Harvard rescinds Chelsea Manning’s visiting fellow invitation(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Harvard rescinds Chelsea Manning’s visiting fellow invitation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/14/former-cia-directors-shun-harvard-after-the-school-invites-chelsea-manning-to-campus/
80 comments
Without Chelsea Manning we would not have known about the “collateral murder” video. The entire military colludes to cover up this kind of information. What she did was release information to the public, which ought to be public knowledge, and as far as I’m aware, despite the bluster of “aiding the enemy”, nobody has been killed or harmed as a result of the leaks.
The day after it happened, three years before WikiLeaks published the video:
https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED81E3E...
Doesn't seem like a cover up to me.
https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED81E3E...
Doesn't seem like a cover up to me.
That article gives you the impression the journalists/civilians were killed in the chaos.
The Collateral Murder video shows you what actually happened, and the clear intent and callous laughter from those total shitheels in the gunship.
It was a war crime and the public deserved to see the video.
The Collateral Murder video shows you what actually happened, and the clear intent and callous laughter from those total shitheels in the gunship.
It was a war crime and the public deserved to see the video.
Agreed. At the time I supported Manning's actions to a degree, although I think it could have been done better (for which Assange shares the blame). But 10 minutes spent perusing her Twitter feed [1] leaves the impression of an incredibly confused and narcissistic person with very little nuance, depth or novelty in her thoughts. Say what you will about Snowden but it's hard to argue he has more interesting things to contribute to an intellectual conversation.
[1] https://twitter.com/xychelsea
[1] https://twitter.com/xychelsea
Do you think she's incredibly confused and narcissistic because she uses a lot of emojis and sometimes posts selfies?
I think she's naive and not very credible when she advocates things like:
-dismantling the CIA
-dismantling the presidency
-the notion that the CIA dictates what Harvard teaches
-no borders
And that's just from the last week or so. She doesn't strike me as someone with very nuanced positions.
edit: case in point https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/903326954266517504
And that's just from the last week or so. She doesn't strike me as someone with very nuanced positions.
edit: case in point https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/903326954266517504
Maybe so, but having political opinions that you consider naive and not credible is quite far from being "incredibly confused and narcissistic."
Well, I for one don't think that people have to be 'bright' to have integrity, that said, I'm not sure she has a lot of integrity.
I think what she did was very, very wrong, but I'm also sympathetic - she was pretty young. Young people do dumb things sometimes.
I think what she did was very, very wrong, but I'm also sympathetic - she was pretty young. Young people do dumb things sometimes.
- Does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect on the globe?
- There are alternative political systems available
- I'd be surprised if the CIA didn't exert influence over Harvard
- Borders are a modern development.
"- Does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect on the globe?"
As the CIA is an American intelligence organization, responsible for American interests, the correct question would be: "Does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect on American power and stability?"
Now, we can debate that question all day long, but AFAIK the CIA has no responsibility to "the globe".
As the CIA is an American intelligence organization, responsible for American interests, the correct question would be: "Does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect on American power and stability?"
Now, we can debate that question all day long, but AFAIK the CIA has no responsibility to "the globe".
I'm a US citizen that would prefer that US government entities have a net positive impact on the globe.
I guess I'm not the only one.
I guess I'm not the only one.
I don't think that's unreasonable, but as things stand today that's not what the CIA (or any other US intelligence agency) is for. It's like wanting a hammer to work as a screwdriver, even when the latter is appropriate.
The problem is that the CIA is an entity unto itself, and as a consequence of the velvet veil of secrecy in which it has cloaked itself for so long, it is no longer really beholden to the American public.
American corporations, yes. The public, no.
So there is a very real possibility that the answer to the question: "does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect?" cannot be answered until you add a qualifier " .. for its masters?", and then ask yourself, just who does the CIA answer to. The answer is, American, for sure not you...
American corporations, yes. The public, no.
So there is a very real possibility that the answer to the question: "does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect?" cannot be answered until you add a qualifier " .. for its masters?", and then ask yourself, just who does the CIA answer to. The answer is, American, for sure not you...
At the time I supported Manning's actions ... But 10 minutes spent perusing her Twitter feed...
It's a nice message to send to people that having the courage to do what they believe is right will be heavily second-guessed by people who dislike emoji.
It's a nice message to send to people that having the courage to do what they believe is right will be heavily second-guessed by people who dislike emoji.
