| > it is stealing I would disagree (although it is closer to the definition of thieft than stealing data is as you lose the ability to withdraw the money). > That translates to "technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect." No, it doesn't. The "court" could as well say "the sun rotates around earth and the moon is made out of cheese", it would not make it correct. > unless we prove the court-martial framed Mannings for something she did not do. Guilty until proven innocent, eh? > Saying "the court says that X did that" and "X did that" it's the same thing. You seem to be putting a lot of trust to the authority of the court. To me the court does not hold any more credibility than anyone else. > it's not something special to Mannings's case Not claiming otherwise. |
The difference between stealing and theft was unknown to me.
Secondly: no, it's not guilty until proven innocent, Manning has been proven guilty, she never denied of illegally obtaining those documents.
third: in this case Manning confessed. There's no much debate we can do about it.
fourth: no, I don't put any particular fate on courts, is just how the system works.
I'm not a sex offender until a court says so.
And after that people would say "he's a sex offender" not "the court said he's a sex offender".
Unfortunately I don't make the rules.