Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I believe that, psychologically speaking, his illusions about what purpose the US military served were gradually eroded. His perspective changed,
ultimately past a tipping point where he (correctly) realized that such classification/compartmentalization procedures were being used predominately
to hide crimes, opposed to protect legitimate military knowledge. By this point he was firmly embedded in the machine. No way out (and remember, he
tried many times to get out, with no success).
He saw the double-edged sword, judged that the darker side was far sharper than the light side, and acted.
When people call him a traitor they either forget or ignore that there were massive crimes being covered up, and likely would never have surfaced if
it weren't for his actions.
In the great context, the people threatened by such a leak already had blood on their hands for being a part of the most wicked military machine this
world has known for thousands of years, perhaps ever. I doubt he saw this perspective but it is a fact nonetheless and relevant.
Eta - likewise, I know that such a statement will not make me many friends
edit on 30-11-2012 by Son of Will because: (no reason
You know, I've thought more about this since reading the chat logs. It really is informative to read the nuances and subtle things about thought
process that are shown in a chat. I can't much argue with your first paragraph except to the last part. There are absolutely ways out of the U.S.
Army and oh..there are MANY ways out of the world of Military Intelligence. It's not like infantry, as I understand things. It takes intelligence and
work to get into it and like most things in life, I'm sure has some pretty clear lines of conduct where crossing would get you out of it. He wasn't
trapped until he got where he is now. Now, he knows trapped.....
It's just complicated as you note, by motives.
Now I call him a traitor, not for being against the war or even HARD against the war. In Uniform or out. That's no grounds for saying someone is a
traitor, and this isn't Vietnam where that kind of propaganda is playing for either side much anyway. So he could have been anti-war all he wanted. I
wouldn't even have called him a traitor, although a crime would have to be answered for, if he'd broken classification with just SOME or ONE major
report/incident/cover up and the whole truckload of goods on it. That would describe Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. That is a stand taken I
deeply respect and he had guts of steel given the Government and Intelligence world at that point in time.
Now on the last part, I couldn't disagree more. He document dumped
the whole SIPRNET Database at Secret Level/NOFORN and below to the areas he
could find of interest to throw out to the world. If someone hasn't read the cables and reports, as we're all not legally supposed to....uh
huh..yeah right...(innocent smile) .. Then you'd know he burned EVERYONE. From PFC nobody from Iowa to Iraqi's slipping some info that may have
saved lives. It was reported and I have NO doubt about it, that insurgent groups and Al Qaeda read over everything released VERY carefully. I'm SURE
they did. Much had tactical details and again, names that are of trivial "Hey Neat!" type interest to Americans but life and death to people DURING
the war he was releasing it about.
The State Department stuff literally tore up and destroyed decades of work between nations diplomatically. It wasn't simply what U.S. Officials said,
reported and thought of others when they didn't know about it.....it's what was said TO the United States and reported back to State as routine
traffic and ...what the State Department is THERE for. Nothing nefarious here...but still, Secret is there for a reason and NOFORN is a very important
distinction. That violation did immense ...IMMMENSE...damage world wide for who knows how many years to come on trust and Good Faith. Clinton's
effectiveness as Secretary of State may as well have ended in many ways when that all broke, thanks to Manning.
Without diplomacy, war is what man WILL turn to. Consider that in context to what he did.
He sure didn't.