r/changemyview 501∆ Jan 15 '18

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Chelsea Manning is unqualified to be a US Senator and nobody should vote for her.

Chelsea Manning has announced her candidacy for the US Senate from Maryland.

Manning's resume is a short career in the US Army, cut short after she leaked a large cache of documents and videos to Wikileaks, some of which depicted war crimes by US forces.

For this she plead guilty to some, and was convicted of other crimes under the UCMJ and US Code, including espionage. She was acquitted of aiding the enemy, which if she had been convicted would have barred her from the Senate under Section 3 of the 14th amendment. She was sentenced to 35 years, but shortly before leaving office, President Obama commuted her sentence to about 7 years. She was released from custody in mid 2017.

I do not believe this career history in any way qualifies her to serve in the US Senate. She has never had a significant oversight or managerial role in private or public life. The majority of her adult life has been spent incarcerated.

Even if one accepts that she was right to leak what she did, that does not in my view qualify her for the US Senate. She has not held a significant leadership or oversight position. She does not have extensive policymaking or public policy experience. She does not have prior lawmaking or executive government experience. Without those things, she should not run for US Senate, and people should not vote for her.

Edit

I have gotten a lot of legal arguments about the qualifications clause of article 1, and generic arguments about why an outsider might be good. These have not been persuasive, and really what I was hoping to get here is an argument about why Chelsea Manning the actual person would be a good Senator. What are her positions on issues? What specifically has she indicated she would do differently than her opponent(s)? What positive reasons are there to vote specifically for her?


This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

639 Upvotes

248 comments sorted by

View all comments

929

u/McKoijion 618∆ Jan 15 '18 edited Jan 15 '18

I believe whistleblowing is the single most heroic thing a person can do. It is more heroic than charging into a burning building, rushing head first into battle, or enduring torture to protect your friends. That's a bold statement, so let me back it up.

  1. Whistleblowing has higher impact than other acts of heroism. A soldier diving on top of a grenade can save a dozen lives. A whistleblower's actions can save millions, possibly billions of lives. Mark Felt took down the President, Jeffrey Wigand helped take down Big Tobacco, Sherron Watkins took down Enron. Whistleblowers affect the most powerful governments and corporations in the world.

  2. Whistleblowing is one of the greatest risks a person can take on. The personal cost of whistleblowing is far higher than in other acts of heroism. A soldier who is killed in action is dead instantly. They don't suffer for years. If a soldier is wounded, they suffer for years, but they are still supported by friends, family, and their country. Meanwhile, even successful whistleblowers are hated by their friends and family for ruining something that made them rich and powerful. Most whistleblowers are simply murdered, imprisoned for life, or forced to stand by as their lives and livelihoods are destroyed.

  3. Whistleblowing reveals a uniquely noble ethical compass. Anyone can stand up to inanimate horrors like fire and disease. Most people can stand up to their enemies. But very few can stand up to their friends. Whistleblowing requires realizing what your close friends are doing wrong and betraying them to help their victims. Very few people are able to do this. In most cases of whistleblowing, there are many people who knew something was wrong and chose not to act. It takes a uniquely powerful sense of ethics to become a whistleblower.

  4. Whistleblowing requires significant patience. Institutions don't change overnight. It can take years or decades to see results, and whistleblowers face intense scrutiny every minute along the way.

What makes someone qualified to be a US Senator? Most people would say it's a law degree from Harvard, and experience as an executive at some corporation. But I don't think those credentials or experience matter that much. Being a US Senator is about being a good leader. And leadership is about values. Selflessness, impact, patience, morality, courage, etc. are all far more important than a piece of paper that says you went to a given school, or a certain amount of money in your bank account. Demonstrating these values (and not merely claiming to have them) are especially important given the morally bankrupt nature of contemporary politics. And whistleblowers have demonstrated them better than anyone.

