"This idea – that Manning and WikiLeaks have imperiled Afghani informants or American troops– is now the leading charge against them. “We know for a fact that people will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed," Rep. Rogers said.
Rogers did not provide evidence for his "fact," but one fact beyond dispute in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is this: they have killed people by the thousands. In fact, the two wars combined have produced well more than 100,000 corpses. If putting people in harm's way is a damning criticism of Manning, then what are we to make of those who have cheered on, voted for, and managed America's wars?"
--Will Wilkinson, firing on all cylinders.
Read the whole thing.
2 comments:
My initial response is that this is too subtle a point for the reactionaries to grasp. If it isn't definable by vast left wing conspiracies or the ability to move a mosque four blocks from where it'll actually be they sort of throw up in their mouths a little.
I think it is difficult, even if you are (like me) mostly sympathetic to it. After all, we are talking actions that could *potentially* endanger the lives of American troops. That is not a trivial point.
The argument I've made (on FB where I also posted a link to this) is that there are things that really are kept secret to protect the lives of soldiers and operatives, and then there are things that are kept secret to cover the asses of policy makers. Therefore, I do not trust the policy makers to be the ultimate arbiters of what ought to be secret.
(Which I realize begs the question of who, then, should be able to do so, something for which I readily admit to having no easy answers. Like I've said before, this shit ain't easy.)
Post a Comment