1
1
0
Whistleblowing in the Military
I just found this article about Bradly, now Chelsea Manning:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/04/15-3
This could be an interesting discussion. I think 99.99% of us would agree that Private Manning violated the law and her NDA, jeopardizing military operations and subsequently endangering the Troops. Among many other things, she released a video of a chopper (I think it was an Apache) mistakenly shooting civilians--I think a reporter was killed. Anyways, she blew the whistle surreptitiously.
Do you think she should have just followed the rules as in, was she right doing what she did?
Is it important to reveal conduct that is questionable?
What should Manning have done instead of going to WikiLeaks?
Yes, I know it's a liberal site. I don't support what Manning did. Our security is important for force protection. I just found the site today so no attacks about it being liberal please. I am more interested to discuss what Manning did rather than what should be done to her. And, yes, I use the feminine pronoun. I respect a person's right to their own gender identity regardless of their treasonous acts against the nation.
I just found this article about Bradly, now Chelsea Manning:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/04/15-3
This could be an interesting discussion. I think 99.99% of us would agree that Private Manning violated the law and her NDA, jeopardizing military operations and subsequently endangering the Troops. Among many other things, she released a video of a chopper (I think it was an Apache) mistakenly shooting civilians--I think a reporter was killed. Anyways, she blew the whistle surreptitiously.
Do you think she should have just followed the rules as in, was she right doing what she did?
Is it important to reveal conduct that is questionable?
What should Manning have done instead of going to WikiLeaks?
Yes, I know it's a liberal site. I don't support what Manning did. Our security is important for force protection. I just found the site today so no attacks about it being liberal please. I am more interested to discuss what Manning did rather than what should be done to her. And, yes, I use the feminine pronoun. I respect a person's right to their own gender identity regardless of their treasonous acts against the nation.
Photo: Vertigogen/cc/flickrA general has approved the 35-year prison sentence a military judge handed down to Chelsea Manning for releasing a trove of government and military documents to WikiLeaks, ...
Security
Intelligence
Treason
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
5
5
0
Keep in mind that PVT Manning's seditious behavior was well documented prior to ever receiving access to the materials in question. There was gross negligence in her chain of commands through her training, as well as first assignment. She should have had her clearance rescinded, been re-classed and barred to re-enlistment.
Both her and Snowden were allowed access to things that are considered sensitive as well as politically embarrassing. While going to wiki-leaks was the wrong thing to do, the degree of corruption and/or "don't give a damn" that exists at echelons above Manning make the right choice nearly impossible.
Snowden's case needs to see the contractor that hired him held responsible as well in my opinion.
(5)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
LOL, she /he/it has petitioned to be recognized as transgender and to be identified by her female persona "Chelsea". A completely unrelated drama, yet probably part of the issue that caused him/her to do what she did the way she did when she did it...
(3)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Well then. Okay. Anyway, I feel as though there are things that the government should keep out of the public eye. The general public should know that we were in "diplomatic talks" with some country , however should we really know about the Delta operators who had to slot the unlucky old man that compromised the operation while these talks were failing? No, we never need to know that.
(1)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
I would tend to agree with in that type of case there are somethings that the general public doesn't need to know. When you put the Military and you Government in the situation where they should of came forward with the situation first off, instead of having to explain themselves after being ratted out. I still don't understand how a PFC got rated to handle such classified information. Seems like you want some with and has shown the responsibility handling that stuff.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
What PFC Manning did was by no means whistleblowing, same as Mr. Snowden. He was charged with safeguarding sensitive information that he freely gave to an organization that feels that there are "no secrets" to be had by anyone, especially governments and their entities. I believe that he/she/it got less than deserved, especially since we were/are an Army at war, but I came of age in a different time when things like this were pretty much a life sentence from jump street, and our nation appears to have softened over where we stood 30 years ago......
(2)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Yeah I hear you, what she got wasn't entirely what you expect when you units deployed in combat. To think that units in Afghanistan and Iraq were not active combat zones, would be foolish believing otherwise.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
interesting article. I had a good time reading all the comments at the website. nominations for noble prize. Karma. The Fourth Reich...it's sad if they really believe that diatribe. Iwondered if any of them had ever been in harm's way.
No matter. No Chief. what Manning did what's wrong. She should have used the chain of command and if it failed then the inspector general. Before anyone tells me the IG does not work, we will have to agree to disagree. During my career I have had to use the IG on eight separate occasions. On each of those occasions favorable outcomes were had. that is not to say I was not persona non grata in two of my units however that was the price I was willing to pay. It's also kind of hard to stick it to somebody that follows the rules. Anyways that's been my experience.
Like Chief Evans, I too was surprised that Manning was not immediately taking off duties, loss of security clearance, and reclassed... there was more than enough evidence to want this from the unit. It's kind of sad the unit didn't do that and I wonder had they done that... would this even be a topic for discussion today. I mean, I'm always willing to give a soldier the benefit of the doubt however not in the situation that I read about Manning prior to the WikiLeaks.
My 2 cents
No matter. No Chief. what Manning did what's wrong. She should have used the chain of command and if it failed then the inspector general. Before anyone tells me the IG does not work, we will have to agree to disagree. During my career I have had to use the IG on eight separate occasions. On each of those occasions favorable outcomes were had. that is not to say I was not persona non grata in two of my units however that was the price I was willing to pay. It's also kind of hard to stick it to somebody that follows the rules. Anyways that's been my experience.
Like Chief Evans, I too was surprised that Manning was not immediately taking off duties, loss of security clearance, and reclassed... there was more than enough evidence to want this from the unit. It's kind of sad the unit didn't do that and I wonder had they done that... would this even be a topic for discussion today. I mean, I'm always willing to give a soldier the benefit of the doubt however not in the situation that I read about Manning prior to the WikiLeaks.
My 2 cents
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google