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

[QUOTE=waylander;52383882]why does wikipedia list her as still in active service? after being tried for treason dont you get dishonourably discharged?[/QUOTE] iirc, you get discharged after being released from military prison, she's still in military prison.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383913]iirc, you get discharged after being released from military prison, she's still in military prison.[/QUOTE] She's not in prison, and hasn't been since May 17th, but hasn't been taken off active duty status the pending the appeal of her court martial.

It's crucially important that the people in a democracy know what their government is doing. Manning was just doing her duty as a responsible citizen of her country, a true patriot.

This Buzzfeed article (and by extension any company who spins it similarly) are highly misleading. It says that, [quote]“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.”[/quote] But then it also states, [quote]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.”[/quote] Essentially this changes nothing from what was known before. It's just that media sites like Buzzfeed are trying to spin that because the conclusion mentions the US Leadership in Iraq was not at risk, that somehow means Manning didn't actually do damage, even though quite clearly the document points out that contacts/agents were still exposed and operations could have been severely damaged. Nobody was saying Manning had completely messed up the US's ability to lead/direct actions in Iraq. It has always been that agents and operations were undermined or exposed which is still the case. You would think people have learned not to source from Buzzfeed but here we go again.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52384174]This Buzzfeed article (and by extension any company who spins it similarly) are highly misleading. It says that, But then it also states, Essentially this changes nothing from what was known before. It's just that media sites like Buzzfeed are trying to spin that because the conclusion mentions the US Leadership in Iraq was not at risk, that somehow means Manning didn't actually do damage, even though quite clearly the document points out that contacts/agents were still exposed and operations could have been severely damaged. Nobody was saying Manning had completely messed up the US's ability to lead/direct actions in Iraq. It has always been that agents and operations were undermined or exposed which is still the case. You would think people have learned not to source from Buzzfeed but here we go again.[/QUOTE] Sure blows the threat to national security argument outta the water though.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52384194]Sure blows the threat to national security argument outta the water though.[/QUOTE] How so? Because I am not exactly sure what aspect you are referring to, but agents/operations being undermined/exposed is still a security issue. If you mean National Security, as in domestic, then you need to be specific because, "the Iraq data set will have no direct personal impact on current and former U.S. leadership in Iraq." statement from the conclusion doesn't seem to change such a notion.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52384174]This Buzzfeed article (and by extension any company who spins it similarly) are highly misleading. It says that, But then it also states, Essentially this changes nothing from what was known before. It's just that media sites like Buzzfeed are trying to spin that because the conclusion mentions the US Leadership in Iraq was not at risk, that somehow means Manning didn't actually do damage, even though quite clearly the document points out that contacts/agents were still exposed and operations could have been severely damaged. Nobody was saying Manning had completely messed up the US's ability to lead/direct actions in Iraq. It has always been that agents and operations were undermined or exposed which is still the case. You would think people have learned not to source from Buzzfeed but here we go again.[/QUOTE] Prosecutors said WikiLeaks' disclosures about Iraq and Afghanistan posed a major threat to US national security but their own report falls well short of that. I think Buzzfeeds biggest misstep is saying that it caused "no real harm", when it might have put locals and informants in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk, even if we can't quantify that. The real story here is that federal prosecutors knowingly lied about the impact of the Wikileaks release.

Me and my direct families personal information was released with those documents, I had a family member serving in Iraq at the time and this was one hell of a scare for him and many others serving at his level. Many Iraqi civilian translators and such contracting for the US army were killed because their names were in the data released. I know that the enemy didn't have the ability to target families in the US so US army families information being released wasnt a big deal but just imagine if they would have been able to.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52384268]Me and my direct families personal information was released with those documents, I had a family member serving in Iraq at the time and this was one hell of a scare for him and many others serving at his level. [B]Many Iraqi civilian translators and such contracting for the US army were killed because their names were in the data released.[/B] I know that the enemy didn't have the ability to target families in the US so US army families information being released wasnt a big deal but just imagine if they would have been able to.[/QUOTE] Do you have a source for this? The official government report just made it sound like a serious risk, but I haven't found anything to suggest that it actually happened.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52384246]Prosecutors said WikiLeaks' disclosures about Iraq and Afghanistan posed a major threat to US national security but their own report falls well short of that. [/quote] I can get that, but can we define what US National Security means at that moment for them? If it only means domestic, then you are totally right as of now, but if they still mean't US's operations in Iraq, then that could be at best exaggeration on their part. But I am actually looking into what the prosecution said and brought to the trial, and I cannot find statements on specifically "US National Security," except that the prosecution says he aided enemies, and that is still an open possibility going by even this document's conclusion. [quote] I think Buzzfeeds biggest misstep is saying that it caused "no real harm", when it might have, but we just can't quantify it. The real story here is that federal prosecutors knowingly lied about the impact of the Wikileaks release.[/QUOTE] Buzzfeed not only misstepped, but they did it knowing. How can you put that as your headline when within the 3rd paragraph you show the quote saying "Severe damage" was still possible? As for the real story, that really still doesn't seem confirmed at all they lied. Were still at a judgement call on that.