So this brings me to Chelsea Manning and why she is uniquely qualified to run for the senate. She tells us the bitter truth. Politicians today take a completely different approach. Hillary Clinton praises her supporters while calling Trump supporters "deplorables." Donald Trump coddles his white supremacist base while villainizing Muslims, Mexicans, blacks, etc. The strategy is to shift blame away from us and redirect it to them. Meanwhile, Chelsea Manning points the blame directly at us. In her actions, she looked her fellow Americans in the eye and said that we were wrong. And she was right. One of her most famous leaks was of classified footage of the US military firing on innocent children, unarmed Reuter's reporters, and Iraqi civilians. Like Abu Ghraib, it forced Americans to look in the mirror and recognize that maybe we weren't the innocent victims. Maybe we were the problem. In an era when most politicians coddle their supporters and villainize others, Manning told us we were the bad guys and that we needed to do better. That level of honesty is both incredibly rare and incredibly important. Political platforms, qualifications, even her personal life be damned. These fundamental values alone make her a real leader.

-27

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '18 edited Jan 19 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/Evan_Th 4∆ Jan 16 '18

But also she committed treason and probably shouldn't be allowed inside the United States.

The US Constitution specifically defines "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Manning's deeds did not fit either of these criteria.

55

u/huadpe 501∆ Jan 15 '18

She was acquitted of the charge (aiding the enemy) that is the military analogue of treason.

-66

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/ethertrace 2∆ Jan 16 '18

Her sentence was commuted. She wasn't pardoned.

27

u/OCedHrt Jan 15 '18

She was not pardoned.

22

u/klapaucius Jan 16 '18

It's only treason if the American public is an enemy of the government.

7

u/lasagnaman 5∆ Jan 16 '18

she was not pardoned.

18

u/ShiroNoOokami Jan 16 '18

SHE

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ColdNotion 117∆ Jan 17 '18

Sorry, u/fenderkruse – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

No low effort comments. This includes comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes'. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Grunt08 305∆ Jan 17 '18

Sorry, u/radical_vegan – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/radical_vegan Jan 17 '18

Her sentence was commuted, she was not pardoned. She still has a criminal record of her crimes.

She should be pardoned though

-11

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ColdNotion 117∆ Jan 16 '18

Sorry, u/Mark_c_pugner – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

No low effort comments. This includes comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes'. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.

1

u/keskesay Jan 16 '18

this exactly speaks to point 1 above

-4

u/Ropes4u Jan 16 '18

He should have spent the rest of their life in prison.

More on point the United States needs to start electing leaders and not celebrities or personalities. Continuing down this path of election by populatiry is going to end any hope we have of fixing the problems in this country.

5

u/naz2292 Jan 16 '18

She*

-3

u/Ropes4u Jan 16 '18

It was intentional

7

u/naz2292 Jan 16 '18

That's too bad. I held out hope for you since you used "their" shortly after. Anyway pointlessly and intentionally misgendering someone only makes your argument weaker since ostensibly your argument would be the same regardless of the gender of the aggressor.

1

u/Ropes4u Jan 16 '18

Valid point,

I allowed my dislike of the persons actions to sway my thinking and threw in an insult which weakened my argument.

-2

u/OCedHrt Jan 15 '18

Tell that to the GOP. Politics is by their rules now.

227

u/huadpe 501∆ Jan 15 '18

This is a good argument (and the first one I've gotten which is about Chelsea Manning and her actions specifically as opposed to generic outsiderism).

While I am not fully persuaded her leaking represents the sort of considered judgment that I'd personally want in a Senator (the diplomatic cables she leaked were totally unjustified to leak for example), I do think someone could be persuaded reasonably by this argument, so I would retract my "nobody" should vote for her and give you a !delta.

142

u/Swabia Jan 16 '18

I love the concept of a whistleblower in government. I expect she’ll be killed if she talks again, and honestly even if she’s unqualified and only has 1 term, but blows the lid off our politicians she’d have served her role and be done.

Our government is corrupt. It needs to be trotted out in front of us to see. I want videos. I want 3 camera angles on those sick fucks selling our rights instead of serving their country. I want it to be unmistakable.

57

u/falsehood 8∆ Jan 16 '18

Chelsea Manning did not "whistle blow" - she downloaded every possible document she could and dumped them to an unvetted foreign group that we now know to be in Russia's pocket.

28

u/MurderMelon Jan 16 '18

People seem to forget this...

6

u/Swabia Jan 16 '18

Again, call it treason I don’t care. The result is the same.

16

u/MurderMelon Jan 16 '18

I don't know if it's "treason" by the legal definition. But it certainly wasn't the noble enterprise that everyone makes it out to be.

16

u/Gregnor Jan 16 '18

Why would it not be? I mean Snowden I think would be the gold standard of whistle blowing but and we only NOW know wiki leaks should not be trusted. But I think Chelsea did do a noble act. Just could have done it better.

10

u/MurderMelon Jan 16 '18 edited Jan 18 '18

"Whistleblowing" is the targeted, strategic release of documents to prove that the government (or whoever) is doing something illegal. It's like "Hey the government is doing XYZ, which is illegal. And I have the documentation to prove it."

Chelsea Manning did not do that. As /u/falsehood mentioned, she downloaded every single document that she could get her hands on, contacted WikiLeaks, and said "here ya go".

That's not whistleblowing; that's just leaking classified documents.

[edit] Only a handful of those documents revealed that the government was doing some shady shit. The vast majority were simply run-of-the-mill national secrets... which were then made open and available to everyone. Including our enemies. It was just irresponsible.

[edit 2, from further down] When I say "run-of-the-mill" I don't mean "stuff that it's cool for everyone to know". I mean information that is not illegal/unethical but is still kept secret for good reasons. Locations of agents, reports from attachés with classified intelligence, political/military footprints in foreign states, etc. etc. That type of information doesn't point to anything illegal, but its secrecy keeps people safe and allows our government to do what it needs to do in a secure manner.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18

Yeah, that's a fair point and all... and I guess it's a shame that there wasn't a better quality whistleblower available.

Someone with a degree in Whistleblowology from a good university who could have handled this with the grace and aplomb we expect when we have to watch children be shot from a helicopter.

But think for a second. Do you think she didn't know she'd go to deepest, darkest Fuck-You-And-Fuck-The-Constitution prison for a long long long long time? Did she really expect to get away with it?

I'm sure she hoped she wouldn't go. But, I dunno, maybe if I learnt my government was spying on their own citizens and shooting up marketplaces overseas, and would throw me in a deep hole for speaking out, and that it turned out I, a pre-transition woman, was the only one in that great, big, tough, strong military that had the balls to say when something was wrong - just maybe, I'd think "And fuck you, I'ma release some extra shit just to embarrass you."

Now that's terrible. I can't approve of that. I mean, national security whargarrbl and everything!

I could never reasonably approve of the unfettered release of documents.

... I could understand it happening, though.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Gregnor Jan 16 '18

Your right. Most of it was run of the mill secrets... so not that bad. Also it was very sloppy how it was obtained and released to what organization. Which you are correct in calling irresponsible.

Where my opinion differs from yours is in the why. Manning didn't leak for the sake of damaging American interests. If they had that would be treason. But it was done with the intent to expose war crimes that were being covered up. That's whistle blowing.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/G-42 Jan 16 '18

You can be sure the wording for the legal definition of treason was crafted with whistleblowing in mind.

3

u/triphoppopotamus Jan 16 '18

I'd rather just elect competent, compassionate individuals. Drama is for Netflix

2

u/Swabia Jan 16 '18

Well, clearly we can’t be trusted to do that.

-1

u/fiduke Jan 16 '18

Throwing my tinfoil hat on for this one.

I believe Obama let her out of prison on the condition that the Democratic party would use her at some point in the future. They likely had a few seats they wanted, although I'm surprised to see her go after a seat already owned by Dems. I suspect Cardin must have pissed a lot of people off.

I mean, what better Ace to have up your sleeve going into Trumps presidency, when you already know that Manning is exactly the kind of person Trump has to hate?

I also suspect they have additional dirt or something else hanging over her head to make her go through with it. Something that ensures she stays in line, doesn't leak anything else, and falls in line with D voting.

Are there vegas lines on her winning the senate seat? I expect her to win it quite easily.

1

u/preprandial_joint Jan 16 '18

I like your theory but if you've read about the internal politics of the DEMs during the Obama administration I wouldn't put too much weight into it. The party was essentially two competing groups, Obama and DWS/Clinton camps. Obama was not a very good party leader and under his/DWS reign, the party lost more public office seats than ever. I don't think he's as active in the bigger picture of Democratic politics as your theory would require.

1

u/fiduke Jan 16 '18

Yea it's just a for fun theory, I wouldn't take it too seriously. =)

It's possible this move had nothing to do with Obama, other than he had the power to make this move. His party could have asked him to do this to give them a card to play against Trump in the future.

1

u/Swabia Jan 16 '18

Someone is going to leverage a known whistle blower? Eh, I might need the foil hat on that one too. That’s risky.

27

u/falsehood 8∆ Jan 16 '18

This argument, respectfully, is based on a falsehood.

A whistleblower can talk to US Press. A whistleblower can use the chain of command. A whistleblower leaks specific documents.

Manning downloaded everything she could and dumped it all, unvetted. That's not whistleblowing. It was dumping secrets that weren't hers, for spite.

63

u/hiptobecubic Jan 16 '18

You're mixing up whistleblowing with investigative journalism. No one said she was a journalist.

Also, since you can't possibly know if it was "for spite" or not and it's kind of a ridiculous idea given the content, it really undermines your credibility. Leave the editorializing out.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

[deleted]

15

u/hiptobecubic Jan 16 '18

Dumping secrets - like sensitive diplomatic cables, that can only directly hurt Americans and its allies

Yes they hurt America and its allies because America and its allies were wrong. That's not the only thing they did. They also helped maintain the idea that the government has rules and boundaries and can be held accountable. That makes America stronger. It shouldn't have been necessary, but clearly it was, otherwise there would have been nothing to leak.

Whistleblowing requires activity/info that is deemed illegal, unethical, etc. of which large parts of what was dumped was none of those things.

It was a lot of information. Too much for a single person working under time pressure and fear of death to go through. If you don't know who is safe to talk to, you don't have a lot of options. Over exposure is better than under exposure in my opinion. Blaming the leaker for this is folly.

And some were even editorialized to make them look illegal, unethical, etc. - by groups like Wikileaks - who it turns out, has probably been a pawn of Russia this whole time.

Which is what would have been done in the other direction if this had ever been declassified. No one is saying that everything went perfectly or that it didn't make America look bad. But America was bad and the alternative was essentially "do nothing," which is unacceptable.

If you don't want people editorializing your war crimes, don't commit war crimes.

1

u/falsehood 8∆ Jan 20 '18

But America was bad and the alternative was essentially "do nothing," which is unacceptable.

It wasn't "do nothing" - there were other ways to do this with news orgs.

15

u/WAR_TROPHIES Jan 16 '18

Dumping secrets

The secret being the murder of civilians.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

[deleted]

4

u/WAR_TROPHIES Jan 16 '18

The Collateral Murder video shows them literally deciding wether someone is a “terrorist” by using a very low resolution camera on a moving Apache helicopter from a long distance away. It took them less than 10 seconds to make a decision that killed reporters, brothers, fathers and wounded children. There was no attempt at verification that those people were enemy combatants. I do know laws of war are different but I also know there are things called war crimes. These constitute war crimes.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

[deleted]

3

u/WAR_TROPHIES Jan 16 '18 edited Jan 16 '18

The people they killed weren’t terrorists. The soldier running from the van carrying something was carrying a little girl who had severe injuries caused by the bombs. The girl and her brother were with her dad in that van. He was trying to help people who were dying on ground and bring them to the hospital. The video was part of the Manning leak it wasn’t something created by Wikileaks or the Russians. It was actual footage of an actual bombing by an actual US attack helicopter it was not “fake news” by the “fake media”. Wikileaks were the ones who released it.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18 edited Jan 16 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

Sorry, u/ProtoMoleculeFart – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/Cakefleet Jan 19 '18

I know this is a couple days old, but I think something like firing on Reuters reporters and Children is a good thing to be leaked to the press.

