The military have a different way of dealing with justice, especially in U.S.
She was in fact sentenced by court-martial not by a regular court.
How so?
> technically she stole classified documents
You can't steal online data. You can only copy it.
> betrayed her country that she swore to protect
Exposed crimes against the constitution by the government and the military to the people. This sounds like a very honourable (and whistleblow-y) thing to do.
> She was in fact sentenced by court-martial not by a regular court.
Which is an extremely corrupt move.
that's stealing a document in anyone's book.
> Exposed crimes against the constitution by the government and the military to the peopl
You're arguing with me, but I agree with you, I'm simply saying that a military court said that.
That's why I said technically.
The law is all about technicalities.
Manning wore a uniform, she was subject to court-martial, and court-martial ruled against her.
I'm just reporting it.
> Which is an extremely corrupt move.
Which is what happens when you're in the armed forces and have to deal with justice.
It's the same for everyone who joins the military.
She wasn't treated in a special way.
It would certainly be stealing if she deleted the documents in the server afterwards, which she did not. Stealing implies that the original is gone in everyday speech. Most people would be very upset if you stole their car, not so much if you copied it.
> I'm simply saying that a military court said that.
You might want to edit your previous post then. From "technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect." to "The military court claims that she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect", in which case I would claim that the military is corrupt and trying to cover their own asses. Anyway, whatever the military court said does not change the reality of the situation.
> Which is what happens when you're in the armed forces and have to deal with justice.
Yes, and I am against that as the objective of such "courts" is to do the military's bidding (which is to unfairly punish whistle-blowers and give lighter punishments to war criminals).
"Data theft" is understood to mean illicit copying, with no assumption that originals were destroyed. In everyday speech, "stealing data" implies unauthorized copies.
There are advantages to controlling the terminology in a narrative, but the ship has sailed on this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_theft
Again, not a lawyer, not trying to counter you personally, but if someone clones my credit card and take money from it, it is stealing, even if the card is still in my pocket.
If someone use my bank's password to transfer funds to his account, it is stealing, even if my account is still in my possess.
> "The military court claims that she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect"
That translates to "technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect."
because that's what a court does, it establish the facts, unless we prove the court-martial framed Mannings for something she did not do.
If I'm sentenced by a court for fraud, it means I committed fraud, unless I prove the court is wrong.
Saying "the court says that X did that" and "X did that" it's the same thing.
> which is to unfairly punish whistle-blowers and give lighter punishments to war criminals
I agree it is unfair, but the military know how it is, it's not something special to Mannings's case.
I would disagree (although it is closer to the definition of thieft than stealing data is as you lose the ability to withdraw the money).
> That translates to "technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect."
No, it doesn't. The "court" could as well say "the sun rotates around earth and the moon is made out of cheese", it would not make it correct.
> unless we prove the court-martial framed Mannings for something she did not do.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
> Saying "the court says that X did that" and "X did that" it's the same thing.
You seem to be putting a lot of trust to the authority of the court. To me the court does not hold any more credibility than anyone else.
> it's not something special to Mannings's case
Not claiming otherwise.
The difference between stealing and theft was unknown to me.
Secondly: no, it's not guilty until proven innocent, Manning has been proven guilty, she never denied of illegally obtaining those documents.
third: in this case Manning confessed. There's no much debate we can do about it.
fourth: no, I don't put any particular fate on courts, is just how the system works.
I'm not a sex offender until a court says so.
And after that people would say "he's a sex offender" not "the court said he's a sex offender".
Unfortunately I don't make the rules.
Feel free to read it as "I would disagree (although it is closer to the definition of stealing than 'stealing data' is as you lose the ability to withdraw the money)." -- I was not implying that there are differences between stealing and theft.
> Manning has been proven guilty, she never denied of illegally obtaining those documents.
> third: in this case Manning confessed. There's no much debate we can do about it.
I was talking about the general case, not specifically about Manning
> is just how the system works
I did not know that the courts can magically bend the laws of nature at will.
> And after that people would say "he's a sex offender" not "the court said he's a sex offender".
Well, the people would be wrong.
no
> and take money from it
Now it’s stealing, but not your card, but your money has been stolen.
If you copy a secret document you steal the informations in it.
What's the difference?
In the context of stealing secret documents from the government - the question is, did the government have a legal right to keep those documents "secret" from its people. Did those documents contain evidence of illegal activities by the government that it was attempting to keep hidden?
Whether or not it's stealing in this case, is irrelevant, imo. If the information being hidden is of detriment to the people and your intent is to share the info with the people it is harming, then I would argue that it's entirely reasonable to share the information.
If you find out that Coke products secretly include arsenic and you share that with the general public, I don't think anyone (besides Coke) would be calling you a thief.
If you steal their secret formula so that you can profit off of it, or just because you want to share it with the world to break their monopoly of their own product, I would consider that stealing.
Stealing a "secret" is a weird notion
Hasn't she in fact protected her country from commiting further war crimes?
The court ruled against Manning in favour of the prosecutors.
She was "acquitted of the most serious charge, that of aiding the enemy, for giving secrets to WikiLeaks" under the spionage act, which means treason.
If you want an explanation from me, they said that the fact that she stole classified documents regarding national security and gave them to wikileaks, which is foreign to U.S.A., is an act of treason.
The central point is that Manning never denied to taking those documents illegally, at the time she (was still a he) said she wanted to spark public debate on the matter.
> betrayed her country that she swore to protect
And I mean, she was acquitted of aiding the enemy, ie. that charge didn't stick. All of the charges that did stick are around improperly storing classified data.
And as I've said before, the prosecution couldn't come up with any actual harm at her trial, so "betrayed" is you embellishing the story.
Furthering the cancerous distortion of the truth via willful ignorance.
"The facts of this case, leave no question as to what constituted national defense information. Appellant's training and experience indicate, without any doubt, she was on notice and understood the nature of the information she was disclosing and how its disclosure could negatively affect national defense."
Manning, the judges ruled, "had no First Amendment right to make the disclosures—doing so not only violated the nondisclosure agreements she signed, but also jeopardized national security."
apparently they did stick.
The assertion that whistleblowers must use official channels is just a paper-thinly veiled argument for silencing all whistleblowing.
Deep throat identity has been a very well kept secret for over 30 years, Manning and Snowden have been exposed merely weeks after the material was published.
It looks to me that Wikileaks is the real paper-thinly veil.
If I was a conspiracy theorist I would think that wikileaks was created exactly with the purpose of exposing whistleblowers.