Man involved in releasing Wikileaks video arrested

[Vekseid]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

...
Manning was turned in late last month by a former computer hacker with whom he spoke online. In the course of their chats, Manning took credit for leaking a headline-making video  of a helicopter attack that Wikileaks posted online in April. The video showed a deadly 2007 U.S. helicopter air strike in Baghdad that claimed the lives of several innocent civilians.

He said he also leaked three other items to Wikileaks: a separate video showing the notorious 2009 Garani air strike in Afghanistan that Wikileaks has previously acknowledged is in its possession; a classified Army document evaluating Wikileaks as a security threat, which the site posted in March; and a previously unreported breach consisting of 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning described as exposing “almost criminal political back dealings.”

“Hillary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,” Manning wrote.
...

The overall reaction from liberals seems pretty cold - even ignoring the 'Collateral Murder' video, just firing off 260,000 diplomatic documents with little consideration of their contents is blatant treason as far as I'm concerned.

If the one currently available is any indication, it's ridiculous - there's little moral ground for it. How many lives did this idiot put in jeopardy?

[Wolfy]

I'm glad that he leaked the Collateral Murder Video. The Public needs to know these things, and being kept in the dark about them is idiotic. If we're going to be in a war, we have to be aware of what our own country is doing as well as the other.

Sometimes your worst Enemy is yourself, ya know? We can preach on and on about 'saving lives' and stuff, but when things like that happen, what does that say about us when we keep it in the dark? I think the Citizenry has a right to know both the good and bad, not just the things the government labels as Unharmful to them.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I don’t agree with that sentiment.  There are things people need to know and things that are best left unknown by the general public.  This is both for their welfare and also for the well being of the people involved in the incident.  I think people like to parade around a desire for the “truth” when in fact they simply want something to talk about over the water cooler.  As for the documents, I do hope they levy some severe charges against him for that because that is pretty close to treason.

[Xenophile]

It is important to understand the difference between political transparency and security transparency. If a nation can be commented on having a good democratic system in place, it needs transparency where everyone can access information and the political debates and decisions of the government. It is a good thing for the government transparency, but when it comes to matters that concerns security we need to understand there there are things that should be seen and heard, while there are other things that need to be hidden for the public.

Things like pictures and videos of war crimes, instances of incompetence that doesn't divulge sensitive information should be part of common knowledge, though, if some good Samaritan wants to leak sensitive out to the public, he needs to make sure to do it within reason if he wants to ensure that what he is doing can be encouraged. If he leaks information that disrupts the capacity of his nation's military to protect it's soldiers and to reach their objectives, then he is a traitor to the full extent of what the law describes a traitor.

I commend the man for doing what journalists have been unable to do, show the grim and bloody truth, but I cannot defend his actions of revealing classified information if it is just for the sake of revealing classified information.

[Trieste]

“Hillary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,” Manning wrote.

It seems to me there are two likely scenarios: either this guy was malicious in his intentions and is out to 'get' people like Clinton and her ilk, or he's part of the 'information wants to be free' faction of folks and sees politicians as malicious toward that goal. Either way, it's clear that he views 'diplomats around the world' as someone to defeat, to surprise, to work against - as opposed to being part of the team.

[Vekseid]

Manning edited the video before sending it to Wikileaks.

As far as I am concerned he gets no credit.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm sorry, I cannot condone his actions. It is the same, to me, as the person who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to the media (and I don't buy that it was 'Scooter' Libby).

He committed a crime. Should the video been made available to the media. Yes but tell me what 'need to know' involves you dropping a quarter of a million documents onto a site like WikiLeaks? And like the true person behind the disclosure of Valerie Plame, he should suffer the consequences of his actions.

Of course if you're trying to be a whistle-blower and NOT someone with an agenda against others in your community you'd accept that as a potential consequence.

A lot of folks I worked with the Navy who had clearances were truly pissed off by the disclosure of Plame's identity as a NOC (No Official Cover) agent and I'm willing to bet the same sailors were pissed when this was leaked.

I don't think leaking the video and ALL those documents were needed to get the video out.