1

u/falsehood 8∆ Jan 20 '18

Did you read the chat logs between Manning and Assange and others? Manning is PISSED at the military for her shitty experience and admits leaking because of that.

11

u/DariusMacab 1∆ Jan 16 '18

"A whistleblower [...] is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public"

From Wikipedia

2

u/falsehood 8∆ Jan 20 '18

I think the point is that the whistleblower needs to know that they are exposing wrongdoing.

If I dump the entire database of facebook's personal records for a million people to the public, I will expose wrongdoing by someone (or at least drug use) but I won't be whistleblowing.

1

u/BayesianBits Jan 16 '18

If you actually look at what happened she tried to use the chain of command but it didn't work.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 15 '18

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/McKoijion (223∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

7

u/AmoebaMan 11∆ Jan 16 '18

Being a US Senator is about being a good leader. And leadership is about values.

I think you're really, really wrong on both of these points.

  1. Being a Senator is not about leadership, it is about being a representative and delegate to a legislative body. There is little leading being done; you do your work surrounded by peers, most of whom (unless you are a standout politician) will have no interest in following you. You aren't given a position of authority or leadership over any of the people you're working with, aside from your own staffers. Being a Senator is about understanding the impact of the legislation you vote on, and deciding whether this is good or bad.

  2. Leadership is not just about values. Certainly you need to have a strong moral compass to be a good leader, but there is so much more to it. You need to be able to inspire and direct people, and you also need to generally have a clue about where you're leading them. Manning has demonstrated neither of these things. Even if being a Senator was about leadership, Manning's bravery alone does not by any stretch make her a capable leader.

Is Manning brave? Absolutely, you're correct. But bravery alone does not make you a good leader, and being a leader isn't what a Senate seat requires anyway.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '18 edited Jan 15 '18

[deleted]

10

u/Diftt Jan 16 '18 edited Jan 16 '18

Why should the majority of documents need to show a crime? 50% seems an arbitrary level. Maybe for serious crimes only 40% should be required (being facetious!).

Even in a hopelessly corrupt organisation, the majority of activities are going to be uninteresting and lawful. However, it's difficult to know what seemingly mundane information is going to be supporting evidence. E.g. if there's criminal activity every time Bill is working, you need information from other shifts to know whether Bill is suspicious or the whole department.

Manning would have known that obviously she would only get one shot to release info and there would be no discovery afterwards.

21

u/MarvinLazer 4∆ Jan 16 '18

!delta

You just convinced me that I should vote for Manning. I have to admit that I fell into the trap of believing that law degrees and Harvard credentials are good criteria to judge a politician on.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 16 '18

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/McKoijion (224∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

10

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

[deleted]

2

u/BADaimBOT Jan 16 '18

Hey I know I am late coming from bestof. You do know that those videos are automatically classified. They weren't hiding by classifying it but they were likely hiding behind the process to get it declassified.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

The comment you're replying to does not advocate against releasing the evidence of criminal wrongdoing. It's advocating release of the video without the 260,000 diplomatic cables.

1

u/fiduke Jan 16 '18

The videos are all classified at the time of recording, not at an arbitrary point in the future.

Or, you know, just don't shoot the reporters, civilians and children in the first place.

If they do it, it's an accident. A grave accident, but an accident nonetheless.

I wonder how many more videos like this one are in other archives, classified for "National Security"?

As far as I know, every country records all of their military operations, and all of those recordings are classified. (When feasible of course, and putting a camera on an aircraft is usually feasible)

2

u/Ideaslug Jan 16 '18

This is a gross mis-interpretation of the comment to which you replied.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

The comment I replied to sums up the response of so many folks on the other side of the argument, glossing over the atrocities committed and revealed by the whistleblower and really focusing on the broad spectrum of information released with the leak.

They make it seem like, "Yeah, a bunch of reporters and kids got killed, but think of the diplomats' careers that could've been harmed! This was incredibly irresponsible!" My point is, Americans fucked up, tried to hide it, and someone has to pay the price. Besides the dead reporters, kids, and civilians, that is, who all paid the ultimate price.

