That is not true, and that is not a line people can go to anymore as to why she should still be imprisoned so harshly. Now, a new line will be trotted out.

[QUOTE=Judas;52383646][img]https://i.imgur.com/1lRPQUM.png[/img] the president of the united states has done much more treason than her, who was activley helping her country[/QUOTE] How was she actively helping her country? You're being delusional if you think that it actually helped the US in any way. All it did was let civilian generals assume that they know better than actual soldiers and then cry about how the US did something wrong when they were doing the right thing with the information they had at the time. For example, the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. Quoting from wikipedia: [QUOTE]In the first strike, the crews of two Apaches directed 30mm cannon fire at a group of ten Iraqi men standing at a position which insurgents had previously used to shoot at an American Humvee with small arms fire. Among the group were two Iraqi war correspondents working for Reuters, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen. Namir accomplished his objective with three photos of the Humvee which included the large dirt pile used as cover by insurgents to attack the Humvee earlier that morning. Seven men (including Noor-Eldeen) were killed during this first strike, and Saeed Chmagh was injured. The second strike, also using 30mm rounds, was directed at a van whose driver, Saleh Matasher Tomal, appeared to happen to drive by and who proceeded to help the wounded Chmagh. However, in the long version of the video this van was targeted prior to the first engagement by one Apache (Crazyhorse 1/8) as it traveled south toward the Reuters employees who were, simultaneously, targeted by the other Apache (Crazyhorse 1/9) as they walked north on the same road toward the van. Minutes after the first engagement ended the van returned traveling in an opposite direction (north) once again on this same road. Two men assisting in the rescue effort were from a group of five standing at an intersection - seen in the upper right corner of the video when the Reuters employees arrive in the courtyard - reported to Apaches as being a second position combatants were using to attack the Humvee. Both of these men, Chmagh and Tomal, were killed in the second strike, and two of Tomal's children were badly wounded. [/QUOTE] The journalists were fucking stupid for standing in a position where there had been fighting. In the heat of war, a camera can look similar to a gun and any fighting age male should the risks of being near a place where there was recent gunfire. Same with the second position that was reported as a combatant position. The US in this case did nothing wrong and these journalists caused their own deaths by being bumbling retards. Show me a single case of Manning's leaks actually helping the US. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sky King;52383639]Becareful, boot polish is toxic.[/QUOTE] So if I agree with the government, I'm a fascist now? Fuck off with that line of thinking. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming - Theres better ways to word your posts" - Reagy))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383686]How was she actively helping her country? You're being delusional if you think that it actually helped the US in any way. All it did was let civilian generals assume that they know better than actual soldiers and then cry about how the US did something wrong when they were doing the right thing with the information they had at the time. For example, the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. Quoting from wikipedia: The journalists were fucking stupid for standing in a position where there had been fighting. In the heat of war, a camera can look similar to a gun and any fighting age male should the risks of being near a place where there was recent gunfire. Same with the second position that was reported as a combatant position. The US in this case did nothing wrong and these journalists caused their own deaths by being bumbling retards. Show me a single case of Manning's leaks actually helping the US. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] So if I agree with the government, I'm a fascist now? Fuck off with that line of thinking.[/QUOTE] So anything the government says is secret, that's it for you, eh? You'll never ask, you'll never bother them, you'll never question why that's a secret or why that became a secret? You're just good with anything being what they say it is? I mean the common line of "She cost american soldiers their lives" is dead now, so what's going to be the new line trotted out?

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;52383660]Must be nice having such a black and white perspective of the world. I hope you are never put in a situation where such a perspective is brought to bear heavily on your actions. The rest of us however will continue to think about the world more critically so we don't continue sliding into such despicable, totalitarian perspectives.[/QUOTE] What she did was objectively treason, it doesn't matter if it didn't end up doing any harm or not. All she's released is fodder that's easily taken as the black and white position of oh the US is evil.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383701]What she did was objectively treason, it doesn't matter if it didn't end up doing any harm or not. All she's released is fodder that's easily taken as the black and white position of oh the US is evil.[/QUOTE] Oh so it's fine to cover up things that are bad if the US does it Okay.

the fact that you assumed someone was calling you a fascist despite never actually doing so shows that you're insecure about something [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Reagy))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52383700]So anything the government says is secret, that's it for you, eh? You'll never ask, you'll never bother them, you'll never question why that's a secret or why that became a secret? You're just good with anything being what they say it is? I mean the common line of "She cost american soldiers their lives" is dead now, so what's going to be the new line trotted out?[/QUOTE] When did I say anything about that? All I asked was for proof that Manning actually helped the US. Any government should be thoroughly examined but the thing is that she objectively committed treason. I never argued to throw out the whole thing because it was obtained illegally, I'm arguing that she did something illegal, she should face the consequences while other people look over the secrets she exposed. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Judas;52383704]the fact that you assumed someone was calling you a fascist despite never actually doing so shows that you're insecure about something[/QUOTE] yeah you got me kach chai and all that What do you think he was alluding to? It's clear that he was alluding to the fascist jackboot.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383719]When did I say anything about that? All I asked was for proof that Manning actually helped the US. Any government should be thoroughly examined but the thing is that she objectively committed treason. I never argued to throw out the whole thing because it was obtained illegally, I'm arguing that she did something illegal, she should face the consequences while other people look over the secrets she exposed. [editline]20th June 2017[/editline] yeah you got me kach chai and all that What do you think he was alluding to? It's clear that he was alluding to the fascist jackboot.[/QUOTE] Kay Follow me here Whistleblowing on issues the us considers to be secretive, is treason Thus Saying anything about the US government that is deemed as a secret, including their fuck ups, is, say it with me now, treason

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52383702]Oh so it's fine to cover up things that are bad if the US does it Okay.[/QUOTE] The problem is that people don't bother to actually stop and think about what's revealed, they just see, feel, and react. A good example is the 2007 Baghad bombings. Objectively, the US was in the right but people don't think about that. They cry over the idiot journalists who walked into a dangerous place while holding things that looked like guns because they don't think about the military POV. Cover ups are bad but there was nothing to cover up there. If there was something to cover up, that video would not exist.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52383643]He should be in prison.[/QUOTE] If you weren't already aware you got her gender wrong.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52383729]Kay Follow me here Whistleblowing on issues the us considers to be secretive, is treason Thus Saying anything about the US government that is deemed as a secret, including their fuck ups, is, say it with me now, treason[/QUOTE] Yes, and she should be punished for it. Her treason might have led to nothing happening or something good happening but it's the law and it's a law that makes sense. She shouldn't be let go because nothing bad ended up happening. Also, treason for her is much different than treason for normal people since she was a member of the military at the time which carries a much more severe penalty.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383734]The problem is that people don't bother to actually stop and think about what's revealed, they just see, feel, and react. A good example is the 2007 Baghad bombings. Objectively, the US was in the right but people don't think about that. They cry over the idiot journalists who walked into a dangerous place while holding things that looked like guns because they don't think about the military POV. Cover ups are bad but there was nothing to cover up there. If there was something to cover up, that video would not exist.[/QUOTE] Okay, just because you seem to be fixated on this incident What did revealing this hurt? You say it didn't help anyone, I think there might be more to discuss there, but I can't be sure right now, but who did it hurt to reveal? The US military and the nation as a whole? Sure, I can see that, but I also don't see covering that information up, which I believe you are wrong about in saying that it wasn't "covered up", it was quite literally not publicly available knowledge, as having done anything of value.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52383741]If you weren't already aware you got her gender wrong.[/QUOTE] oh, he knows.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52383748]Say we launch a drone strike, accidentally kill civilians. It happens, whatever the case. We fucked up. Some shithead commits treason because they don't like what happened and now there are files detailing civilian casualties at the hands of the US. Now the strike that was intended to eradicate insurgents has now become the fuel for even more. Treason, whether it has a result that is "helpful" or not (something that is almost entirely objective), can not be allowed. We can't give someone a free pass for just blatantly violating the UCMJ on some moral high ground. For the same of argument let's say that Manning helped out, that doesn't mean the next 10 people trying to hide behind the guise of being a whistleblower aren't going to get people killed or jeopardize our national security. I really don't understand the confusion with this.[/QUOTE] Because doing the right thing is more important than arbitrary rules set by the government and enforced by the bootlickers who worship it

