Hacking Rhetoric

My opinion of Manning

4 Comments

In thinking about the discussion that we had yesterday, I just wanted to post about how I feel about Manning- the Wikileaks guy.  On Monday I used an analogy that likened Manning to a teenage girl who couldn’t keep a secret that they were trusted with.  Someone brought up the point that if his girlfriend told him that she had murdered someone that he wouldn’t be bound to keep that secret from anyone.  I don’t know if that is the case in Manning’s situation.  He (most likely) knew for a fact that he was going to encounter information or intelligence sources that made him uncomfortable and things that he couldn’t tell anyone so why would he sign up for the job in the first place? 

Also, I just wanted to point out another thing that I was thinking about: Why did Manning chose to tell a random guy on the internet about what he did?  I mean, if I was going to tell someone that I leaked top secret government information I would probably tell a counselor or psychologist because they are bound by law not to release any of the information that their clients tell them (I’m pretty sure about that, but you get my point).  The last person I would tell would be some sketchy guy on the internet!  That makes me think that maybe a part of him wanted to gloat about being the guy who gave away all this secret information.  I just don’t see how someone could be that ignorant.  Please tell me if I’ve somehow missed part of the story and I’ve got it all wrong!  That’s my rant for the week.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “My opinion of Manning

  1. Hey,

    I just read your post after publishing my own and a lot of the points we make are similar. I, too, think that Manning could have avoided this whole fiasco if he thought more about his job and its requirements before enlisting in it. Also, I too am still curious as to why he singled out that specific person to tell secrets to. Why not talk to, like you said, a counselor or psychologist, or, a coworker before this random person? Even telling a family member might have been better than telling the stranger! There was probably some connection between the two that is deeper than what we know and we will probably never find out what the link is!

    • I agree with you guys in the sense that Manning should have definitely talked to a counselor or psychologist. I understand his desperate need to talk to people about what was going on, but I don’t think that entrusting the information in that Adrian Lamo guy was the smartest move for him. Also, the relationship between Manning and Lamo really confuses me. Did they actually kind of become friends or were they both using each other in a way?

  2. Above all, a soldier swears an oath to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign *and domestic*. In some instances, the future of our democracy is infinitely more important than a military coverup. The families of those reporters that were murdered deserved answers about how their loved ones died. Those responsible deserved to be held accountable, even if it was simply additional training to ensure similar incidents don’t happen again. Most of all, our democracy deserves heroes like Manning that are not afraid to question their government. Increasingly, it’s becoming a crime to question the government — especially if your questions include proof of illegal government activities. In the words of Thoman Jefferson, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Manning will suffer for his heroism, but I pray the price he has paid will be worth it in terms of a more accountable, transparent, and honest government in the future.

  3. Just a quick note on language here, folks: Manning is a woman. She’s expressed her intention to live as a woman, and her preference to be known as Chelsea and referred to by female pronouns. Fundamentally, it’s just plain polite to refer to people however they want.

    This case has been exceptionally high-profile and so Manning’s former name still sticks in everyone’s heads, along with the pronouns that went with the gender she was then presenting as. The common workaround has been to refer to ‘Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning’ — this is in line with the Associated Press style guide, which tells AP members to use a former name ‘if it’s noteworthy’ and to use the pronouns preferred by the person being written about, even when talking about events that happened pre-transition.

    (I may have slipped in speaking on Monday — I KNOW I slipped a lot when discussing the case when she first expressed her intention to live as a woman, right when I was preparing this course and talking to people a lot about it, although I’ve gotten accustomed to the transition since — in which case I may well have set you all on this path and I apologise. Going to post this comment to the other thread, too.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s