"Communication and presentation matters" is an excellent lesson to send everyone
It's worth reading the Vanity Fair article about her. The interesting thing is that she one hundred percent accepts that what she did was wrong but has interesting things to say about a) her motivations b) her incarceration and c) being trans in the military.
She's become pretty interesting since her release.
She's become pretty interesting since her release.
[deleted]
She revealed US war crimes which probaby inspired other whistleblowers to leak more damning information. All of these leaks confirmed the fake image the US had been portraying to the world and its own people. Cant speak for anyone else, but I dont like being lied to. But I guess some people dont mind...
djrobstep(3)
I just don't see what I'm meant to be celebrating about her either. Snowden, however, I have huge respect for.
Can someone put me right?
List the things you admire about Snowden, and decide why they don't apply to Manning.
Can someone put me right?
List the things you admire about Snowden, and decide why they don't apply to Manning.
Snowden went to great lengths to ensure responsible disclosure of the material he leaked.
Maybe seeing Manning and Assange fuck that up inspired him to be extra careful.
This is an aside, but his whole flight to Russia thing was pretty amazing, like out of a spy movie. It's amazing he didn't get caught.
The assertion, I suppose, being that at the time it should have been obvious that Wikileaks was deeply untrustworthy?
Which disclosures ended up being irresponsible?
Like bringing it to China?
She did what she did because she was depressed that a since-repealed law forced her to live a lie or lose her job, and her friendship with Assange helped with the alienation.
She recognizes what she did was wrong, plead guilty to half the charges, and served her time.
Snowden fled to China to leak what he did and then defected to Russia. He barely acknowledges the damage he did to US intelligence, and insists he was right in doing it.
She recognizes what she did was wrong, plead guilty to half the charges, and served her time.
Snowden fled to China to leak what he did and then defected to Russia. He barely acknowledges the damage he did to US intelligence, and insists he was right in doing it.
> and then defected to Russia
He was stranded in Russia after the US cancelled his passport.
He was actually on his way to South America.
> and insists he was right in doing it.
Many people would agree.
He was stranded in Russia after the US cancelled his passport.
He was actually on his way to South America.
> and insists he was right in doing it.
Many people would agree.
> He was actually on his way to South America.
If you believe him and Russia. Weird that Russia and Hong Kong would let him board the Moscow flight with a revoked passport (and an extradition request), but not the Havana flight. You can't rule out that the stuck-at-the-airport routine was just plausible deniability that Russia wasn't actively recruiting American intelligence assets.
But, sure, if you believe him, he was trying to defect to some other country instead.
If you believe him and Russia. Weird that Russia and Hong Kong would let him board the Moscow flight with a revoked passport (and an extradition request), but not the Havana flight. You can't rule out that the stuck-at-the-airport routine was just plausible deniability that Russia wasn't actively recruiting American intelligence assets.
But, sure, if you believe him, he was trying to defect to some other country instead.
And Harrison and Greenwald.
You also can't rule out that Hong Kong/China wanted to get rid of him, to keep from being embroiled in precisely the international brouhaha that happened.
Snowden applied for political asylum in 20 or so countries. If one of them had accepted - let's say Germany, Finland or India - then your hypothesis is no longer valid, no?
It seems very risky to do all that if his goal is to defect to Russia. Had one other nation granted asylum, it would have ruined his narrative.
Regarding "to defect", has he pledged allegiance or loyalty to Russia?
Otherwise, why isn't he simply an exile? Do you consider all of the Cubans who fled to the US also defectors from Cuba?
You also can't rule out that Hong Kong/China wanted to get rid of him, to keep from being embroiled in precisely the international brouhaha that happened.
Snowden applied for political asylum in 20 or so countries. If one of them had accepted - let's say Germany, Finland or India - then your hypothesis is no longer valid, no?
It seems very risky to do all that if his goal is to defect to Russia. Had one other nation granted asylum, it would have ruined his narrative.
Regarding "to defect", has he pledged allegiance or loyalty to Russia?
Otherwise, why isn't he simply an exile? Do you consider all of the Cubans who fled to the US also defectors from Cuba?
"Do you consider all of the Cubans who fled to the US also defectors from Cuba?"
I suspect Cuba might.
I suspect Cuba might.
How does that shed light on anything? Even if the Cuban government regards them as defectors, does that make them no longer exiles?
