Gandhi broke the Law. MLK and Rosa Parks broke the law. Daniel Ellsberg broke the law. The law is written by people and is not an unassailable thing. The law is often wrong. We make the law and I’d say that the large majority of Americans would think that Manning should be free. The law says homosexuals can’t get married in most places… do you think that is also right?

What’s the problem? People like you who belittle the dangers and great personal sacrifice that people like Manning undertake to make the world better are the problem.

Which is what was happening in Iraq

And yes… get even. If you have an axe to grind it’s likely you want to get even with those you feed have discredited you. The internet has definitions for these things in case you are confused.

I am not arguing about the semantics of who is and isn’t a journalist, I’m merely pointing out that claiming he didn’t release to (what the mainstream knows as) an official news publication being a reason to ignore the validity of his contribution is just plain silly. The data was the same.

I was talking about blabbing to that Lamo asshole. Sharing them was right. Blabbing about it to Lamo (or anyone) was very silly. If he had told his boyfriend instead of Lamo he’d be in a much safer position right now.

So what’s the problem?

War crimes and corruption.

Any more questions?

should government employees privy to classified information be allowed to reveal that information with no consequences if they feel it’s ‘justified’?

When the exposed information is war crimes and corruption, FUCK YES.

Any other questions?

In the meantime, have a look at what other “government employees” are doing…

What a fine patriot you are….

Assange didn’t reveal Manning’s identity. Adrian Lamo did.

Oh yeah, that steaming pile of shit…

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49403380@N00/5250222396/in/photostream

I think both Manning and Wikileaks shows the importance of Anonymity when doing things our owners don’t approve of. Don’t stick your head up, snipe them from where they can’t see.

It doesn’t always work that way, unfortunately.  If people within the military and government don’t publicly come forward, it’s often much easier to sweep corruption and war crimes under the rug.

We need still need heros who are willing to make that sacrifice.

Instead of advising them to stay hidden, maybe you should take a moment and thank those that stick their necks out for you?

punish the original leaker

Punish whistleblowers that expose corruption and war crimes?

WHY?

Wikileaks has never been a member of the media, it has always been about creating news.  No impartiality.

Please name an impartial member of the media.

 Should be good for a laugh.

So what’s the problem?

I don’t really understand – should government employees privy to classified information be allowed to reveal that information with no consequences if they feel it’s ‘justified’?

Not if they feel it’s justified.  (That would be called a “straw man argument”.) I would think it would be appropriate for a third party — perhaps a grand jury — to make that judgment.  Such judgments should be taken into consideration when the whistleblower in question is charged for leaking the information.

That’s when I realized that “that person has an axe to grind” really means “I want to cast doubt on that person’s credibility but I have no real arguments or evidence with which to do so.”

With overtones of “Don’t bother me with the facts; my mind is already made up.”

How do you define ‘media?’

But really, who doesn’t?

Because I’m pretty sure that if/when war crimes are committed, the bodies responsible classify the shit out it.