I'm sorry, I got NO pity for the leaker. Sadly I'm sure he'll get pleaded out to some lesser charge and sent on his merry way to make a lucrative living like Libby is.

[Paladin]

I'm sorry but the Military covers up most of their shit. Its should be leaked. The Public ha s a right to know whats going on. As for the rest of it, they have a right to know about that too.

[Brandon]

Im a bit torn. Having worked in Military intelligence at one time I know that there are some things that really dont need to be classified (or at least shouldnt be for any reason I can think of) however other things certainly do need to be classified. At first glance I tend to think the information he has is a mix of the two categories

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm sorry but the Military covers up most of their shit. Its should be leaked. The Public ha s a right to know whats going on. As for the rest of it, they have a right to know about that too.

And what if it endangers some Americans or impinges on our security? I think if he had HONESTLY wished to show the gun battle slaughter, he should have popped a DVD to several media groups (Reuters comes to mind for obvious reasons) but what could POSSIBLY justify the release of nearly 300 THOUSAND documents along with it. He was trying to get someone (or several someones) fired.

[Vekseid]

Apparently Wikileaks didn't get the cables, so either he sent them to someone else, or they got intercepted some other way.

Noting the 10-year classification on the cable above, I think it's just a matter of courtesy keeping diplomatic negotiations private, which seems perfectly reasonable.

[Callie Del Noire]

He committed treason. And from the looks of it, he was definitely going places in the network he shouldn't have. I held that clearance and they VERY clearly outline the consequences. 

I give him points for trying to show the Rueters crew in ident but I still think that was an accident more than active malice. His other leaks. Definitely more to it than showing 'bad things'.

[RP7466]

The people DO NOT have the right to know about everything that's going on. The people should be informed on general progress and events but that is it. You may think that watching movies/reading books/playing video games means you know a thing or two but you do not have the experience, knowledge or training to understand the events/situations/information that is not only classified but has become mainstream media. If you want to know more detailed information than that, put on a pair of boots and pick up a rifle!

Famous Speeches: A Few Good Men

If I ever meet this wikileak asswipe ill have him wearing his ass as a hat

[Brandon]

The people DO NOT have the right to know about everything that's going on. The people should be informed on general progress and events but that is it. You may think that watching movies/reading books/playing video games means you know a thing or two but you do not have the experience, knowledge or training to understand the events/situations/information that is not only classified but has become mainstream media. If you want to know more detailed information than that, put on a pair of boots and pick up a rifle!

Famous Speeches: A Few Good Men

If I ever meet this wikileak asswipe ill have him wearing his ass as a hat

Been there done that, I got tired of fighting for the country and chose not to reinlist thanks. Outside of military operations, equipment, and plans you will have a hard time making me agree that things should be kept from the public eye. Political discussions within our own country absolutely should be public, outside our country, Im still thinking they should be public so the people can make their will known but I can understand keeping them quiet till negotiations are finalized

[Vekseid]

It's easy to forget that a lot of stuff isn't classified for us. That is, we don't keep things secret because American citizens would necessarily flip out over America trying to get Norway to give Iceland a loan in order to give it a more favorable debt arrangement versus the one it has with England.

We keep those things secret because it's not necessarily good form to air dirty laundry like the Icelandic president's 'predictableness' - it allows for frank discussion to solve issues without worrying about political crap getting in the way.

[Cythieus]

The collateral murder video was clearly a little doctored. It didn't show the prior engagement of the targets and it gave a lopsided story. There was a later article about eye witnesses that saw the person on the ground holding a rocket propelled grenade launcher and armed men. So the video wasn't even the truth, the helicopter had a right to fire. People seem too often to not understand what guerrilla warfare is, you can't stand in the streets around people with rpg launchers and expect not to be perceived as a threat to a helicopter. They don't want to get shot down obviously.

On top of that, there was a convo nearby. Wikileaks doesn't have a responsibility as far as it sees to tell the truth, they seem to seek to demonize different world governments to some other end. And the public ate it up in big gulps like it was an open and shut case and asked no questions. 