Since if you want to reframe the question that way, does the US government - not some people in the US, but the US government - consider Assata Shakur a defector? Or William Morales?
When Eldridge Cleaver fled to exile in Cuba was he considered a defector? Several years later, when he continued his exile but in Algeria, was that another defection?
(Or Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin's exile, first in Cuba than Czechoslovakia; or all the others listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_citizens... .)
If the US does not consider all of those to be defections, then what makes Snowden a defector?
Since if you want to reframe the question that way, does the US government - not some people in the US, but the US government - consider Assata Shakur a defector? Or William Morales?
When Eldridge Cleaver fled to exile in Cuba was he considered a defector? Several years later, when he continued his exile but in Algeria, was that another defection?
(Or Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin's exile, first in Cuba than Czechoslovakia; or all the others listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_citizens... .)
If the US does not consider all of those to be defections, then what makes Snowden a defector?
Also interesting that he spent his birthday at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong.
Not to say that Snowden planned to "defect" to Russia. But we're seeing how skillfully the FSB played the Trump campaign. Let's consider the possibility that they played Snowden and Greenwald as well.
Not to say that Snowden planned to "defect" to Russia. But we're seeing how skillfully the FSB played the Trump campaign. Let's consider the possibility that they played Snowden and Greenwald as well.
> But we're seeing how skillfully the FSB played the Trump campaign.
Someone's being played, that's for sure.
As a non-American, what I find amusing is how quickly the rhetoric changed from before the election "elections can't be rigged/influenced, Trump should stop complaining and such claims undermine democracy" to "Russia/Trump hacked^H^H^H^H^H^H colluded to influence the election and undermine democracy" once Trump won.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Someone's being played, that's for sure.
As a non-American, what I find amusing is how quickly the rhetoric changed from before the election "elections can't be rigged/influenced, Trump should stop complaining and such claims undermine democracy" to "Russia/Trump hacked^H^H^H^H^H^H colluded to influence the election and undermine democracy" once Trump won.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
His passport was revoked while he was in Russia, not China.
He handed over ALL documents to journalists before boarding a plane to Russia. He had no information to give the Russians as it was all about to hit the papers under someone else's guidance.
The whole Russian agent argument just reeks of pig-headed, jingoistic unwillingness to look a simple fact in the face; Russia granted asylum because Russia loves telling the US "no" and giving them the middle finger.
Instead Snowden's detractors are coming up with all manner of mental gymnastics to justify why they believe an American might leak sensitive intelligence, because perish the thought the US might not be the paragons of virtue they make themselves out to be. What an uncomfortable thought for its citizens, subjected to weird exceptionalist propaganda from childhood, forced to recite pledges of allegiance as a child like some weird cult.
He handed over ALL documents to journalists before boarding a plane to Russia. He had no information to give the Russians as it was all about to hit the papers under someone else's guidance.
The whole Russian agent argument just reeks of pig-headed, jingoistic unwillingness to look a simple fact in the face; Russia granted asylum because Russia loves telling the US "no" and giving them the middle finger.
Instead Snowden's detractors are coming up with all manner of mental gymnastics to justify why they believe an American might leak sensitive intelligence, because perish the thought the US might not be the paragons of virtue they make themselves out to be. What an uncomfortable thought for its citizens, subjected to weird exceptionalist propaganda from childhood, forced to recite pledges of allegiance as a child like some weird cult.
> ... whose actions and ethos contradict the intelligence agency’s [CIA's] most basic and sacred values
What might those be? One has to wonder, given the history of the CIA.
And how does a government agency has "sacred values", or, indeed, values of its own? A government agency is just that: a thing, a tool to serve the government.
What might those be? One has to wonder, given the history of the CIA.
And how does a government agency has "sacred values", or, indeed, values of its own? A government agency is just that: a thing, a tool to serve the government.
No, not at all.
If you've ever served in a public position, you'd realize not only the general kinds of values one must have in service, but the differing sets of values people in different branches must have.
The level of integrity of most of these people is far beyond what you'll find on the street, or even in 'high tech'. I've worked in 'public service' - and when entering in the private sector workforce, well, everyone seems really quite self-interested and kind of greedy in comparison.
The CIA is not a 'tool of the government' - they are there for American citizens - and others quite frankly.
The 'whistle blower' who blew the whistle on Abu Garib prison was well protected by the US Army/Gov, because he was actually a whistle-blower.
