Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty

[WildCat]

I'm not the one whose argument hinges on a very specific definition such that if the reported behaviour isn't illegal, it can't be whistleblowing to reveal it.

Your definition, your burden of proof. I haven't seen any sources yet that support your definition, and complaining that some other source's definition is too broad doesn't magically make your super-narrow definition the right one.

I'm using the commonly held definition, one that is supported by law.

You're using a definition so broad in renders the word useless. Everything and anything is "whistleblowing".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

False dilemma fallacy.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

No, but I do believe this forum has lost its validity. I do hope it's temporary.

It's not about the politics. There has always been divided opinions in the politics forum. But the current trend in this forum is very unskeptical. You can throw all the ad homs my way you want, I'm not phased. This is the worst I've ever seen this forum. And I do hope it is a passing trend.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

No, but I do believe this forum has lost its validity. I do hope it's temporary.

It's not about the politics. There has always been divided opinions in the politics forum. But the current trend in this forum is very unskeptical. You can throw all the ad homs my way you want, I'm not phased. This is the worst I've ever seen this forum. And I do hope it is a passing trend.

*AHEM*

Republics.

That is all.

 

[TjW]

I'm using the commonly held definition, one that is supported by law.

You're using a definition so broad in renders the word useless. Everything and anything is "whistleblowing".

I think the word Kevin is looking for is 'tattling'.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm using the commonly held definition, one that is supported by law.

Let me educate you a bit here, because you are doing research wrong. It's not okay to search for one example of something, show it has a characteristic you want, and then declare triumphantly that all such things must have that characteristic. If you think about it, that's like claiming all rabbits are brown and stopping your search after you find one brown rabbit.

People might even think you were being deliberately dishonest and doing what we call "cherry-picking". That's when someone knows very well that not all rabbits are brown but they place no value on honesty or truth and so they go looking until they find a brown rabbit while ignoring all the white ones. You don't want people to think you're a dishonest, cherry-picking troll so you need to do more research.

For example, there's a site you obviously haven't heard of called "wikipedia". If you'd put in just a little more effort then you could have used it to find out that while the one state-level law you cherry-picked stumbled across first and innocently thought was the last word exists, the USA also has a federal law that defines legitimate topics for whistleblowing as "a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety" (source).

Granted it doesn't specifically say that breaches of the Geneva Conventions count since they aren't US law, nor do they say specifically that yahoos in gunships blowing away civilian Good Samaritans who are protected by the Geneva Conventions is a substantial and specific danger to the health or safety of members of the Iraqi public, but it seems like there's a case to be made there. You could make some kind of argument that there was a danger to public safety there.

You're using a definition so broad in renders the word useless. Everything and anything is "whistleblowing".

Now, now. I know you want very badly for me to have some specific definition in mind for you to attack, because that would take attention off the weakness of the position you have put forward.

However I'm not defending any particular alternative definition. I'm just pointing out that yours is factually incorrect.

You don't need to claim to know who the world's greatest singer is to know it isn't Britney Spears. I'm not saying I have some perfect definition, just that your definition is wrong, and your definition was put forward in ignorance of how the US federal government defines whistleblowing.

Now we both know your definition is wrong, hopefully we can move forward.

 

[WildCat]

Let me educate you a bit here, because you are doing research wrong. It's not okay to search for one example of something, show it has a characteristic you want, and then declare triumphantly that all such things must have that characteristic. If you think about it, that's like claiming all rabbits are brown and stopping your search after you find one brown rabbit.

People might even think you were being deliberately dishonest and doing what we call "cherry-picking". That's when someone knows very well that not all rabbits are brown but they place no value on honesty or truth and so they go looking until they find a brown rabbit while ignoring all the white ones. You don't want people to think you're a dishonest, cherry-picking troll so you need to do more research.

For example, there's a site you obviously haven't heard of called "wikipedia". If you'd put in just a little more effort then you could have used it to find out that while the one state-level law you cherry-picked stumbled across first and innocently thought was the last word exists, the USA also has a federal law that defines legitimate topics for whistleblowing as "a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety" (source).

Granted it doesn't specifically say that breaches of the Geneva Conventions count since they aren't US law, nor do they say specifically that yahoos in gunships blowing away civilian Good Samaritans who are protected by the Geneva Conventions is a substantial and specific danger to the health or safety of members of the Iraqi public, but it seems like there's a case to be made there. You could make some kind of argument that there was a danger to public safety there.



Now, now. I know you want very badly for me to have some specific definition in mind for you to attack, because that would take attention off the weakness of the position you have put forward.

However I'm not defending any particular alternative definition. I'm just pointing out that yours is factually incorrect.

You don't need to claim to know who the world's greatest singer is to know it isn't Britney Spears. I'm not saying I have some perfect definition, just that your definition is wrong, and your definition was put forward in ignorance of how the US federal government defines whistleblowing.

Now we both know your definition is wrong, hopefully we can move forward.

I think the way you do your banking is unacceptable, so I'm a whistleblower if I hack into your account and publish the details on the web.

Nice definition of "whistleblower" you have there.

 

[Babbylonian]

Was Ellsberg also a criminal? If not, why is Manning so much worse?

The differences between Ellsberg and Manning have been explained more than once in this thread. One fundamental, vital difference is that Ellsberg not only knew exactly what he was releasing but he was also part of the team that generated the report. He was in a position not only to evaluate the accuracy of the information but indeed to evaluate what it meant and why it might be important to release the information to the public.

