Brad Manning is a total doosher. Had he really been concerned about [...] that was going on in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are many legal routes for him to pursue. He did this for personal, selfish reasons. His motivations probably weren't much different than those of Adam Lanza-hurt a culture that has relegated him to insignificance. Well, he's no longer insignificant. A darling of the left, and I can't think of any enemy that has done more to hurt military information systems than manning.

Was Ethel Rosenberg a patriot?

What about Aldrich Ames?

John Walker?

Christopher Boyce?

"He approached the Washington Post and NY Times before Wikileaks, proving he was not corrupted by Wikileaks. Both papers later published Manning's revelations without the charges hurled at Wikileaks for doing the same thing. Why you might ask? Because both the Post and Times are important instruments of American propaganda and Wikileaks is not."

What he should have done is approach the Army Inspector General and report any activites he felt might be illegal or in violation of the UCMJ, LOAC, or the Geneva Conventions.

he claims he did this because he didn't agree with the methods used by the US Military. That's fine. Tell your boss that you can no longer in good concience do that job. They'll figure out something else for you to do. but being in disagreement with policy does not give you the right to release classified information. When you join the military you are under a binding contractual obligation. Manning did this because he is a spoiled little [...] who wanted to be at the center of the spotlight. No more, no less.

I don't know that he'll do much hard time. Eventually, he'll do the progressive talk show circut. Hobknob with Thom Hartmann and Markos Moulitsas, maybe do a Code Pink Speaking tour with Cindy Sheehan, where progressives can get gushy over the bravery of the gay whistleblower soldier.

jeez, with street cred like that, He could probably pick up a gig at Democracy Now?

"He exposed serious flaws in the way military intelligence carries out their mission."

really?

What flaws were those?

It wasn't 'flaws' he was pointing out. It was things he had a personal disagreement with. What he should have done was go to the Army Inspector general. In fact, if you think that something illegal is going on, it's your duty to report to the Inspector General. That way, if there are probelms, they can be addressed without compromising classified information. But Manning didn'y do that. because it would have deprived him of the spotlight he wanted, and felt he deserved.

Like I said as someone coming from inside the system. Manning did more to damage military information systems than any enemt could have ever hoped to.

"Sorry, but the system was damaged by design when a PFc can burn state secrets onto optical media and walk out the door with it.
You think the workstations at DIA let you burn CDs?"

I've never worked for the DIA, but I do know that being able to copy off of a SIPR system to transfer to a closed network is essential for what I do. And yes, that's exactly what we do. Only we use 3.5 inch floppies to transfer files between Windows-based and UNIX based systems.

"I find it hard to believe you're in military IT."

End user.

"The ones where a PFc has unrestricted, unmonitored access to state secrets including those outside DoD walls. From workstations with CD burners in them."

Again, I don't really think you're in a position to make that sort of determination. Manning had the applicable SSBI background investigations and signed paperwork acknowledging his role in protecting the nation's secrets. It was made very clear to him what the penalty would be if he were to violate the terms of the security agreement. The whole point in doing background investigation and grating clearances is to provide warfighters access to classified information. I could walk into my office tomorrow and make copies of a myriad of Top Secret/SAP information that would literally ruin certain programs within the DoD. I have access to that info because I need it to do my job. To prevent or prohibit access would prevent me from doing my job.

But again, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. This seems to be a trend with you. Manning didn't point out any weakness than wasn't already known. He just exploited them, and in doing so willingly committed a criminal act. I don't know how true it is, or if it ever happened, but I do know that during the cold war there were Special Access Programs where part of the read-in process was informing the individual being granted the clearance that any inappropriate disclosure would result in the individual disappearing. I think that if Manning had been presented with those terms, his behavior would have been much different

"It's laughable that you still don't see the flaw in the system and only blame the person. I bet even Boaz can figure out what's wrong with this picture."

Are you being serious?

That's like blaming alcohol for drunk driving.

Or guns for gun crime.

Note sure if you're just playing the devil's advocate or if this is something you really believe.

"Where were the DUI checkpoints to stop Manning in this analogy?"

It doesn't matter. A committed person who wants to drink and drive will do, regardless of what the laws say.

I don't think you seem to understand. The only practical way to prevent this from happening would be to not retain or use classified information. That, oddly enough, is what the IT community would do if they could. Simply lock it away from everyone else or permanently delete it. Of course even this wouldn't do much to prevent someone within the IT community from committing these crimes.

"That's information relevant to your job.
What was Manning's job, did it require access to more or less information?"

SIPR and JWICS are not caveated systems. If you have SIPR access, you can in theory access anything on that network. I can access DOJ-related files if I choose. And have on occasion. That's where the really creepy [...] is at.

Only SAP/SCI level programs have restrictions, other than website managers. And you have to be read into those. But once you are, in theory, you could make copies.

"Manning is a Private, are you?"

Our junior enlisted intel troops are read in at a higher classification level than I am.

The restrictions are not on how much time you have served, but how much time you have left remaining on your enlistment (for junior enlisted).

"Manning exhibited lots of behavior that should have been a red flag regarding his access to classified information, do you?"

This is where I will agree with you in part, but it does not relieve Manning of his contractual obligations to protect classified information.

"Can you access sensitive information at State, DIA, DoD outside USAF, outside of specific programs you're involved in?"

If it's on SIPR, I can access it. The exception being that some sites require webmaster authorization. The stuff that he released was available to anyone with SIPR access.

"It's like the threat model was never even built when these systems were being cobbled together."

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a threat model to defend against blue forces. Because by giving the enemy information we only hurt ourselves.

Perhaps the answer is to take Manning up in a helo, and throw him out. Might that serve as an effective deterrent?

"I don't. Doesn't sound like there's any mechanism in place to stop someone like that."

To find the answer to that question you will probably have to join the military and get cleared to the point where someone would be able to legally answer that question if you were to ask it.

"Any light that's shed upon the military is good, imo. We spend way too much money on bombing brown people, rather than developing minds and infrastructure here at home."

Really?

So you'd be a fan If tomorrow someone were to leak the command and control procedures used by the US regarding nuclear weapons? Made it so that anyone would be able to decode, or even replicate, nuclear C2 orders. What about critical nuclear weapon design information? published on Wikipedia?

Oh, and certainly the names of everyone who is spying for the US should be made public. The people have a right to know.

Be careful. At some point I suspect you are going to forget to breathe.

"It's unconscionalbe that the workstation he used had a media burner on it."

Mine does. It has to. Is that unconscionable?

"Finally, if you're relying on loyalty oaths as the last line of defense to deter rogue agents and spies... Well, as Reagan said, "Trust but verify."

Do you think that making those who violated oaths disappear might remedy this problem?

"Let's see if you can figure this one out all on your own:
Spies have been executed since the dawn of time.
Are there still spies?"

Do you consider manning a spy? I don't. Spies do what they do for ideology, money, things like that. Manning did this in order to put himself in the center spotlight, and to strike back at a culture that didn't appreciate him nearly as much as he appreciated himself. I suspect that he didn't perceive that there were going to be any negative consequences for his actions.

"The most ironic part of all of this is that the O'bomber admin is making an example of this young patriot who's dared to dissent against the brass; both the authoritarian-liberals and conservatives (in general) give a standing ovation."

Young patiot. Clearly he's a small fry compared to greats such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, John Walker, and Phillip Agee, among others.