Manning, a lowly private, released gigabytes of information wherein he (well a 'he' then ...) didn't even know the contents thereof. Mounds and mounds of sensitive information. This is 'treason' point blank. His only saving grace is that he was at least earnest in his belief he was doing the right thing, i.e. he wasn't selling secrets to the Russians or what not.
Ironically - most of the leaks did not reveal malfeasance by the US diplomatic corps - just the opposite. The 'Arab Spring' was partly launched by this exposition - as Arab citizens saw how ridiculously corrupt most of their regimes were, as validated by the attempts by the US diplomats to try to bring some sense to the region. Not a single 'scandal' was uncovered by the cables at least (of course, the video of the attack helicopter was contentious).
She's served her time, she's out, which is fine and good - but she's still convicted of some very bad crimes and serious breach of trust, and it's beyond ripe that Harvard - or any organization - would honour this person in this regard.
If you've ever served in a public position, you'd realize not only the general kinds of values one must have in service, but the differing sets of values people in different branches must have.
The level of integrity of most of these people is far beyond what you'll find on the street, or even in 'high tech'. I've worked in 'public service' - and when entering in the private sector workforce, well, everyone seems really quite self-interested and kind of greedy in comparison.
The CIA is not a 'tool of the government' - they are there for American citizens - and others quite frankly.
The 'whistle blower' who blew the whistle on Abu Garib prison was well protected by the US Army/Gov, because he was actually a whistle-blower.
Manning, a lowly private, released gigabytes of information wherein he (well a 'he' then ...) didn't even know the contents thereof. Mounds and mounds of sensitive information. This is 'treason' point blank. His only saving grace is that he was at least earnest in his belief he was doing the right thing, i.e. he wasn't selling secrets to the Russians or what not.
Ironically - most of the leaks did not reveal malfeasance by the US diplomatic corps - just the opposite. The 'Arab Spring' was partly launched by this exposition - as Arab citizens saw how ridiculously corrupt most of their regimes were, as validated by the attempts by the US diplomats to try to bring some sense to the region. Not a single 'scandal' was uncovered by the cables at least (of course, the video of the attack helicopter was contentious).
She's served her time, she's out, which is fine and good - but she's still convicted of some very bad crimes and serious breach of trust, and it's beyond ripe that Harvard - or any organization - would honour this person in this regard.
The population was not consulted prior to the war on Iraq, or afterwards, neither is the CIA answerable to the people. It operates in secret, at the behest of the government, it’s not a democratic or public institution.
The video attack was “contentious”? If it was Russians say, attacking American Journalists in that manner you would not say it’s “contentious”.
During the Arab spring, the US government did what it usually does, support the dictators right until the very end, even when it was clear their time was up. Eg in Egypt. And when a ne military dictator comes in, (Sisi), the US diplomatic and military support resumes like normal, no matter how terrible his human rights record.
The video attack was “contentious”? If it was Russians say, attacking American Journalists in that manner you would not say it’s “contentious”.
During the Arab spring, the US government did what it usually does, support the dictators right until the very end, even when it was clear their time was up. Eg in Egypt. And when a ne military dictator comes in, (Sisi), the US diplomatic and military support resumes like normal, no matter how terrible his human rights record.
The US Congress, elected by the people, voted for the war.
The CIA, FBI etc. act on behest of the people, in terms dictated by elected officials with oversight. It would be absurd to suggest that an espionage apparatus would be 'democratically elected' or 'transparent'.
As far as the 'video' - it was the unfortunate death of a few extremely irresponsible journalists, who ventured deep into a war-zone, directly into a firefight - with and armed escort - without coordination with US elements. It was utterly stupid of them, frankly. Their deaths were tragic - but could have been 100% avoided by some basic adherence to common sense on their part. I don't think the military, after reviewing the video - might even change any protocols on the part of their combatants. I think the only changes they could make would be stronger in their conviction to forbid or warn journalists away from combat zones without protection or at least communication.
I'm sympathetic to Manning because I think she felt what she was doing was 'right' - but it wasn't. And 99% of the time people in the CIA etc. are trying to do their jobs well, and for most of them it's a moral cause, they have a sense of duty.
And of course I'm not saying they don't do bad things, or that the 'secrecy' of their activities might result in some bad news. I wouldn't absolve them entirely - just that they are generally a force for good.
The CIA, FBI etc. act on behest of the people, in terms dictated by elected officials with oversight. It would be absurd to suggest that an espionage apparatus would be 'democratically elected' or 'transparent'.
As far as the 'video' - it was the unfortunate death of a few extremely irresponsible journalists, who ventured deep into a war-zone, directly into a firefight - with and armed escort - without coordination with US elements. It was utterly stupid of them, frankly. Their deaths were tragic - but could have been 100% avoided by some basic adherence to common sense on their part. I don't think the military, after reviewing the video - might even change any protocols on the part of their combatants. I think the only changes they could make would be stronger in their conviction to forbid or warn journalists away from combat zones without protection or at least communication.
I'm sympathetic to Manning because I think she felt what she was doing was 'right' - but it wasn't. And 99% of the time people in the CIA etc. are trying to do their jobs well, and for most of them it's a moral cause, they have a sense of duty.
And of course I'm not saying they don't do bad things, or that the 'secrecy' of their activities might result in some bad news. I wouldn't absolve them entirely - just that they are generally a force for good.
> The CIA, FBI etc. act on behest of the people
Ah, I guess that explains it.
As an American, I've wondered for years why we armed, trained, funded, and provided cover for bin Laden and other mujahideen, al'Qaeda, ISIS, and spent trillions destabiizing the Middle East to bring death, terror, and stone age fundamentalist Islam back to the picture.
Now it makes sense. It's because it's what the American people want.
Ah, I guess that explains it.
As an American, I've wondered for years why we armed, trained, funded, and provided cover for bin Laden and other mujahideen, al'Qaeda, ISIS, and spent trillions destabiizing the Middle East to bring death, terror, and stone age fundamentalist Islam back to the picture.
Now it makes sense. It's because it's what the American people want.
Your premise that the US is trying to 'destabilize' the Middle East is not correct.
The US - and even China want stability over all else.
Consider the longest-standing geostrategic pact in the M/E - that between Saudi Arabia and the US. This agreement way way predates any kind of support for Israel.
The US keeps the 'House of Saud' in power under the terms that A) there is stability and B) the US has access to the Oil at market prices. The Saudis are free to sell their Oil to whomever they chose, as long as it's competitive. The point being - the Soviets would not roll in and sit on them.
Do you know who the #1 recipient of direct foreign aid is from the USA? Egypt.
Yes - A Muslim country has been, since the 1970's the #1 area of investment for the US.
Why? To keep them from fighting Israel (and to keep the Suez open) The Israel/Egypt conflict is kind of 'in the past' but it is the #1 flashpoint in the M/E - even bigger than the Persian/Arab divide.
The US de-facto controls the Suez - and Panama canal - and guess what? They allow anyone - even 'enemy combat vessels' to flow freely through them. The US, were it truly an Imperial power, could easily not only control the flow, and generate taxes (and tax competitors more than their own) - they could easily forbid Russian, Chinese and Iranian vessels from using those transit points. Same for the Gulf. The US could instantly control who passes and who does not, if they wanted to. But - by and large - they act as police, making sure every vessel can flow freely. (By and large...)
When a small group of young educated people in Afghanistan decided that 'Communism' (Soviet style) was the 'way forward' in Afghanistan in the 1970s, ad Soviet Communism was ravaging through the world in the cold war, the small group of Afghani communists tried to take over Afghanistan. Of course, the population of Afghanistan didn't want that - and forced them out. The young Communists, not to be dissuaded by the 'stupid plebes' - decided to invite in the actual Soviets. The Russian/Soviets came in and ravaged Afghanistan, burning villages, mass killing etc. - causing a carnage of a war. It was reasonable in this scenario for the US to provide small amounts of material support to the Afghanis fighting the Soviets. The Soviets were rocked, the Empire crashed. What was a relatively peaceful Afghanistan for maybe 50 years - so safe it was on the 'hipster travellers circuit of the 1960's - was now a post-war Somalian zone, and the thugs took over - granted they were not 'ideological terrorists'. Of course, they gave protection and comfort to the 'ideological types' (ie. Al Queda), which necessitated intervention after 9/11.
The s*-show in Afghanistan is a part of the after-effects of Soviet Imperialism, and though Afghanistan would still be medieval otherwise, it would be more like the other 'stans' - and not a complete disaster.
