ChatterBank1 min ago
Was Bradley Manning In The Right To Leak All This?
what do you reckon?
Media URL: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-united-states-should-be-in-the-dock-not-bradley-manning-8641164.html
Description:
Description:
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not sure that there is a strong public interest defense in the material Bradley Manning revealed - it seemed mostly inconsequential
Ed Snowdon's revelations are however of a different nature and I think show an intelligence Agency operating outside of the legal framework which is something that should be a much greater concern for everybody.
A lot of people are throwing up a smokescreen here but what they were snooping on and it's specific purpose is not the point here - the point is that if law enforcement agencies start acting outside the law they have effectively been given the green light to do whatever they like and the only thing they have to do to justify it is say the word 'terrorism' and all the little sheep will baa 'Oh save us'
Ed Snowdon's revelations are however of a different nature and I think show an intelligence Agency operating outside of the legal framework which is something that should be a much greater concern for everybody.
A lot of people are throwing up a smokescreen here but what they were snooping on and it's specific purpose is not the point here - the point is that if law enforcement agencies start acting outside the law they have effectively been given the green light to do whatever they like and the only thing they have to do to justify it is say the word 'terrorism' and all the little sheep will baa 'Oh save us'
actually i am not a little sheep, and never would follow the flock, i believe that we are being spied on by our own sides, many of the freedoms we do take for granted are being eroded, and if more power is handed to government departments of whichever country to snoop on the citizens, then it's very wrong.
I like Owen Jones but he's missing the point about the Manning leaks. (hands up how many people thought St Julian of Assange was the person responsible?)
The vast majority of the leaks were US diplomatic cables, a lot of which were very interesting and fascinating to read. But it's necessary that these dplomatic communications, many of which are confidential assessments of foreign relations, remain confidential. If not they would no longer be able to be made.
We rightly don't want the US government or anyone else reading our often comparatively inconsequential emails, letters etc. We should expect and respect the same standards of privacy from people like Manning when it comes to other people's private comms.
It's all a tricky area, because if something's a secret you often don't know it's harmless until ...
The vast majority of the leaks were US diplomatic cables, a lot of which were very interesting and fascinating to read. But it's necessary that these dplomatic communications, many of which are confidential assessments of foreign relations, remain confidential. If not they would no longer be able to be made.
We rightly don't want the US government or anyone else reading our often comparatively inconsequential emails, letters etc. We should expect and respect the same standards of privacy from people like Manning when it comes to other people's private comms.
It's all a tricky area, because if something's a secret you often don't know it's harmless until ...
as one would, however if one has a conscience about certain matters and some people do, they may feel it worth breaking that oath of secrecy. I read various accounts, books on Bletchley Park and the people that worked there, it wasn't discussed, not until after the persons death, when families discovered that a member of the family worked there.
Many of us have McMouse
So lets see how far constrained you feel by it.
Suppose you discovered that the Government was secretly ignoring leaks of radiation from a nuclear facility and that it was harming children at a school nearby
Would you still feel constrained?
Is your constraint under the official secret act absolute? that no matter what harm or evil you knew about you should not reveal it?
You may be constrained by the official secrets act but you're also constrained by an obligation not to conspire to pervert the course of justice.
I know it'd be nice to think of moral absolutes but the real world isn't like that and people sometimes have to chose between conflicting obligations.
I'm not convinced Bradley Manning really faced that choice - I think Ed Snowdon did - maybe he still does
So lets see how far constrained you feel by it.
Suppose you discovered that the Government was secretly ignoring leaks of radiation from a nuclear facility and that it was harming children at a school nearby
Would you still feel constrained?
Is your constraint under the official secret act absolute? that no matter what harm or evil you knew about you should not reveal it?
You may be constrained by the official secrets act but you're also constrained by an obligation not to conspire to pervert the course of justice.
I know it'd be nice to think of moral absolutes but the real world isn't like that and people sometimes have to chose between conflicting obligations.
I'm not convinced Bradley Manning really faced that choice - I think Ed Snowdon did - maybe he still does
Re Snowden and the plane yesterday, didn't you find it hilarious that it was filled with journalists intent on having him 'at their mercy', as it were? As they whistled along the Moscow runway, they must have realised he was not aboard, yet here they were headed for the other side of the world utterly pointlessly. Wonderful!
As regards Manning, he is possibly the worst sort of traitor...a military one...it's as simple as that.
As regards Manning, he is possibly the worst sort of traitor...a military one...it's as simple as that.
"yet here they were headed for the other side of the world utterly pointlessly. Wonderful!"
Not only that but on a flight where there's no alcohol!
I had a modicum of sympathy for Edward Snowden to start with but it's apparent now that he's starting to believe the journalistic hype about himself. Many of his comments are full of the dreaded brown smelly stuff.
Incidentally I recommend RT's coverage of this story for an object lesson in journalism of the worst possible sort. They are, of course, beside themselves :-)
Not only that but on a flight where there's no alcohol!
I had a modicum of sympathy for Edward Snowden to start with but it's apparent now that he's starting to believe the journalistic hype about himself. Many of his comments are full of the dreaded brown smelly stuff.
Incidentally I recommend RT's coverage of this story for an object lesson in journalism of the worst possible sort. They are, of course, beside themselves :-)
And throughout all of this media circus the US is continuing to avoid the question of whether the NSA was out of control and acting illegally.
On what legal basis was this done
Who decided that such surveillance could occur without warrants?
Did Obama know?
Nobody seems to want to examine these questions everybody seems to want to concentrate on Ed Snowdon's globe trotting
On what legal basis was this done
Who decided that such surveillance could occur without warrants?
Did Obama know?
Nobody seems to want to examine these questions everybody seems to want to concentrate on Ed Snowdon's globe trotting
This is where I'm confused and I can't find an answer - we don't really know what was going on. The US claim they were only targeting foreign nationals. Which got Britain and others upset. The US citizenry got windy because they thought THEY were all being snooped on without warrants.
Snowden himself didn't claim that that was happening - only that it MIGHT happen potentially if an unscrupulous NSA analyst was able to exploit the system.
I agree that the Snowden world tour is a distraction from this, but meantime a lot of nonsense is being spouted about him, as was also the case with Assange.
Snowden himself didn't claim that that was happening - only that it MIGHT happen potentially if an unscrupulous NSA analyst was able to exploit the system.
I agree that the Snowden world tour is a distraction from this, but meantime a lot of nonsense is being spouted about him, as was also the case with Assange.
Who was being snooped on is a complete smokescreen
It's proving very effective in distracting people's attention
The question is were the NSA acting illegally? - arguing about who was being spied on is totally missing the point.
It's like saying 'it doesn't matter if the police are beating up foreigners in the cells as long as it's not us'
It's proving very effective in distracting people's attention
The question is were the NSA acting illegally? - arguing about who was being spied on is totally missing the point.
It's like saying 'it doesn't matter if the police are beating up foreigners in the cells as long as it's not us'
But that is what the fuss is about. I don't believe it is illegal for NSA, through the government, to collect information from global comms systems. In the past nobody cared because the main targets were military communications, and the phone numbers of known or suspected criminals. However the world has changed and so has communcations technology. I believe it's good for this debate to be in the open, and even the US president has welcomed that, but it was not, I believe, up to people like Snowden to generate that debate at least certainly not in the way he seems to have done it.
The legality issue touches who you then actually target.
The legality issue touches who you then actually target.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News11 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.