Questionable
28th November 2012, 17:35
I know I'm extremely late to the Bradley Manning train but I saw something that disturbed me.
I was on a message board for US-style progressivism, trying to get a sense of what the ideology really was, when I stumbled across a link to a piece of legislation pushed by Obama that would give greater protection to federal whistleblowers. The topic of Bradley Manning inevitably came up, but to my great surprise, most of these "progressives" actually hated what he'd done!
They claimed the legal definition of "whistleblower" was someone who circumvents a superior to report their misconduct to the agency directly in charge of him/her. In other words, they follow the chain of command to report misbehavior. Manning, however, was a "leaker," someone who gives classified information to outside sources and jeopardizes the whole organization. They paid little attention to the war crimes committed by the US and instead criticized Manning for giving away diplomatic information as well that embarrassed the US. This conversation also extended to the Apache/Reuters incident, where these "progressives" touted the same right-wing lines about how the cameraman's camera looked like a gun from a distance, and if the journalists were with a hostile group this meant they were hostile by association.
So, my question is, what is the actual legal status of Manning closer to? Whistleblower or "reckless" leaker? And even if we pay no attention to imperialist laws, should we criticize Manning for giving out information that may not have had anything to do with actual war crimes? My opinion is to support his decision and release all classified documents regarding the military (If this hinders their operations then great), but I wanted to start a discussion to see how radical leftists reacted.
I was on a message board for US-style progressivism, trying to get a sense of what the ideology really was, when I stumbled across a link to a piece of legislation pushed by Obama that would give greater protection to federal whistleblowers. The topic of Bradley Manning inevitably came up, but to my great surprise, most of these "progressives" actually hated what he'd done!
They claimed the legal definition of "whistleblower" was someone who circumvents a superior to report their misconduct to the agency directly in charge of him/her. In other words, they follow the chain of command to report misbehavior. Manning, however, was a "leaker," someone who gives classified information to outside sources and jeopardizes the whole organization. They paid little attention to the war crimes committed by the US and instead criticized Manning for giving away diplomatic information as well that embarrassed the US. This conversation also extended to the Apache/Reuters incident, where these "progressives" touted the same right-wing lines about how the cameraman's camera looked like a gun from a distance, and if the journalists were with a hostile group this meant they were hostile by association.
So, my question is, what is the actual legal status of Manning closer to? Whistleblower or "reckless" leaker? And even if we pay no attention to imperialist laws, should we criticize Manning for giving out information that may not have had anything to do with actual war crimes? My opinion is to support his decision and release all classified documents regarding the military (If this hinders their operations then great), but I wanted to start a discussion to see how radical leftists reacted.