As reported here
Chelsea Manning, the transgender Army private convicted of leaking national security secrets, faces a hearing Tuesday for prison infractions that could result in solitary confinement.
Manning, who was intelligence analyst Bradley Manning when arrested in 2010, is charged with disrespect of a prison officer and is accused having books and magazines including Vanity Fair and Cosmopolitan, among other offenses.
Noteable from the article, it is apparently "disrespect of an officer" to request a lawyer.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Username on Friday August 14 2015, @11:21AM
All he did was collect sensitive information and release it, without redacting, in order to impress his online friends. There’s no moral or justice behind it. It was pure vanity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @11:52AM
Yes, clearly that's what he did. He risks solitary confinement all to impress his online friends; that seems highly probable.
But I would say all you did was absolutely nothing. The least normal people can do is support whistleblowers like Manning or Snowden, but you fail at even that. You don't do anything, and you mock those who reveal abuses. You're not just useless; you're part of the problem.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @01:17PM
Manning was a traitor who cared nothing for the lives of those involved in his disclosures.
Snowden is a bit easier to like since nothing he revealed wasn't already practically common knowledge anyway (even if people looked at you like you were crazy)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nollij on Friday August 14 2015, @01:30PM
That's a horrible line of reasoning - The whole point of whistle-blowers is telling us things we DON'T know!
I'll grant you that Manning was more concerned about himself, but the fact that it wasn't (as) widely known doesn't factor into whether it was treasonous, or selfish.
Snowden is easier to like for a few reasons:
1) He's well-spoken. He's given several interviews, and is able to cast himself in a positive light
2) His opposition - the NSA - is widely disliked/distrusted
3) He seems to genuinely be altruistic - that he's taken extreme risk for the benefit of others (i.e. US citizens). Related to #1
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @02:36PM
But there is a marked difference between something being "commonly known" to be happening and knowing with facts that something is happening. That is the gift that Snowden bestowed upon the American people and the world.
Instead of two people in a coffee shop somewhere talking about how the American government probably does this or that major news organizations were reporting on the front page and leading stories on TV that this and that is happening and these are the three letter organization doing it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday August 14 2015, @06:00PM
But there is a marked difference between something being "commonly known" to be happening and knowing with facts that something is happening.
Yes, and there was good reason to believe it was happening even before Snowden came along, and even some talk about it. Snowden gave us more evidence, more details, and sparked lots of debate, which is good.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @03:05PM
The point of whistle blowing is NOT to tell you shit that you didn't know. The purpose is to address gross injustices that are being covered up. Or, sometimes, less gross injustices.
Do you REALLY need to know that Staff Sergeant Smith has diarhea? You didn't know it, now you know it, and you still don't give a damn.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @04:12PM
No he didn't. He did a bulk grab and dump. If he was true to the motives he's claimed, he would have only taken information related to what he says he cared about. Instead, we have thousands and thousands of unrelated documents taken and given away. He's worked against the interests of US citizens by giving away all the foreign intel information. His fan base, at least in the US, locks only onto the stuff they care about and don't care about the ways they've been screwed over, just like how a Red State Senator keeps getting re-elected even though he consistently votes against the interests of the common person; he says the right things on "hot button" issues that get his constituency worked up, but ultimately have a small effect on their lives.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2015, @03:02PM
The bitch is a traitor. When I was in the service, anyone who had problems could write their congress critters. I helped a couple people to write their letters. There were ALWAYS results when a congress critter got a letter from one of his constituents.
Did Bradley write to a congress critter? Fuck no. He wasn't looking right a wrong - he was looking to HURT PEOPLE!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @05:46PM
Considering all service members swear an oath to defend the constitution, I consider every last one of them an oathbreaker if there is even a single unconstitutional law on the books they don't bring up arms to take out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @05:56PM
The bitch is a traitor. When I was in the service, anyone who had problems could write their congress critters. I helped a couple people to write their letters.
Big fucking deal. The proper solution isn't to write to treacherous pigs in congress; the proper thing to do is to hand the information over to the people. You're too focused on the possibility that some people may get hurt (not by the mere release of the documents, but by actions other people take after seeing said information), but that is ultimately overshadowed by the importance of revealing abuses to the *real* proper channel: The People. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't believe in democracy.
This is the same shit people pull with Snowden. "He should have gone through the 'proper channels'!" The People are the proper channel.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 14 2015, @06:57PM
There were ALWAYS results when a congress critter got a letter from one of his constituents.
Maybe I deserve a big "whoosh" but you can't possibly be serious, can you?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 15 2015, @01:21AM
Yes, I am serious. At the very least, a well-written letter to a congress person from a service member causes a letter to be written to that service member's commanding officer. At the most, heads roll over the contents of a well written letter. People who want out almost always get a discharge after writing their congress critter. When someone has exhausted all other appeals, congress has the ultimate authority over each and every officer in the Navy. Perhaps I should point out that each and every officer's commission comes from congress? Ditto with warrant officers, and senior NCO's. The president is the commander in chief, but congress decides who holds rank in the military.
The commanding officer whose troops are constantly writing to congress in protest of his decisions doesn't have much of a future in the military.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Saturday August 15 2015, @01:27AM
There is a huge difference between finding out the NSA is doing something illegal, documenting it, redacting it and publishing it via reputable reporters, and going to an underground IRC chat saying: "I’m a 1337 haxor, here’s my warez, oh shiz the cops, how did they know it was me?"
Snowden is a whistleblower and has my respects because he actually proved the NSA was doing something illegal. Manning just dumped a bunch of files that proved nothing. He did not offer any reasoning for it until after he was caught. What illegal acts did manning uncover besides his own?