Comments on: If Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks are guilty, then so is the New York Times

By: Wolf

Wolf — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:36:46 +0000

The military holds themselves and those in it to a high standard. They also require many of their member to do things most people are not allowed to do. They are also always in the spot light for the world to see, representing our country. This requires them to be able to hold all of their members to that high standard and accountable at all times. I’m not saying it works all the time, but it is the idea. It is also why it is such a big deal when members do not follow these standards.

By: Wolf

Wolf — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:27:44 +0000

Like I said, I don’t follow this story very close but I am unaware of any “massacres” that were revealed by the information that was given to wiki Leaks by Manning.

By: Duq

Duq — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 08:20:35 +0000

You bring up a couple other issues: Demoting of civil standing (giving up rights) while serving the country, and the military having its own rules and laws. Sounds like the military is clearly not part of us and doesn’t have anyone’s interests in mind but theirs. Cancerous.

By: Marc C

Marc C — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:07:21 +0000

Without state secrets a state cannot conduct most diplomacy (as the other side of the table will often want to discuss matters in confidence), cannot have safe operations for intelligence officers (even the most seemingly benign clue could reveal their identitiy) and cannot possess any military technologies it does not wish to be broadly shared with its enemies(nuclear weapons, spy satellites, secure communications, missiles, jets, etc). This sounds nice for Switzerland but ultimately it makes a weak state that cannot stand against any enemies and will likely fall. Thus, allowing a soldier to steal and publicize state secrets creates a precedent that is cancer to the very idea of a state. We live in a country where all our communication is filtered through journanlists who control much of the flow of information, so they exaggerate their rights to supercede every other basic foundation of government. Freedom of speech never meant freedom to share stolen information, it meant freedom to share your opinions about religion, philosophy, etc. If you want to share state secrets there is a simple formula: run for public office, get elected, vote to unseal the documents. The Bradley Manning’s of this world fundamentally betray the democratic process, casting aside the wishes of generations of voters who by and large believe that confidential diplomatic negotiations are quite reasonable and stealing the privacy rights that voters have granted to diplomats and soldiers for our own good.

By: Betsy Piccorossi Pross

Betsy Piccorossi Pross — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:27:31 +0000

The NYT’s is a propaganda outlet for the socialist left. It has become a joke to anyone who actually knows how to read. Kept afloat by dirty money from “Slim” the thing sits out there like a carcass that will not rot completely away, but foul the public arena day after day.

By: Joao

Joao — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:33:17 +0000

Why aren’t those responsible for the massacres he revealed being subject to military court as well. Is it truly a punishable offense to reveal such barbaric acts, but not to commit them. Is that our notion of a fair nation?

By: jbrinkman

jbrinkman — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:58:53 +0000

I love it. From now on instead of giving classified documents to Russia or China or anyone else, just give them to NYT. I have no doubt NYT would be happy to print the plans for a nuclear bomb, and according to this author, they would be totally protected under the first amendment.

By: FAITH CORRIGAN

FAITH CORRIGAN — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:23:54 +0000

Bradley Manning is an American hero who saw evil and tried to stop it because he was an American.

By: Guy Pettingill

Guy Pettingill — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:23:45 +0000

As a vet i concur with what many people are saying. Manning had no journalistic privilege to leak material to a media outlet (Wikileaks or the Times, makes little difference.) He violated the rules that anyone serving (and even civilians) who have access to classified material must adhere to. If he felt like “whistle -blowing,” criminal behavior (and I would be the first to admit that some of his material IS of very questionable behavior to say the least.) He did have a chain of command to bring this material up with. If he felt a moral imperative to break his chain of command and his oath(s,) I suspect he needs to take his lumps for doing that.

That being said, holding the fellow in solitary for dumping a bunch of classified muck on a “neutral” web page (I.E. not run by some hostile element) seems way beyond the pale to me.

By: Darren McKinney

Darren McKinney — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:10:28 +0000

Mr. Ingram and Prof. Benkler set up a strawman here in order to confuse the issue and thereby promote their well left-of-center views on free speech. For the government has not and is not likley to file charges against WikiLeads. So whether one views WikiLeaks and the New York Times as comparable is wholly irrelevant.

A ne’er-do-well little loser who couldn’t find steady employment elsewhere voluntarily turned to the U.S. Army, pledging loyalty in return for promised benefits. For him then to turn around and sell out to an anti-American anarchist and alleged sexual pradator the Army, other armed service members, diplomats and undercover allies on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is treasonous behavior that warrants the death penalty. To argue otherwise or conflate this immutable truth with esoteric discussions about the extent to which “journalists” should be held accountable for irresponsible discisions is an academic exercise all too representative of the “scholarship” emanating these days from the Ivy League law schools’ ivory towers.