Hacker News Reader

Comment by avner | Hacker News Reader

Brad Manning violated the very core values of integrity involved in operating as an IA. In my opinion he doesn't deserve the 'whisteblower' status some people are trying to protect him under.

Leaking a single controversial guncam footage because his conscience gave in is one thing, but continuing to leak documents and material and then boast about it to someone like Lamo is another. As a former Marine, I have seen and done things that keep me awake at night, but I will never violate my own integrity by doing what Manning did and end up endangering more lives.

Lamo ended up turning Manning in for another 15 minutes of fame. Anyone ethical with real national interest in mind would distance himself from this mess. Either way the leaked material will end up doing nothing but costing more lives.

View on HN

If you're referring to the video of the Apache assult, how does leaked video of war crimes cost lives? If you're referring to other material he leaked, which material are you referring to?

FTA: "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.'"

GP probably means the diplomatic cables. Sure they can be abused, but generally speaking, they are secret for good reasons.

WL says they haven't received any such documents:

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/15612005016

The Pentagon thinks he might: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-10/wi...

"I will never violate my own integrity by doing what Manning did and end up endangering more lives."

Has it ever occurred to you that sacrificing some more lives is not necessarily a bad thing? As far as I know, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was (highly) illegal. The U.S. citizens do not know what their military is doing, and do not care. The only deterrent preventing U.S. government from engaging in "nation-building" around the world is the political cost of a few hundreds / thousands of flag-draped caskets. Sometimes one must sacrifice a few to save many.

I think I would have worded this differently:

It's possible that Manning's actions would cost lives. It's also possible that Manning's actions would save lives, perhaps by aborting pending military actions.

Actual metrics are impossible to calculate, but we should acknowledge that both possibilities exist.

I also think it's useful to consider that you can betray a nation or government, but net a positive for the world as a whole. Many people believe that the US government has overused classification of documents which could prove embarrassing to those in positions of power. Perhaps people like Manning act as a natural counterweight, ensuring that those in power never believe that their actions will remain secret for eternity; someday, some loudmouth kid might spew your secrets to the world.

If the (in)famous video leaked by Wikileaks showed U.S. servicemen following the ROE, why is that the Pentagon was so upset by its release? Generally speaking, U.S. citizens greatly romanticize war, and videos such as this one show the crudeness of warfare, something few people want to see.

Do people really think that this video will enrage Iraqis further? Well, think about it. Iraqi citizens have endured decades of opression under Saddam, they had their country bombed to the ground in 1991, they endured a decade of embargo, they were bombed and invaded again in 2003, and have lived the past 7 years in chaos. I think the Iraqis are pretty jaded about violence by now. If someone is going to be upset about that video, that someone is the U.S. citizen who pays taxes and, unwillingly, subsidizes such slaughter.

I don't oppose Wikileaks leaking the video. What I oppose is Wikileaks editing for propaganda purposes. A raw video would have been more than enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com