Manning dumped a whole slew of stuff without any checking or vetting or anything else. Some of the stuff I saw in relationship to Italy, for instance, was just diplomatic personnel airing "what they really thought" about Silvio Berlusconi. These comments are the kind of thing that didn't do anyone any good to have dumped in public.
Others would say -- and I would say also -- that in general, the public has benefited greatly from the disclosures in the more pertinent cable leaks.
The thing to keep in mind, though, is that Manning didn't simply dump these to "the public"; she gave them to Assange and his people, who (after some falling out with each other, and a lapse in some basic security practices) managed to leak the passphrase to one of their private keys.
Which isn't to say she's not responsible for the consequences of her actions; in any case, she's already very much paid the price for the decision she made. But still, it was not her intent that the cables be simply "dumped in public".
I'm not upset about the commutation of the sentence, but I do think that some punishment was just. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to argue how much might be appropriate, and I think we can all be pretty sure that she's not going to be in a position to dump that kind of data again, so there's not a risk of recidivism.
All kinds of stuff. Disclosure about what the U.S. diplomatic staff knew about corruption and torture in various countries -- and what they really thought about the ruling elites of these places, despite public statements to the contrary; attempts by companies such as Chevron, Lockheed-Martin, and Coca-Cola sought influence in certain countries; how the U.S. arranged to spy on UN officials, etc.
Here's one of my personal favorites (summarized by Reuters):
"You know the movie 'The Godfather'? We've been living it for the last few months," a businessman involved in the dispute was quoted in the cable as telling an official from the U.S. diplomatic mission in Tripoli.
The cable, which was made available to Reuters by a third party, centers on a bottling plant in Tripoli that was shut down for three months. It had been seized by troops loyal to Mutassim Gaddafi, a son of Muammar, who at the time was feuding with one of his brothers, Mohammed. (Another State Department cable suggests a third Gaddafi son, Saadi -- better known as the family's professional soccer player -- may also have been involved in the squabble, though no details of his role are given.)
Eventually, the American diplomatic mission in Tripoli, known then as the U.S. Liaison Office, sent a firm protest to the Libyan government. The document states that around the same time, Mohammed Gaddafi, possibly under pressure from his sister Aisha, a family peacemaker, apparently agreed that shares owned by the Libyan Olympic Committee, which he led, would be sold to a third party.
Shortly afterward, the cable says, Mutassim's men left the Coke plant, ending the family standoff, but not before employees of the plant received threats of bodily harm and a Gaddafi cousin was stuffed in the trunk of a car.
Really, it shouldn't be hard to satisfy your own curiosity on this topic. Unless you think we're better off not knowing about this stuff, that is.
How has the public benefitted from any of that? It sounds like your morbid curiosity has been satisfied, but who didn't know Libya under Gaddafi was a cesspit?
> Unless you think we're better off
> not knowing about this stuff, that is.
Who didn't already know all of that in broad strokes?
Who didn't already know all of that in broad strokes?
I guess that argument could be applied to high crimes and corruption of all sorts, just about anywhere: "We already know about that in broad strokes. What good does it do to air all that dirty laundry before the general public?"
Which these weren't. There's about as much public benefit in knowing how exactly Gaddafi was corrupt as there is in known just how many women Tom Cruise has slept with. cf: Public Interest
Then maybe you shouldn't (repeatedly, incessantly, decade after decade) engage so shamelessly with forces of corruption and darkness such it that inspires people to take great personal risk to expose that information.
This has nothing to do with corruption. People talk even without getting paid. Not everyone realizes what they're saying is important or will become important in the future. Most of the time it's just background information.
Also, there's not necessarily an element of "great personal risk". It may just be social or embarrassment or minor damage to a career. If some flunky at a Peruvian consulate has a bit too much to drink and says his boss is an asshole, it gets written down and goes into a file somewhere. When people see that on the internet they think "Man, I really need to watch what I say to the Americans."
Everybody knows what you say to a diplomat from any country is going to get written down. But there's always been a tacit agreement that not everything gets shared with the world.
And I think you're mostly jumping at shadows here. Diplomacy is a lot less interesting and less nefarious than you seem to believe.
Diplomacy is a lot less interesting and less nefarious than you seem to believe.
About 95% of it, yes. But if the other 5% were so profoundly uninteresting then people wouldn't be talking about how "embarrassing" and "damaging" it was to have it released.
This is a business about people. You can have information that's not "embarrassing" or "damaging" to the US that's both embarrassing and damaging to individuals in other countries.
Again, there's a practical side here. As I asked in another post, just how much would you share with a friend or family member that was going to immediately run to publish what you said in a Facebook post? Because that's essentially what Manning did.
No, that's not what she did. She gave the archive to a third party (Assange) who turned out to be unreliable. But that's not "the same" -- or even "essentially" the same -- as just outright posting it on Facebook.
Can we just end the discussion there, please? I'm not saying this issue is cut-and-dried, or that there's no validity in your arguments. But if we keep going back and forth about the basic event chronology, then there's really not much a of a point.
>No, that's not what she did. She gave the archive to a third party (Assange) who turned out to be unreliable. But that's not "the same" -- or even "essentially" the same -- as just outright posting it on Facebook.
Yes it is. Once it's there on the internet, people are linking to it, and it's a topic of discussion, anything that gets you into any kind of trouble is out there for people to see.
>Can we just end the discussion there, please? I'm not saying this issue is cut-and-dried, or that there's no validity in your arguments. But if we keep going back and forth about the basic event chronology, then there's really not much a of a point.
If you're really intent on ending a conversation, try not attempting to slip in the last word.
Diplomats need to engage with other countries, no matter how they're run. They also need to be able to talk clearly with one another about what they think things are like without it getting dumped all over the internet.
Manning certainly has already paid a harsh price for her decisions. I think reasonable people would say that it was "enough" at this point. What good does it do to keep Manning in prison for the full 35 years?
As for outing what people "really think" of Berlusconi... I suspect that no one was surprised (including the clown himself, Silvio).
