Liberals rightfully hold Daniel Ellsberg in high regard. Why should they not do the same for Manning?
I realize this will go over like a lead balloon with some people, but Ellsberg was a private analyst employed by the RAND corporation -- Manning is a soldier in the United States Army. Of course there's a worthwhile debate to be had over when it's acceptable and even necessary to disobey orders, but enlisting in the military then suddenly coming to the realization that war is really fucking ugly -- and subsequently leaking classified information to what's essentially a foreign entity -- may not exactly constitute a worthwhile defense.
I don't see how anything rates higher than becoming the first black President, but what do I know?
Don't even get Greenwald started on Obama.
That's right, I forgot: Obama is just as bad (and often worse) than Bush. I get the distinct feeling he had the majority of those "Obama is horrible on Gitmo/surveillance/civil rights" posts written before the election, and just spent the weeks leading up to it rubbing his hands together in anticipation.
I'm starting to hope that Greenwald is deliberately taking up the burden of being the leftmost fringe that helps move the center slightly leftward. Somebody's gotta do it.
Here's my question: If this information was so absolutely critical to the very survival of our Republic that it did indeed need to be "classified" from the public, obstensibly for "our own protection", then why the fuck did a lowly Specialist have access to it?
may not exactly constitute a worthwhile defense.Actually, yes it does. I know the US has happily spent the last 10 years throwing away decades of military & international law, conventions and smart doctrines, but most human beings understand the concept that obedience only goes so far, and I fail to see how this is any different.
Guess joining the U.S. military might not have been a good idea for Brad then, considering that he enlisted well after most intelligent people began asking a hell of a lot of questions about our missions overseas. And given that, according to the Associated Press, Manning called himself a "hactivist" and "humanist," a decent case can be made that he knew going into his service that he'd probably at one point turn against the military he'd volunteered for. Once again, there's a debate to be had over the questioning of certain orders, but in order for the Army to function the chain of command has to be adhered to -- and not only did Manning likely violate it, if you read quick a few of the reports about his behavior leading up to the leak, he may have done it for entirely self-serving reasons. But hey, he's the greatest man of the last 173 years in the entire universe as far as Greenwald is concerned, so who am I to argue.
The false equivalency model is fully deployed by the left on the Wikileaks matter. Vietnam and Afghanistan are not equatable. Because Vietnam was a total clusterfuck does not mean Afghanistan is as well. If your country is at war, that fact alone does not justify giving aid and comfort to an enemy solely to oppose "war." Ellsberg survived because by the time he leaked the Papers the public had largely made its determination that Vietnam was unjust and unnecessary. History has verified that conclusion. Imagine if Ellsberg had leaked in 1967 instead of 1971. Manning is now in the unenviable position of hoping for a Vietnam-like outcome in Afghanistan. Otherwise, by the time he is released from Leavenworth his anus will have the circumference of a coffee cup
Comment of the Week, right there.
Post a Comment