To be honest the only reason I used Buzzfeed as a source was because they're the one who went through the effort of doing a FOIA request. Credit where credit is due and all that.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52384305]I can get that, but can we define what US National Security means at that moment for them? If it only means domestic, then you are totally right as of now, but if they still mean't US's operations in Iraq, then that could be at best exaggeration on their part. But I am actually looking into what the prosecution said and brought to the trial, and I cannot find statements on specifically "US National Security," except that the prosecution says he aided enemies, and that is still an open possibility going by even this document's conclusion. [/QUOTE] They had witnesses [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/05/bradley-manning-leak-foreign-policy-sentencing"]attest[/URL] that the leaks damaged national security interests. Also regarding operations in Iraq it's not an exaggeration it's literally what the report says, that the government and military operations weren't hurt but that locals who cooperated with the government or American military were endangered. [QUOTE=Tudd;52384305] Buzzfeed not only misstepped, but they did it knowing. How can you put that as your headline when within the 3rd paragraph you show the quote saying "Severe damage" was still possible?[/QUOTE] Yeah Buzzfeed went with a questionable headline. I think it's bad because it's not as accurate as it could be and undercuts their own reporting. But I don't see why you would get so wrapped up around the axles about it considering most of the shit you post.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52384281]Do you have a source for this? The official government report just made it sound like a serious risk, but I haven't found anything to suggest that it actually happened.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/01/john-mccain/mccain-says-taliban-murdered-people-because-chelse/"]Apparently no records of anything actually happening[/URL]. My family member isn't a valid source I get that but a lot happens over there that the general public doesn't get to hear about. So take what I said however you want, I shouldn't have claimed it as fact.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52384349][URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/01/john-mccain/mccain-says-taliban-murdered-people-because-chelse/"]Apparently no records of anything actually happening[/URL]. My family member isn't a valid source I get that but a lot happens over there that the general public doesn't get to hear about. So take what I said however you want, I shouldn't have claimed it as fact.[/QUOTE] I mean I'm sure it probably happened so I don't want to put you on the spot or anything I'd just really like to know confirmed instances of it happening. Regardless of the fact that no occurrences can be found, the fact that Mannings leaks and Wikileaks release made it possible is bad enough on its own.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383609]Treason is treason, simple as that. She deserves her punishment.[/QUOTE] She deserved the punishment years ago until it turned into solitary confinement and basically fucked her life up for seven years.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52384662]She deserved the punishment years ago until it turned into solitary confinement and basically fucked her life up for seven years.[/QUOTE] Nothing compared to 35 years in leavenworth. Which is what she deserved.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383609]Treason is treason, simple as that. She deserves her punishment.[/QUOTE] Arbitrary authoritarianism. That rules are rules attitude is how bad regimes got people to do bad things. "I'm just following orders"

[QUOTE=Sky King;52383639]Becareful, boot polish is toxic.[/QUOTE] Sidenote: it seems Poppers drug is actually leather/boot polish. [QUOTE=Bird;52383641]In some countries it's treason to have dissenting opinions, doesn't make a punishment legitimate. I'd rather know what the government is doing than be kept in the dark about their actions. Manning exposed government lies and paid the price of defying authority.[/QUOTE] Leaking top-secret info is treason, however. I do not say that she, or Snowden, did it for nothing. They are heroes, but they went against their government nonetheless. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52383662] And this kinda shit? It's not an apology. It's insincere.[/QUOTE] You care too much about petty stuff. I wouldn't go out of my way to apologize for legit missing a letter.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;52385143] You care too much about petty stuff. I wouldn't go out of my way to apologize for legit missing a letter.[/QUOTE] I'm going to have a hard time believing this though, you specifically capitalized the H on your first try. edit: pot, kettle, etc

[QUOTE=Scarabix;52385214]I'm going to have a hard time believing this though, you specifically capitalized the H on your first try.[/QUOTE] MrRalgoman and CruelAddict are not the same person, unless you're a secret mod and know otherwise. Doesn't invalidate your point, but you might wanna make sure you're addressing it to the one who actually misgendered Manning.

[QUOTE=Scarabix;52385214]I'm going to have a hard time believing this though, you specifically capitalized the H on your first try.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]You care too much about petty stuff. [/QUOTE] Too much that you didn't even bother checking who posted. Ehh

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;52385538]Too much that you didn't even bother checking who posted. Ehh[/QUOTE] I'm going to make even more of an ass of myself if I edit it after what I've just said, am I not?

[QUOTE=Scarabix;52385557]I'm going to make even more of an ass of myself if I edit it after what I've just said, am I not?[/QUOTE] Being an ass is subjective. But this is way past off-topic.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52384724]Nothing compared to 35 years in leavenworth. Which is what she deserved.[/QUOTE] Good thing you're not in charge of any institutions of justice then, for a democratic government to work as intended people should sometimes reveal what's behind the curtain instead of blindly following rules about secrecy, which lets governments, especially rotten ones, get away with a lot of bad shit. Just following orders isn't an excuse, either. Whistleblowers ensure that governments and regimes are kept in line, often at great personal risk to themselves. The people who break rules might be scum according to you, but whoever stands by and lets excesses the public don't know anything about continue are worse than scum.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;52385143]Leaking top-secret info is treason, however. I do not say that she, or Snowden, did it for nothing. They are heroes, but they went against their government nonetheless.[/QUOTE] There's a huge difference, however, between betraying your government and your country. The government is not the nation. The people are. And in both Snowden and Manning's cases they were bringing to light abusive things the government was hiding from the people.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52383609]Treason is treason, simple as that. She deserves her punishment.[/QUOTE] Of course sir. We should hang that dastardly 'Colonel' Washington and his whole blasted bandit rebellion. /s

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52385943]Good thing you're not in charge of any institutions of justice then, for a democratic government to work as intended people should sometimes reveal what's behind the curtain instead of blindly following rules about secrecy, which lets governments, especially rotten ones, get away with a lot of bad shit. Just following orders isn't an excuse, either. Whistleblowers ensure that governments and regimes are kept in line, often at great personal risk to themselves. The people who break rules might be scum according to you, but whoever stands by and lets excesses the public don't know anything about continue are worse than scum.[/QUOTE] These people have to be martyrs though. You can't just not prosecute or you set a precedent. And then when someone does actually do something bad they get away with it. Just because Manning's crime didn't have the worst possible outcome does not mean they shouldn't be punished.