Yet those Washington insiders, and those journalists, are not only NOT in prison, they aren't even accused of crimes.
So you tell me: where is the justice here?
"That's kind of a huge abdication of responsibility on his part, don't you think?"
No, I don't. He sent it to supposedly responsible news media outlets, whose job arguably *IS* to sort those things out.
"... many of the documents were simply things we didn't want the entire world to know, but didn't actually indicate any wrongdoing."
Yes, that's true too. But I just don't really know if it would have been possible for him to separate them all out.
Someone else here reminded me that Manning actually delivered these documents to others, who WERE supposed to try to separate that out. But somebody goofed. So I'm not sure that can honestly be blamed on Manning, who actually did make an effort to expose wrongdoing while not releasing those other things to the public.
"It's fascinating how psychological projection is invisible to the projector."
Yes, isn't it?
The is the biggest software pirate I know. I don't feel sad for them.
"It's true that one of those organizations screwed up and released a private key that let everyone see all the documents but that was clearly not Manning's fault. No one defends that mistake. No one thinks it was right for all the documents to be released to the public. "
Thank you for reminding us all of this. I am ashamed to admit that I had forgotten.
"All bullies think their victims provoked them."
Gee, I think maybe you should shut up and stop spouting bullshit before somebody complains that you are practicing psychiatry without a license.
"All bullies think their victims provoked them."
Again: bullshit. I am not impressed by your armchair psychology. Apparently you, too, seem to think you can read my mind.
"You're astonishingly thin-skinned for someone who calls other people assholes at the drop of a hat. "
Thank you for your opinion.
"You've either got Alzheimer's and/or a raging persecution complex."
No, sorry. It's one thing for a person to say "I am done here." It's another thing for someone to day "You're done." He could have meant it the way you say, I admit.
"... your secret mind" is a personal comment, not a description of my own argument. I had explained to him exactly what I meant. There was nothing secret about it. His statement implies that he knew what I meant better than I did. And that was after I had already explained that yes, my comment was badly written and I did not mean what it seemed to say.
"Either way, you're just a bully trying to blame your victim."
Bullshit. I admitted that I was wrong, more than once. That should have been the end of it. Yet he went on, and on, and on, about what he thought I was saying. When even the rest of the context of what I wrote contradicted his assertion, AND he was told in no uncertain terms that he misunderstood. He insisted that no, he DID understand. Apparently because he thinks he can read my mind.
And you seem to think that is reasonable, and not unwarrantedly aggressive or annoying. Well, that's your opinion. I disagree.
While it doesn't prove anything, I will point out that I have excellent karma here on Slashdot, and generally get along fine with others in discussions. But I have no problem counter-attacking when provoked. And I shall not apologize for that: I was provoked.
"Your conclusion is shockingly wrong [link to blogspot.com]."
The "conclusion" he referred to was not my actual conclusion. My story agreed with the situation he cited. Then he went on:
"You need to stop spouting egregiously wrong bullshit on Slashdot before someone files a complaint with your state's disciplinary officials. They won't care that YANAL; they will care that you're practicing law very badly [google.com] without a license."
And other things like:
"Since nobody can rely upon what you've written to reflect your secret mind, all discussion with you becomes pointless. You're done."
"To reflect [my] secret mind"? Put that together with other personal comments, like "that's how you roll", etc. Those are only examples. But they are personal comments, and had nothing to do with the arguments I was making. So yes, he was very much insulting. Personal disparagements are personal disparagements. They have no place in a civil discussion, which it ceased to be after that. And a statement like "You're done," can reasonably be interpreted as threatening.
I did not insult him until he had already insulted me. Further, his attitude was arrogant and generally offensive. While that is an intangible, it was still pretty difficult to ignore.
"THE LAW OF THE LAND declares that some people are only 3/5ths of a person. And women need not apply... Its a shitty document in places. We've done our best to patch it up in places, but it could really use more amending. However that's a long and time consuming process. In the event that time is of the essence, and following it would violate your own moral code to follow the law, you violate the law."
While I don't disagree with you absolutely, I think you are taking THIS out of context.
The "3/5 of a person" bit was only a bow to the reality of their time. If the founders had tried to abolish slavery via the Constitution, it would never have been ratified. It might never even have gotten off the floor.
On the other hand, they deserve credit for wording the rest of it such that it did, in fact, support equality across the board. This left open ground for equality when society grew up a little bit.
Keep in mind that even Jefferson, who owned slaves (he inherited them), strongly disliked and spoke against the institution of slavery, but felt that it would be economic disaster to try to abolish the already-existing slavery all at once. He supported a law to ban the importation of any more slaves, and he did attempt to outlaw slavery in all the new Western territories (i.e., everything West of the existing 13 States). He authored that bill. But it was voted down by one vote. Jefferson said:
"Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment!"
"We must await with patience the workings of an overruling Providence, and hope that He is preparing the deliverance of these, our suffering brethren. When the measure of their tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless a God of justice will awaken to their distress..."
In the Declaration of Independence, he also lambasted King George for supporting the slave trade. So there were attempts to change things, even then. I think blaming the founders for trying to do the best they could, given the realities of their time, is a bit unrealistic.
Which is why I say: no, it's not a 'shitty' document. It has lasted longer than any other Constitution in anything approaching modern history. It may have some flaws, but it's a damned good document.
The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay