Those free thinking folks lack evidence to support their theory. They also clearly don't subscribe to Occam's Razor.

That is ridiculous.

And here's more on the leaks. It seems the prime suspect is a half-Brit/half-American soldier of the homosexual persuasion who became despondent after his relationship with his -- ah -- significant other ended.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7918632/Bradley-Manning-suspected-source-of-Wikileaks-documents-raged-on-his-Facebook-page.html

It all makes perfect sense now. Why, who among us wouldn't instinctively seek to get even in a circumstance like that by leaking 90,000 secret combat documents to the world?

This thread proved to be useful. I learned about Occam's razor. lol

Ralphie, I'm a hippie.

But smart enough to differentiate releasing information for important reasons, and releasing information that serves no purpose and may well cause problems, including potential loss of life.

The documents were released by somebody whose access made it incumbent on him to protect the security of those whose information he had access to.

If a lawyer uncovers information that is vital to proving that a product has a known but hidden defect, the lawyer is obligated to protect the privileged nature of the information. We can debate the merits of releasing such information - I don't think that rules of privilege and confidence can be "waived" by one person's personal view - but the simple fact is that in my analogy, the release of information did not limit itself to the potentially dangerous product; it included a release of private medical records for employees who were involved in making the product, privileged employment files, performance reviews of people who had nothing to do with keeping the defect a secret, etc.

The guy who released the information used the equivalent of an information H-bomb to kill a mouse. Sure, the mouse is dead, but the unrestricted and improper release of information cannot - CANNOT - be defended.

Why do I say this? Because we adopt accepted rules of behavior as a society. Those rules are not voluntary for the most part. I may disagree with tax policy, spending decisions, etc. but I do not have the right to invade a politician's computer and publish clearly privileged information, completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, because I "think" that the public policy is wrong, or that I am "doing good."

Otherwise, what the hell is the good of having rules? Can we all ignore them when we can come up with a reason?

Would that include my having a "reason" to steal the privileged medical records of the guy who revealed the information, and release those to the public? How about psychological records? Financial records? Why not? I can come up with a valid reason for doing so (possible bias, interest or motive).

I might have known it would be a fucking faggot who was responsible.

Real smart comment there, Bertie..

So you guys don't care if our soldiers are committing war crimes, violating the Geneva Conventions..
Our guys have this "kill everyone" mentality.. we shoot children, mistake cameras for AK47s..
meanwhile we're over there protecting the poppy fields.

All wars are based on deception. There is no noble purpose in invading a country.

Yes, we care.

No, your characterization if not true.

You, Ollie, are the one misrepresenting things.

ZM

Bertie, on behalf of my friends who are homosexual, I suggest you kindly fuck off.

Don't get on your high horse. Why so touchy?
It was supposed to be sarcasm.