The 'cause' of the Iranian government is the spread of their form of Islamic Jihad, and the destruction of the US. They are not 'just some country' - their motivation is existential - and of course this is a problem.
The 'great anarchist/leftist myth' propagated through the last little while is this idea of 'Shock and Awe' i.e Western forces using 'shock' to destabilize and then takeover. It's a myth. Yes - the fall of the Soviet Union caused a flush of dirty money and take-overs, but it was not even classically Western powers that one out, it was others.
'Chaos' is bad for business.
The 'capitalist' instinct of the US is far far stronger than anything else - and what the US 'wants' is to be able to put a 'Starbucks' on every corner of every street of the Middle East, and to get them all buying iPhones, and buying ads on Facebook and Google, and you can't do that in war zones.
The US - and even China want stability over all else.
Consider the longest-standing geostrategic pact in the M/E - that between Saudi Arabia and the US. This agreement way way predates any kind of support for Israel.
The US keeps the 'House of Saud' in power under the terms that A) there is stability and B) the US has access to the Oil at market prices. The Saudis are free to sell their Oil to whomever they chose, as long as it's competitive. The point being - the Soviets would not roll in and sit on them.
Do you know who the #1 recipient of direct foreign aid is from the USA? Egypt.
Yes - A Muslim country has been, since the 1970's the #1 area of investment for the US.
Why? To keep them from fighting Israel (and to keep the Suez open) The Israel/Egypt conflict is kind of 'in the past' but it is the #1 flashpoint in the M/E - even bigger than the Persian/Arab divide.
The US de-facto controls the Suez - and Panama canal - and guess what? They allow anyone - even 'enemy combat vessels' to flow freely through them. The US, were it truly an Imperial power, could easily not only control the flow, and generate taxes (and tax competitors more than their own) - they could easily forbid Russian, Chinese and Iranian vessels from using those transit points. Same for the Gulf. The US could instantly control who passes and who does not, if they wanted to. But - by and large - they act as police, making sure every vessel can flow freely. (By and large...)
When a small group of young educated people in Afghanistan decided that 'Communism' (Soviet style) was the 'way forward' in Afghanistan in the 1970s, ad Soviet Communism was ravaging through the world in the cold war, the small group of Afghani communists tried to take over Afghanistan. Of course, the population of Afghanistan didn't want that - and forced them out. The young Communists, not to be dissuaded by the 'stupid plebes' - decided to invite in the actual Soviets. The Russian/Soviets came in and ravaged Afghanistan, burning villages, mass killing etc. - causing a carnage of a war. It was reasonable in this scenario for the US to provide small amounts of material support to the Afghanis fighting the Soviets. The Soviets were rocked, the Empire crashed. What was a relatively peaceful Afghanistan for maybe 50 years - so safe it was on the 'hipster travellers circuit of the 1960's - was now a post-war Somalian zone, and the thugs took over - granted they were not 'ideological terrorists'. Of course, they gave protection and comfort to the 'ideological types' (ie. Al Queda), which necessitated intervention after 9/11.
The s*-show in Afghanistan is a part of the after-effects of Soviet Imperialism, and though Afghanistan would still be medieval otherwise, it would be more like the other 'stans' - and not a complete disaster.
The 'cause' of the Iranian government is the spread of their form of Islamic Jihad, and the destruction of the US. They are not 'just some country' - their motivation is existential - and of course this is a problem.
The 'great anarchist/leftist myth' propagated through the last little while is this idea of 'Shock and Awe' i.e Western forces using 'shock' to destabilize and then takeover. It's a myth. Yes - the fall of the Soviet Union caused a flush of dirty money and take-overs, but it was not even classically Western powers that one out, it was others.
'Chaos' is bad for business.
The 'capitalist' instinct of the US is far far stronger than anything else - and what the US 'wants' is to be able to put a 'Starbucks' on every corner of every street of the Middle East, and to get them all buying iPhones, and buying ads on Facebook and Google, and you can't do that in war zones.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Your comment is spoken like somebody whose salary depends on ignoring the reality of what the CIA and US Military do and in whose interests they actually work.
To everybody else, underlying assumption that the CIA and the US military have any moral standing at all is plainly wrong.
Chelsea Manning knew this - and was brave enough to do something about it. Her actions were good, and she deserves our respect.
Your comment is spoken like somebody whose salary depends on ignoring the reality of what the CIA and US Military do and in whose interests they actually work.
