Item — HN Reader

My guess on why you're being downvoted is because this very long comment starts with the sentence: "It seems to me that Greenwald is assuming his own conclusion here, that the chat logs provide evidence of Manning's innocence."

I don't remember Greenwald ever claiming or even giving off a vibe that he didn't think that Manning was the leaker; this is a media critique, like most of his work. Doesn't bode well for the next 1400 words.

1 comments

Ah, I guess that's my fault for using my terms too loosely. Greenwald certainly does seem to think Manning was the leaker. But he also seems to think that Manning is very possibly not guilty (or as I carelessly put it, 'innocent') on both factual and legal grounds. In the following link, for example, Greenwald both expresses skepticism about whether Manning is definitely responsible for all the leaking, as well as whether he had the state of mind required for criminal responsibility, remarking that '[..] Manning clearly believed that he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that.' (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14...)

This reads to me - perhaps incorrectly - like Greenwald is saying that Manning may have a valid legal defense for his actions, as a military whistleblower. If so, I think - again, perhaps incorrectly - that Greenwald is wrong, and that the Supreme Court has put tighter limits on military whistleblowers than on the general public (Parker v. Levy 417 US 733 (1974) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7171415278006906...). Please note that I'm speculating on what the law actually is, not what it ought to be.

". Greenwald certainly does seem to think Manning was the leaker. But he also seems to think that Manning is very possibly not guilty (or as I carelessly put it, 'innocent') on both factual and legal grounds. "

I've read every article Greenwald has ever written on Manning, and I've never seem him state that, or even imply that Manning is not guilty. About the furthest I've seen him go is imply that perhaps we should not presume him to be guilty before trial, and that we should treat him as a suspect, and not a convicted felon, until that point.

Do you mean that you don't agree with my reading of what he said in the example I gave? (It's about half way down the linked page, right after a ' * * * * * ' divider, or you could just search on the text I quoted.)

Greenwald does go into some detail about why he considers Manning to be a 'whistleblower' - a term with legal meaning, as used in eg 'Military Whistleblower Protection Act.' It certainly sounds like he's suggesting it would be a valid defense (as in, 'yes, I did those things but I am not guilty because I was acting as a whistleblower'). If not, what do you think he means?