Saying leaks put people in danger is like saying low taxes help small business. It's a propoganda point that substitutes the 1% sympathetic case for the much larger institutional system which unjustly gets the lion's share of the benefit.
Saying leaks put people in danger is like saying low taxes help small business. It's a propoganda point that substitutes the 1% sympathetic case for the much larger institutional system which unjustly gets the lion's share if the benefit.
Put people in danger how? If the US is homicidal hypocrites and using my tax money to do so, I have the right to know. Americans want transparency when it comes to the consumer habits of food stamp recipients but generally don't care for scrutinizing the military.
I did.......until you just brought it back up 😅Because Manning is an idiot.
Did you guys forget her attempted Senate bid?
Check post history, he also thinks someone can't be a racist if their partner is outside of their race.Lol so trans cant be bigots? Hey chief, even Jews supported Nazis in Germany. She continues to cape for assange who is an alt right supporter.
Uh, I'm pretty sure that none of these are the amendment you're supposed to invoke.my First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment, and other statutory rights.
Because Manning is an idiot.
Did you guys forget her attempted Senate bid?
Saying leaks put people in danger is like saying low taxes help small business. It's a propoganda point that substitutes the 1% sympathetic case for the much larger institutional system which unjustly gets the lion's share of the benefit.
Check post history, he also thinks someone can't be a racist if their partner is outside of their race.
One example: Wikileaks (the organization) never came close to outing Manning as the source of the Iraq War Logs. Even well into her prosecution when her team was basically admitting it, WL would only refer to her as "the alleged source". It would be an incredible betrayal now for her to provide information that would assist the prosecution of Assange (who committed no crime with US jurisdiction).
One example: Wikileaks (the organization) never came close to outing Manning as the source of the Iraq War Logs. Even well into her prosecution when her team was basically admitting it, WL would only refer to her as "the alleged source". It would be an incredible betrayal now for her to provide information that would assist the prosecution of Assange (who committed no crime with US jurisdiction).
Leaks absolutely can put people in danger
Trump leaked Pelosi going to Afghanistan and the entire trip was pulled because of it
Lol. So allegiance to WikiLeaks over the US courts? What the hell.One example: Wikileaks (the organization) never came close to outing Manning as the source of the Iraq War Logs. Even well into her prosecution when her team was basically admitting it, WL would only refer to her as "the alleged source". It would be an incredible betrayal now for her to provide information that would assist the prosecution of Assange (who committed no crime with US jurisdiction).
...Wikileaks has proven itself to be a Russian mouthpiece and Assange to be not only a horrible person but an inherent liar of what wikileaks was actually about.
What you just posted makes no sense
There's a very clear and obvious reason: because Russiagate has been consistently offered since 2016 as the reason why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. That's the actual root of disingenuity. The party has never answered either for their strategic blunders in the Clinton campaign, or for their myriad efforts to rig the process against Sanders. That's what the DNC/Podesta emails revealed beyond a doubt, and the party continues to pretend a fair election happened. They point the finger at Russia so they never have to answer for their unbelievable political failures. There's a lot of people in DC who should've been fired 2 years ago who continue to operate with no consequences. That's what this is about.
One example: Wikileaks (the organization) never came close to outing Manning as the source of the Iraq War Logs. Even well into her prosecution when her team was basically admitting it, WL would only refer to her as "the alleged source". It would be an incredible betrayal now for her to provide information that would assist the prosecution of Assange (who committed no crime with US jurisdiction).
lol at stanning for Wikileaks in 2019One example: Wikileaks (the organization) never came close to outing Manning as the source of the Iraq War Logs. Even well into her prosecution when her team was basically admitting it, WL would only refer to her as "the alleged source". It would be an incredible betrayal now for her to provide information that would assist the prosecution of Assange (who committed no crime with US jurisdiction).
Lol. So allegiance to WikiLeaks over the US courts? What the hell.
It would be an incredible betrayal now for her to provide information that would assist the prosecution of Assange (who committed no crime with US jurisdiction).
Yea, that's why I mean by bigger principles. You see this as some kind of sinister, treasonous betrayal. I see it as incredibly admirable self-sacrifice.
I'm not saying they don't, I'm saying those risks are overblown and used to deflect from from the institutional corruption. It's basically saying "I can't be liable or people could be hurt!" It's dishonest at best and people interested in democracy and justice should stop repeating it.
Yea, that's why I mean by bigger principles. You see this as some kind of sinister, treasonous betrayal. I see it as incredibly admirable self-sacrifice.
Yikes, just yikes...One example: Wikileaks (the organization) never came close to outing Manning as the source of the Iraq War Logs. Even well into her prosecution when her team was basically admitting it, WL would only refer to her as "the alleged source". It would be an incredible betrayal now for her to provide information that would assist the prosecution of Assange (who committed no crime with US jurisdiction).
Wikileaks was never bad. it releases important, secret information in the public interest and has never been responsible for outing a source. It would be an incredible blow to press freedom worldwide if Assange was successfully prosecuted for crimes related to *publishing*. I have no interest in defending Assange on the Swedish rape allegations, and at any rate, Wikileaks is bigger than Assange.
Yeah, that post is crazy town. I don't understand how anyone can make such mental leaps considering everything we know about WikiLeaks and Assange now. Lol at owing Assange loyalty over your own country.So you are defending WL and Assange
Now I get your perspective
....
Wikileaks was never bad. it releases a accurate, secret information about powerful state and corporate actors in the public interest and has never been responsible for outing a source. It would be an incredible blow to press freedom worldwide if Assange was successfully prosecuted for crimes related to *publishing*. I have no interest in defending Assange on the Swedish rape allegations, and at any rate, Wikileaks is bigger than Assange.
lolWikileaks was never bad. it releases accurate, secret information about powerful state and corporate actors in the public interest and has never been responsible for outing a source. It would be an incredible blow to press freedom worldwide if Assange was successfully prosecuted for crimes related to *publishing*. I have no interest in defending Assange on the Swedish rape allegations, and at any rate, Wikileaks is bigger than Assange.
Armchair #resister. We're talking about 2 people, Assange and Manning who have paid an incredible price to tell you what your government actually does in the world.
Armchair #resister. We're talking about 2 people, Assange and Manning who have paid an incredible price to tell you what your government actually does in the world.
Wikileaks was literally tweeting out antisemitic memes on their official channel
Once upon a time, liberals cared about a free press. Now only socialists do.
At least we have your size for the big clown shoes you're telling us you like wearing in public.Armchair #resister. We're talking about 2 people, Assange and Manning who have paid an incredible price to tell you what your government actually does in the world.
Only do things like be antisemitic publicly, dump Turkish womens voting infos for no reason, leak info about gay people in countries where they could be legally punished for it, or cover for Russia about the plane they shot down over Ukraine, which was totally not something Russia did, no sir.Wikileaks was never bad. it releases accurate, secret information about powerful state and corporate actors in the public interest and has never been responsible for outing a source. It would be an incredible blow to press freedom worldwide if Assange was successfully prosecuted for crimes related to *publishing*. I have no interest in defending Assange on the Swedish rape allegations, and at any rate, Wikileaks is bigger than Assange.
It is a betrayal. A betrayal to want to protect a Russian information service over your duty as a citizen to the US laws and courts.Yea, that's why I mean by bigger principles. You see this as some kind of sinister, treasonous betrayal. I see it as incredibly admirable self-sacrifice.
I wish her luck. I'm not understanding her stance on this but she's making a principled stand. I applaud her courage. Manning is problematic in some ways but she's braver than any of the posters criticizing her here.