To everybody else, underlying assumption that the CIA and the US military have any moral standing at all is plainly wrong.
Chelsea Manning knew this - and was brave enough to do something about it. Her actions were good, and she deserves our respect.
> "...ignoring the reality of what the CIA and US Military do and in whose interests they actually work"
Which "interests" would those be in your opinion?
Which "interests" would those be in your opinion?
Secrecy. This is the one thing the CIA respects. All else - human decency, dignity, culture - is irrelevant in the CIA's mission to rule by secrecy.
The corruption of government begins with its secrets. A truly free people keep no secrets.
The corruption of government begins with its secrets. A truly free people keep no secrets.
She served her time and was released. Attacking her for being a felon is insulting and childish.
You can disagree with why she leaked all you like, but this honestly comes across as petty politics.
You can disagree with why she leaked all you like, but this honestly comes across as petty politics.
This attempt to repress her rights of speech and participation in open culture is, clearly, an attempt to compel people to not even question the reasons for why she leaked sensitive information.
Another slide down the slippery slope of American-style totalitarianism.
Another slide down the slippery slope of American-style totalitarianism.
Leave aside everything she did wrt Wikileaks. That's a can of worms that need not be opened here.
What has she done since? Has she done anything to warrant a Harvard fellowship? As far as I can tell, her greatest contribution to humanity has been a novel use of emojis on twitter.
What has she done since? Has she done anything to warrant a Harvard fellowship? As far as I can tell, her greatest contribution to humanity has been a novel use of emojis on twitter.
I would say that what she's done is stand up to the criminal government currently using its mighty powers to repress millions of individuals around the world.
She stood up to this power, suffered personally for it, and survived. That is a very strong message, and its one that needs to be heard - not just by the privileged students of Harvard, but the world at large.
She's a hero, because she thwarted elite power brokers' ability to rule, un-hindered by public opinion. If this is not a valuable asset to future generations of public, needing education, I don't know what it is - but of course it should come as no surprise that the power elite do not want younger generations to respect her sacrifice.
It is clearly not going to be good for the military-industrial complex if more, younger people, start questioning the lies they are told about why their nation state is at war, exporting wholesale destruction to the world.
She stood up to this power, suffered personally for it, and survived. That is a very strong message, and its one that needs to be heard - not just by the privileged students of Harvard, but the world at large.
She's a hero, because she thwarted elite power brokers' ability to rule, un-hindered by public opinion. If this is not a valuable asset to future generations of public, needing education, I don't know what it is - but of course it should come as no surprise that the power elite do not want younger generations to respect her sacrifice.
It is clearly not going to be good for the military-industrial complex if more, younger people, start questioning the lies they are told about why their nation state is at war, exporting wholesale destruction to the world.
So...she stood up to the Obama/Trump "criminal government." Got it, and I agree completely.
> "It is clearly not going to be good for the military-industrial complex if more, younger people, start questioning the lies they are told about why their nation state is at war, exporting wholesale destruction to the world."
I agree completely. Also, we shouldn't let up on our "questioning" simply because someone from our club is president.
> "It is clearly not going to be good for the military-industrial complex if more, younger people, start questioning the lies they are told about why their nation state is at war, exporting wholesale destruction to the world."
I agree completely. Also, we shouldn't let up on our "questioning" simply because someone from our club is president.
I would argue it was Bush/Obama/Trump .. I mean, the 'collateral damage' video wouldn't have been so harmful to the so-called integrity of national security, if in fact Bush hadn't pushed the USA into such a heinous, destructive, evil war .. in the first place.
We should also not make the mistake of personalising the criminal government around the single figurehead. Sure, Trump hate is in fashion, as was Obama hate and Bush hate, but its a much, much bigger problem than can just be represented by a figurehead. Those figureheads are there to direct our hatred from the real targets behind the scenes: the generals and CEO's currently driving Americas' military-industrial complex into endless conquering follies.
We should also not make the mistake of personalising the criminal government around the single figurehead. Sure, Trump hate is in fashion, as was Obama hate and Bush hate, but its a much, much bigger problem than can just be represented by a figurehead. Those figureheads are there to direct our hatred from the real targets behind the scenes: the generals and CEO's currently driving Americas' military-industrial complex into endless conquering follies.