[Huginn]

In regards to this topic. It seems rather clear to me. I don't remember if it was the Daily Show or the Colbert Report but one had one of the wikileaks founders on. Their goal was simple. Release the information for the most focused political punch. That punch is decided by their source. They are not heroes, although someone  leaking such information could be considered a hero in certain situations, these are spin doctors, liars and cheats. The worst of politics gussied up as a populist hero. They are not good people and honestly I would be overjoyed to see them shut down.

To where the conversation has lead. Any information that will not directly risk the life of someone trusting the information will be kept silent, should be open and as unspun as possible. It is only if we can make informed decisions that we can do our duty as citizens and vote and speak out. As great as that clip from"A few good men" is, it speaks to me of what the problem is. That there are a class of people who feel that what they do should be above review, be they soldiers , police, politicians,business men,or even sports stars. That the good that they provide raises them above everyone else and that to provide that good they are given a pass. For me, it seems ethically wrong and I simply can not understand such mindsets.

[Cythieus]

In regards to this topic. It seems rather clear to me. I don't remember if it was the Daily Show or the Colbert Report but one had one of the wikileaks founders on. Their goal was simple. Release the information for the most focused political punch. That punch is decided by their source. They are not heroes, although someone  leaking such information could be considered a hero in certain situations, these are spin doctors, liars and cheats. The worst of politics gussied up as a populist hero. They are not good people and honestly I would be overjoyed to see them shut down.

To where the conversation has lead. Any information that will not directly risk the life of someone trusting the information will be kept silent, should be open and as unspun as possible. It is only if we can make informed decisions that we can do our duty as citizens and vote and speak out. As great as that clip from"A few good men" is, it speaks to me of what the problem is. That there are a class of people who feel that what they do should be above review, be they soldiers , police, politicians,business men,or even sports stars. That the good that they provide raises them above everyone else and that to provide that good they are given a pass. For me, it seems ethically wrong and I simply can not understand such mindsets.

Problem is that what happens when someone within their group gives information to someone else that shouldn't have it. What happens if they don't even plan to release something because of names or locations in it and it ends up in the hands of other governments, terrorists or the like. Part of the thing with government is you trust them to do what's best for the nation and the people in it, if they truly are hurting the citizens or meaning harm, then there is an issue. But normally, like Stewart also says, these people aren't evil. They aren't trying to cause the nation harm and hind sight is 20/20. You can look back at some video from 07 (that's been doctored) and think why would someone do this but you don't remember the height of the war in 07. You don't understand the stress there and you're judging it from a time when things are better.

More over, you still have that issue of what if a name or other information they don't want to even release gets into the hands of people like I spoke of earlier? What if they leak something that someone has altered or fabricated and cast doubt where there should be none. It's already happened and they can't take it back.

What I am hoping happens, what will probably happen is the DOD and other agencies will flood out falsified information too juicy to pass up and when wikileaks gets it they will be discredited over and over until they die out.

[Huginn]

That is why I make the comment of risking someones life. If people rely on the information to be kept secret for personal safety. It should be kept secret. That said, I don't care about their reputation, their income, their ability to be hired in the future. If someone who we have given a social responsibility to screws up, I want to know about it, and I want to know that action is being taken to correct the issue in the future. If the video was totally undoctored and clearly portrayed the men shooting as obvious scumbags, I would be angry that they were not properly delt with. But as things stand, it does not seem there was any safety based information to be leaked, the situation was covered up, the public were told to butt out, and so it is easy for someone to come along, take bits of the truth and show them to you to tell a total lie. And it is a lot easier to believe the person showing you something over the person who promises that there is nothing to see. Even if they are scumbags whos point is to mislead.

Opening as much information as possible is the only way to protect from misinformation. When you don't need to worry about what is being hidden you are in a position to make informed and reasoned choices.

[mystictiger]

There is no situation in which a grave breach of the laws of war should be kept secret. The threat of releasing information in this regard is -not- the release of the video, but the people who committed the crime in the first place.

In a modern democracy, the debate shoud not be what the public have the right to know but rather what the state has the right to hide. The starting point is that information should be free unless the government can justify hiding it.

[Huginn]

Thank you mystic. My ramblings might point at what I had meant but you said it far more clearly.