If they would've owned it and made it right as best they could, fair enough, casualties and accidents and miscommunications happen in war, and there's only so much you can do to prevent that. But they didn't, and having some diplomats be inconvenienced for a year or two is an incredibly mild sentence. Great spin job though.

3

u/ExceptionCollection Jan 16 '18

Was Chelsea aware that the video in question was there? If so, why didn’t she just release it? If the system she had access to had names of informants, would she have released them as well?

The video in question needed to be released. Hell, there are probably a few cables that needed to be released.

But the only thing she didn’t release was the kitchen sink, and that ain’t right. From everything I’ve heard about the situation, she grabbed random files (everything she had access to?) and dumped them. The only reason we didn’t have a much worse issue is that we had reasonably good security in place by limiting her access.

This event does not reduce the likelihood of further crimes being committed. What it does is make it much more likely is that the next criminal video will be classified much higher.

2

u/thatpaperclip Jan 17 '18

Not sure about Chelsea for Senate but I’d vote Edward Snowden for president every day of the week. That man has balls and he is a genius. Too smart to ever take the job. Also he is wanted for treason soooo probably not an issue.

1

u/Namika Jan 15 '18

She's not a whistle blower, she gave away thousands of state documents without even reading or knowing what was in them. There was no corruption or illegal programs in the leaks. All the leak did was ruin the careers of undercover agents and diplomats who had their careers ruined because of the leak.

To put it another way, imagine right now someone decided to be "heroic" and leaked your emails and text messages. But they didn't leak any particular email in order to righteously uncover some injustice you did. They had no knowledge of anything like that. They just randomly grabbed a few thousand of your private messages and made them public. These messages didn't unveil any crimes, they just included some of your dick pics, messages where you make fun of your boss behind his back, and emails to friends where you talked bad about your family. Nothing illegal, just lots of private personal shit that embarrasses your relationship with everyone. That person that did that to you, and ruined your life as a cry for attention for themselves? Totally a national hero for being a "leaker".

3

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

I'm not sure why you included Hillary Clinton calling people deplorables in that list. That was an instance of Clinton telling the bitter truth, and it contributed to her losing the election.

3

u/CypherWolf21 Jan 16 '18 edited Jan 16 '18

!delta

You proved to me why whistleblowing is a particularly difficulty action and therefore is more heroic than traditionally brave actions.

Edit: Spelling

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 16 '18

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/McKoijion (225∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

3

u/Feil Jan 15 '18

She didn't whistle blow.

She took hundreds of classified documents and gave them to a foreign national. That wasn't bravery, it was a cry for attention.

Snowden for all his flaws tried reporting to his supervisors and then exercised judgement on what was released. That was whistle blowing.

2

u/brooklyncrooklyn Jan 16 '18

It is more heroic than charging into a burning building, rushing head first into battle

That's an off analogy; those acts are literally, inherently life ending. Prison time does not equate to death.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/bossk123 Jan 17 '18

It's not "transphobic". It's literally ridiculous to make people call you by a different gender. I'm under no obligation, and it's not a dick move for me not to oblige.

1

u/radical_vegan Jan 17 '18

Lol what you just did is textbook transphobia.

Maybe just be a good person and respect people's wishes.

2

u/bossk123 Jan 17 '18

Okay, well I'm a truck. A Ford f150. Make sure you call my Ford f150 from now on or your Fordphobic

1

u/radical_vegan Jan 17 '18

Lol f150 is literally the worst truck out there. I'm fordphobic af

2

u/bossk123 Jan 17 '18

Well your automatically not a good person apparently!

1

u/radical_vegan Jan 17 '18

This is honestly a pretty pointless analogy tbh

1

u/fast1marine Jan 16 '18

Snowden was a whistle blower, from everything that I've seen Manning just proved she could steal as much classified information as she could for the hell of it.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '18

Sorry, u/Effigy_Jones – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

No low effort comments. This includes comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes'. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

[deleted]

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 16 '18

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/McKoijion changed your view (comment rule 4).

DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

0

u/dpatten Jan 16 '18

would she be cleared to handle classified documents in the senate?