[deleted]
According to Harvard, she "is a Washington D.C. based network security expert and former U.S. Army intelligence analyst. She speaks on the social, technological and economic ramifications of Artificial Intelligence through her op-ed columns for The Guardian and The New York Times. As a trans woman, she advocates for queer and transgender rights as @xychelsea on Twitter."
She was expected to help "fulfill the Institute's mission of engaging students in discourse on topical issues of today, including ... issues of LGBTQ identity in the military".
You know that 'fellow' is a catch-all term, right? Even for Harvard, it doesn't mean there must have been a great contribution to humanity.
She was expected to help "fulfill the Institute's mission of engaging students in discourse on topical issues of today, including ... issues of LGBTQ identity in the military".
You know that 'fellow' is a catch-all term, right? Even for Harvard, it doesn't mean there must have been a great contribution to humanity.
I think she's been locked up a lot?
I get it if you are a fan of Manning because you believe in the work Wikileaks does, but I don’t understand why institutions and individuals that have been largely critical of Wikileaks during the 2016 election cycle also characterize Manning as a hero (not referring to Harvard but mostly the media). Perhaps we need more / different Transgender role models.
Maybe because what Wikileaks does has changed? Publishing government documents is leaking. Getting hold of internal Democratic Party communications is Watergate.
Transgender has precisely nothing to do with why reasonable people admire or condemn Manning. The admiration or condemnation is for the actions, not the personality.
I agree that it should not be part of the equation - but in our present media landscape, it absolutely is.
Her being transgender will ultimately have a lot to do with public perception.
There is quite a big movement right now to promote the rights of transgendered people, it's like the late 1980's for gay people - wherein stereotypes were being fought against, and issues brought into public discussion.
In the era of 'social justice media' - these bits of identity are all part of the presentation.
Some will regard the 'transgender' as even a deeper transgression of 'norms and values' and to others it might engender deeper sympathies - nevertheless, it definitely adds a dynamic to the story.
Her being transgender will ultimately have a lot to do with public perception.
There is quite a big movement right now to promote the rights of transgendered people, it's like the late 1980's for gay people - wherein stereotypes were being fought against, and issues brought into public discussion.
In the era of 'social justice media' - these bits of identity are all part of the presentation.
Some will regard the 'transgender' as even a deeper transgression of 'norms and values' and to others it might engender deeper sympathies - nevertheless, it definitely adds a dynamic to the story.
> "There is quite a big movement right now to promote the rights of transgendered people, it's like the late 1980's for gay people - wherein stereotypes were being fought against, and issues brought into public discussion."
I don't think the "big movement" is really all that big (.3 percent in the US). If you said they were extremely vocal and loud, then I'd agree, but to say they are a big movement is an exaggeration.
> "Some will regard the 'transgender' as even a deeper transgression of 'norms and values' and to others it might engender deeper sympathies - nevertheless, it definitely adds a dynamic to the story."
I think you're right on this point, some people will care about her gender situation, others, like myself will think that its a bit gross. In any case, it should be separate from what she did and the content of what she leaked.
I don't think the "big movement" is really all that big (.3 percent in the US). If you said they were extremely vocal and loud, then I'd agree, but to say they are a big movement is an exaggeration.
> "Some will regard the 'transgender' as even a deeper transgression of 'norms and values' and to others it might engender deeper sympathies - nevertheless, it definitely adds a dynamic to the story."
I think you're right on this point, some people will care about her gender situation, others, like myself will think that its a bit gross. In any case, it should be separate from what she did and the content of what she leaked.
That’a great. I totally understand that. I just see people that dislike the actions but like the... personality?
> but I don’t understand why institutions and individuals that have been largely critical of Wikileaks during the 2016 election cycle also characterize Manning as a hero (not referring to Harvard but mostly the media).
Simply put, Wikileaks is a part of the counterculture. There's a reason why the FBI had files on subversive figures like M.L.K. Jr.
Simply put, Wikileaks is a part of the counterculture. There's a reason why the FBI had files on subversive figures like M.L.K. Jr.
Was that reason so J. Edgar Hoover could telephone M.L.K. and try and blackmail him into comitting suicide? Or was that an incidental effect?
The incidental effects of power are quite like the effects of addiction; the addict will lie, cheat, steal, and even murder in order to maintain their addiction.
When you threaten someone's power, strange things will happen to you.
When you threaten someone's power, strange things will happen to you.
Can someone put me right?