Also, to answer your first question directly...Yes, he was also a criminal. He absolutely violated the law doing what he did. He probably would have been convicted if the Nixon Administration hadn't been completely off the rails and committed gross misconduct (becoming criminals themselves) while investigating the case. Whether that particular conviction would have been morally right or even in the public interest would be another question entirely but technically, legally, he was absolutely guilty of a crime.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, but I do believe this forum has lost its validity. I do hope it's temporary.

It's not about the politics. There has always been divided opinions in the politics forum. But the current trend in this forum is very unskeptical. You can throw all the ad homs my way you want, I'm not phased. This is the worst I've ever seen this forum. And I do hope it is a passing trend.

No offense, but that was easily the most hypocritical post I've seen in a long, long time

I notice you did not address the substance of my post pointing out your fallacy.

Feel free to step away from the forum, there are several pro-Brad echo chambers out there. Find one that appeals to you.

 

[Wolrab]

How can someone be a whisleblower if they have no idea of what they are releasing?

 

[TjW]

Pandora was a whistleblower.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

How can someone be a whisleblower if they have no idea of what they are releasing?

Precise and to the point, I like that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How can someone be a whisleblower if they have no idea of what they are releasing?

That applies to some of what was released but not to all of it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

present versus future

Funny, that's not what you claim he said in this post:

It seems to me that you are reading this paragraph differently from me. You and I were discussing the present state of the prosecution. Or at least I was when I wrote, "Neither I (message 174) nor from what I can gather Professor Benkler ever said otherwise with respect to 104" in message #244. The passage from the Benkler article is a statement about the future, not about the Manning case as it now stands: Benkler wrote, "...any competent lawyer today would have to tell a prospective civilian whistleblower..." (emphasis mine). There is no indication about whether or not he thinks this interpretation of Article 104 is likely, but if a lawyer believes in thinking defensively, then he or she has to consider both its possibility and the severity of the consequences if it did IMO.

 

[WildCat]

That applies to some of what was released but not to all of it.

It applies to 99% of it.

Manning certainly didn't read those hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables.

 

[The Big Dog]

That applies to some of what was released but not to all of it.

Well the we'll only prosecute him for "some of it."

Poor Brad should be getting out in 2050 that way.

Great post.

 

[Fredrik]

Manning isn't a whistleblower. In fact he couldn't possibly have known the contents of what he sent to wikileaks, it's far too much material.

We're talking about Manning, who revealed not a single atrocity.

He couldn't possibly have known what he sent there, but you know exactly what he sent there?

I don't know what he sent them, but I would say that e.g. the person who released the files on the Guantanamo detainees did a good thing. That certainly qualifies as whistleblowing (if he knew what he was doing). If he's that person, then I applaud him for that.

 

[WildCat]

He couldn't possibly have known what he sent there, but you know exactly what he sent there?

It's pretty obvious by now there's no "there" there, isn't it?

I don't know what he sent them,

Neither did Manning.

but I would say that e.g. the person who released the files on the Guantanamo detainees did a good thing. That certainly qualifies as whistleblowing (if he knew what he was doing). If he's that person, then I applaud him for that.

What unknown information did those reveal?

 

[tsig]

Let me educate you a bit here, because you are doing research wrong. It's not okay to search for one example of something, show it has a characteristic you want, and then declare triumphantly that all such things must have that characteristic. If you think about it, that's like claiming all rabbits are brown and stopping your search after you find one brown rabbit.

People might even think you were being deliberately dishonest and doing what we call "cherry-picking". That's when someone knows very well that not all rabbits are brown but they place no value on honesty or truth and so they go looking until they find a brown rabbit while ignoring all the white ones. You don't want people to think you're a dishonest, cherry-picking troll so you need to do more research.

For example, there's a site you obviously haven't heard of called "wikipedia". If you'd put in just a little more effort then you could have used it to find out that while the one state-level law you cherry-picked stumbled across first and innocently thought was the last word exists, the USA also has a federal law that defines legitimate topics for whistleblowing as "a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety" (source).

Granted it doesn't specifically say that breaches of the Geneva Conventions count since they aren't US law, nor do they say specifically that yahoos in gunships blowing away civilian Good Samaritans who are protected by the Geneva Conventions is a substantial and specific danger to the health or safety of members of the Iraqi public, but it seems like there's a case to be made there. You could make some kind of argument that there was a danger to public safety there.



Now, now. I know you want very badly for me to have some specific definition in mind for you to attack, because that would take attention off the weakness of the position you have put forward.

However I'm not defending any particular alternative definition. I'm just pointing out that yours is factually incorrect.

You don't need to claim to know who the world's greatest singer is to know it isn't Britney Spears. I'm not saying I have some perfect definition, just that your definition is wrong, and your definition was put forward in ignorance of how the US federal government defines whistleblowing.

Now we both know your definition is wrong, hopefully we can move forward.

You are aware that US soldiers are under the UCMJ?

 

[tsig]

No, but I do believe this forum has lost its validity. I do hope it's temporary.

It's not about the politics. There has always been divided opinions in the politics forum. But the current trend in this forum is very unskeptical. You can throw all the ad homs my way you want, I'm not phased. This is the worst I've ever seen this forum. And I do hope it is a passing trend.

There are plenty of forums out there were mere assertion is accepted as fact.

 

[Fredrik]

It's pretty obvious by now there's no "there" there, isn't it?

I don't even know what you mean by that.

What unknown information did those reveal?

They revealed the reasons why each detainee was detained. So we could see that in many cases (even in some cases where the guy was locked up for several years), there was no good reason for it.

You didn't answer the question of what makes you so sure that he didn't reveal any atrocities. If part of the answer is that "atrocity" means something much more extreme to you, like a massacre, then I would like to change the question: Do you have a reason to think that he didn't reveal any kind of unjustifiable abuse of innocent civilians?