@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
You wrote,
Quote:If wiki leaks broke into your house and stole your email accounts and started publishing private conversations between you and a lover online would you want people donating to such an organization so they could perpetrate more theft?
Wrong premise; it was the sloppy way in which the information was leaked. Nobody had to break into anybody's house to get the info. Rather, it was a weakness in the internal controls; that can be blamed to the "security clearance" given to an unstable individual.
If your bank's internet connection is not secure, who would you blame if outsiders got your account information because an employee leaked that info?
Nobody broke into the bank.
Manning stole that info from his place of work. It is like selling the company formula for Coca Cola from work but more serious and giving it to the company's competitor. Wikileaks was an accessory to the crime. To later say well, I robbed the bank for a good reason... Well that is up to a judge, jury and/or military tribunal etc to decide. I also think public opinion should be considered due to the nature of info leaked.
Yes Bradley Manning broke into the records vault and stole these record and started a wave of other hacking and thieving crimes of private information. Was he in the right? I honestly don't know. How severe was this crime? I don't know that either.
Is the other side in this war any better? I do know that and the answer is no! They are not one bit any better if not much worse...
One army does it in secret and one does it right out in the open without any conscience.
Who is better?
Considering with the US military these infractions seem to be the exception and not the rule.. You decide...