Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:That's ... not really all that impressive. How much is decontextualized and reframed?
Like "State Dept memo: U.S.-backed 2009 coup in Honduras was 'illegal and unconstitutional.'”
That means someone at some point knowing they weren't the final word offered that opinion. It may mean a lot more than that, but it's extracted from context.
Or: "“From hundreds of diplomatic cables, Afghanistan emerges as a looking-glass land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm and the honest man is a distinct outlier.”
Is that shocking and we needed Manning to confirm this somehow?
I agree. Nothing here was really all that earthshaking. So why keep it secret?
I have two problems with Manning:
1) He shared secrets, which is a grave threat to national security.
2) None of what he shared is at all important, so the public didn't really benefit from his foolish act.
I also have two problems with Wikileaks:
1) They dumped all the data, rather than exercising discretion like a good investigative journalist would.
2) They claim to be transparency activists, but they worked with investigative journalists to vet documents and disclose selectively.
"There are so few people at the Federal Mall it's almost as empty as it was at Trump's inauguration."