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52383743]Okay, just because you seem to be fixated on this incident What did revealing this hurt? You say it didn't help anyone, I think there might be more to discuss there, but I can't be sure right now, but who did it hurt to reveal? The US military and the nation as a whole? Sure, I can see that, but I also don't see covering that information up, which I believe you are wrong about in saying that it wasn't "covered up", it was quite literally not publicly available knowledge, as having done anything of value.[/QUOTE] I'm using this incident as a prime example of something that looks bad to the average american who doesn't know anything about war but actually isn't bad. It led to criticism of the US government/military from the press by portraying the military as bloodthirsty killers who don't care about the target and likely spurred some insurgents to join. There's a difference between a regular classified military mission and a cover up. Unless you think that every military mission should be published to the public, you should be able to tell the difference. My Lai was a coverup, this incident wasnt.

[QUOTE=Judas;52383755]Because doing the right thing is more important than arbitrary rules set by the government and enforced by the bootlickers who worship it[/QUOTE] please stop being an antifa edgelord and actually justify your logic. Why is this the right thing to do? How did these leaks benefit the US? The rules arent arbitrary at all, they've been formed by PSYOPS in order to stop reactionary people like you from hating the US and calling it fascist for every normal military mission it carries out.

[QUOTE=The golden;52383774]They did it intentionally. Trying to use gender as a means of getting in epic witty zingers. Should be outright bannable as shitposting.[/QUOTE] MrRalgoman would never do something that mean, she's a nice girl and has allowed her opinions to change when confronted with evidence that her evidence was flawed. I'm sure she won't make this mistake in the future, now that we've corrected her. :downs:

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52383748]Say we launch a drone strike, accidentally kill civilians. It happens, whatever the case. We fucked up. Some shithead commits treason because they don't like what happened and now there are files detailing civilian casualties at the hands of the US. Now the strike that was intended to eradicate insurgents has now become the fuel for even more. Treason, whether it has a result that is "helpful" or not (something that is almost entirely objective), can not be allowed. We can't give someone a free pass for just blatantly violating the UCMJ on some moral high ground. For the sake of argument let's say that Manning helped out, that doesn't mean the next 10 people trying to hide behind the guise of being a whistleblower aren't going to get people killed or jeopardize our national security. I really don't understand the confusion with this.[/QUOTE] I do understand your reasoning entirely. It makes sense. But there's also the other side to it. It's an attrocity, and if it were your family, can you think of how you'd feel? The "dumbass journalists" who got themselves killed, if they were your family, how does that play out for you? Yes, I get that there is an issue to be had with causing people to join the enemy by doing this, but isn't that part of [U]why[/U] all of this is going on? It is.

why does wikipedia list her as still in active service? after being tried for treason dont you get dishonourably discharged?

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52383670]If someone murders a rapist are they still a murderer? Manning is guilty regardless of whether you think they helped or not.[/QUOTE] You want to be technical, a murder is still a murder; it's one thing to go out of your way to try to help save someone from being raped or worse at that period of time, it's another if you found out they've raped before and then kill them for it. And you're arguably a potential crazy person yourself if you go out of your way to do that rather than calling the goddamn authorities. Technically, Manning is guilty of treason to their circumstances and legality, yes, but with everything complied together over the years and the matters involving Manning, nowadays it's a matter of morality given that one person who tried to out some bullshit (albeit through less than efficient means) basically got some seriously poor treatment out of an increasingly-arbitrary punishment penalty for matters the public don't care about and the government didn't really get affected by.