> WTF. He was essentially a WikiLeaks mole working on the inside...
Calling someone a "mole" that has not been recruited, has not received any kind of compensation and has gotten no commands is a a really large stretch of the meaning of the word "mole".
> He freely admits releasing documents that he felt could possibly harm the U.S. as well: "Of the documents release[d], the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States."
No. That is not what he said at all. I read the complete statement three times and you are leaving out important parts. It is true, that he initially was not certain that they couldn't harm the United States.
But that is why he got more information about the cables and came to the following conclusion:
"I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations."
> And why did he release these cables if they were the only documents that were risky? "I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy."
Nowhere did he say that this was the reason for releasing the Cables. Those are the reasons he stated:
"The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other."
> He also talked about reading quotes after WWI, about how "the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other." Certainly true! However he seemed to have missed the history lesson from WWII, where the U.K. and the U.S. both enjoyed significant military advantages thanks to their signals intelligence and codebreaking feats.
Those quotes were from a book with the topic "Open Diplomacy". He was talking about the reason for releasing the diplomatic cables and not about nuclear missile codes or secret uboot positions.
> I'm not really sure what to think about all of it. It seems to me that based on his very half-hearted attempts to go to the media that he was intending all along to go to WikiLeaks (whether consciously or not), and that the reasoning for it was not about specific things at all (at least the initial leaks).
Yes, he knew that he would get caught eventually (right before he started releasing the material) and that is why he went to two different newspapers just to make sure he does not look like a wikileaks mole once he got caught.
Your entire post is twisting the facts just to make him look bad.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and believe you haven't read the statement thoroughly.
Also this is just BM's statement. So it must not necessarily be true.
But when we are talking about this statement, let's stay with the facts.
> Those quotes were from a book with the topic "Open Diplomacy". He was talking about the reason for releasing the diplomatic cables and not about nuclear missile codes or secret uboot positions.
So individual soldiers now get to decide which information is actually sensitive and which is not?
Also, should GMail start leaking emails from Fortune 500 companies and local/state governments by the same logic you employ?
> Your entire post is twisting the facts just to make him look bad.
I'm trying to evaluate and see to the underlying reality. People will try to say what they think puts them in the best light while hinting around what might actually be the core of the issue (I'm certainly no different unless I pay close attention to what made it into the textarea).
I mean, practically the worst thing you could say in that courtroom if you're trying to avoid lengthy jail time is a variant of "Oh, I just felt like starting a public debate on topic $FOO". Especially when that was the reason for your first-ever leak.
At least with the FP 15 and the Reuters FOIA issues pretty much anyone who isn't cold-blooded can easily sympathize with Manning. I simply would have expected him to come across those issues first, not essentially last.
> Yes, he knew that he would get caught eventually (right before he started releasing the material) and that is why he went to two different newspapers just to make sure he does not look like a wikileaks mole once he got caught.
Come. ON. Army CID, Army IG, DoD IG, the Chaplain, a medical mental health practitioner, actually going to a physical office of the NYT or WaPo. He could have (but didn't) do any of these if he wanted to avoid the accusation of pre-selecting WikiLeaks.
That's not even the weirdest part. He was already lurking in their chat, soon to be friends (as he perceived it) with DDB or Assange, their ethics and geopolitics were right up his alley, etc. That part doesn't even surprise me one bit, I see his failure to motivate himself to go to a media source every week, when I fail to wake up 2 hours early on Monday "because I'm going to start working out". That's just basic human psychology. The seed had already been planted in his mind, it was just a matter of how long it would take for him to convince himself that he could live with himself.
With this much I'm 100% in agreement with jacquesm elsewhere: He should never have been screened for that position. Raw intelligence cannot be the sole or primary determining factor for what position you're assigned.
So individual soldiers now get to decide which information is actually sensitive and which is not?
Not even remotely what anyone who argues in favor of Manning's actions is arguing... there should be a limit to the amount of morally questionable information an employee should let happen before he/she decides to blow the whistle.
Manning committed a crime, quite willingly, because he viewed the end result as being worth some amount of personal sacrifice/inconvenience.
<jest>I must admit your style of argument (smart but bizarrely tangential) makes me wonder if you are part of some kind of astroturfing campaign targeting the HN discussion of this topic.</jest>
Calling someone a "mole" that has not been recruited, has not received any kind of compensation and has gotten no commands is a a really large stretch of the meaning of the word "mole".
> He freely admits releasing documents that he felt could possibly harm the U.S. as well: "Of the documents release[d], the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States."
No. That is not what he said at all. I read the complete statement three times and you are leaving out important parts. It is true, that he initially was not certain that they couldn't harm the United States. But that is why he got more information about the cables and came to the following conclusion:
"I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations."
> And why did he release these cables if they were the only documents that were risky? "I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy."
Nowhere did he say that this was the reason for releasing the Cables. Those are the reasons he stated:
"The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other."
> He also talked about reading quotes after WWI, about how "the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other." Certainly true! However he seemed to have missed the history lesson from WWII, where the U.K. and the U.S. both enjoyed significant military advantages thanks to their signals intelligence and codebreaking feats.
Those quotes were from a book with the topic "Open Diplomacy". He was talking about the reason for releasing the diplomatic cables and not about nuclear missile codes or secret uboot positions.
> I'm not really sure what to think about all of it. It seems to me that based on his very half-hearted attempts to go to the media that he was intending all along to go to WikiLeaks (whether consciously or not), and that the reasoning for it was not about specific things at all (at least the initial leaks).
Yes, he knew that he would get caught eventually (right before he started releasing the material) and that is why he went to two different newspapers just to make sure he does not look like a wikileaks mole once he got caught.
Your entire post is twisting the facts just to make him look bad. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and believe you haven't read the statement thoroughly.
Also this is just BM's statement. So it must not necessarily be true.
But when we are talking about this statement, let's stay with the facts.