Manning verdict is in

[Jarhead0331]

Snowden, I'm actually torn over. I lean towards whistleblower, absent any evidence that he passed (or passes) information directly to a foreign government. Manning, Manning violated his oath and disgraced his uniform. Leavenworth is going to be home for a very long time.

Recalling the clip that I recently saw on Channel 4 news posted by Manning of the Helicopter pilot killing unarmed civilians and gloating about it (below clip @3:06), I'm not that sure that Manning is as bad as he's being made out to be. 
http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-wikileaks-verdict-us-whistle-blower-iraq

I'd suggest that there are a lot of people out there furious with Manning because he exposed their potentially criminal behaviour and they want to discredit and shut him up.

I see much the same with Snowden's case. I'm annoyed that from Snowden's disclosures that as a UK citizen, I am being spied on by the US Govt - not that I represent the slightest threat to the USA.

I used to think of the US as the good guys, but a lot of what has come out has exposed the fact that the US behaves very much like the bad guys, and for that Manning and Snowden are being targeted as the cause. The question is really is what will the US Govt do to bring to book those Manning and Snowden have exposed for disgracing the USA by their actions before the world? We've seen recent politically motivated trials in Russia, but this is the USA in 2013. Still perhaps the politicians will feel safer if they intimidate whistle blowers into silence? I'm no great fan of Assange, but I think he makes a valid point - http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks-conviction-video

Does it remind you in a parallel way a little of the film Enemy of the State, where an NSA Director, using the power of the state goes to extreme lengths to cover up a murder?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film)

^This is a very cynical, narrow-minded view of the criminal acts of both of these individuals and quite frankly, I expect more from someone of your intelligence.

Both Manning and Snowden took oaths and had jobs to do.  They were trusted with classified information and both of them violated this trust.  Moreover, it is foolish to believe that these two individuals divulged this classified information because of some idealistic belief that the "people have a right to know."  Rather, they are self-interested dimwits who did not get enough hugs growing up, and did not feel like they were getting enough attention for their work.  If they truly wanted to "do the right thing," then they should have resigned from their position, stopped stealing classified information, and do things the legal way.  You are criticizing one person's criminal behavior, while commending another's.

You take a couple instances of classified materials released, and make it seem like these guys are heroes for making it public...but what about all the information they released that cost lives?  What about all the information released regarding our overseas methods, our sources, who our friends are, who is cooperating with us.  This information is extremely damaging, placed lives at risk and should be considered aiding the enemy.

You're upset you're being spied on?  You needed Manning and Snowden to tell you that?  The UK is spying on her allies as well.  Get over it. 

[Centurion40]

Manning did not testify during the trial, but has said he sent the material to expose war crimes and deceitful diplomacy.

Seriously?!!  This is the most f#$&ing self-import Private ever!  War crimes and deceitful diplomacy??!!  WTF is wrong with the kids today?  Dumbass.

Self-interested dimwit... bulls-eye JH.

[bayonetbrant]

Both Manning and Snowden took oaths and had jobs to do. 

A minor quibble here - I'm pretty sure that Snowden didn't take any oaths as a contractor, nor in the receiving of his clearance.  I know that I didn't do any of those as a contractor.  Manning certainly did as a soldier.  In his mind, he may have even convinced himself that he was upholding his oath, though I choose to disagree with that characterization of his actions.

[LongBlade]

This information is extremely damaging, placed lives at risk and should be considered aiding the enemy.

You're upset you're being spied on?  You needed Manning and Snowden to tell you that? 

Those two statements are contradictory.

I'll be frank. I don't think this damaged anything. It's public knowledge that 80% of the world's internet backbone passes through the US. The US military built the internet (apologies to Al Gore). It's therefore a very small leap to to figure out that the US is sucking up all electronic data, storing it in a relational database, and querying it at will.

The only surprise is the flagrant violation of obvious constitutional restrictions.

Further, I have yet to read a single report that indicated these methods *revealed* any active plots. To the contrary, they clearly failed to reveal at least two.

When are they useful? After good old fashioned detective work uncovered plots. After which sucking up all the data would be perfectly justified and fits nicely with probable cause.

[Jarhead0331]

Both Manning and Snowden took oaths and had jobs to do. 

A minor quibble here - I'm pretty sure that Snowden didn't take any oaths as a contractor, nor in the receiving of his clearance.  I know that I didn't do any of those as a contractor.  Manning certainly did as a soldier.  In his mind, he may have even convinced himself that he was upholding his oath, though I choose to disagree with that characterization of his actions.

A. You're wrong. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.

B. Why the f*ck are you even trying to make excuses for this assclown, or justify his behavior?

[Jarhead0331]

This information is extremely damaging, placed lives at risk and should be considered aiding the enemy.

You're upset you're being spied on?  You needed Manning and Snowden to tell you that? 

Those two statements are contradictory.

The statements are not contradictory.  They are unrelated.  The information which placed lives at risk is not the the information regarding who we are and are not spying on.  The much more damaging information has to do with how we do it, who does it, and who our sources are. 

[Centurion40]

Both Manning and Snowden took oaths and had jobs to do. 

A minor quibble here - I'm pretty sure that Snowden didn't take any oaths as a contractor, nor in the receiving of his clearance.  I know that I didn't do any of those as a contractor.  Manning certainly did as a soldier.  In his mind, he may have even convinced himself that he was upholding his oath, though I choose to disagree with that characterization of his actions.

The moral high ground would have been for either to resign their position.  That they leaked into tells me that they are either interested in fame or profit.  Although I would argue that Manning is merely a dumbass.  He was an Intel Pfc, right?

[bayonetbrant]

A. You're wrong. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.

There's no oath needed to work for BAH, and there's no oath needed to hold a security clearance.  There's a lot of legal documentation, but no oath in the same way one takes an oath of enlistment.  I've not worked directly for BAH (we sub'ed through them) but I know at least a half-dozen people who do, and there's no oath involved in working for a private company. 
Similarly, there's no oath one takes when receiving a security clearance.  I know because I have one, and I got it as a contractor.

B. Why the f*ck are you even trying to make excuses for this assclown, or justify his behavior?

I'm not trying to justify his behavior.  He was wrong.  I'm saying that in *his* mind he thinks he was doing the right thing, but his mind clearly wasn't firing on all the cylinders it needed to fire on.  As a result, he made a bad decision that likely got people killed in places and on operations we will never know about, and he's going to spend a lot of time getting his ass beat in jail because he was an idiot who royally screwed up.


One of my biggest beefs in the Manning debacle is that people have come out with statements of support that action against Bradley will have a chilling effect on whistleblowers and the media.  I call BS on that one.  Wikileaks are *not* the media.  They're not "new media"; they're not any media.  They are a dump site for random and selectively-edited crap they feel like throwing at the world to support their partisan political agendas.  They are no more "media" than the local chapter of IWW.
What is should do - and this is a good thing, in my mind - is deter people from handing over classified material, especially to BS organizations with political axes to grind and full intentions of doing as much damage with that material as possible.  There's a world of difference between "the mayor is misusing funds to cover up sexual harassment lawsuits" and "classified intel operations gather a lot of actionable data, but sometimes we kill people to get it"

[Jarhead0331]

A. You're wrong. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.

There's no oath needed to work for BAH, and there's no oath needed to hold a security clearance.  There's a lot of legal documentation, but no oath in the same way one takes an oath of enlistment.  I've not worked directly for BAH (we sub'ed through them) but I know at least a half-dozen people who do, and there's no oath involved in working for a private company. 
Similarly, there's no oath one takes when receiving a security clearance.  I know because I have one, and I got it as a contractor.

My sources beg to differ.  If you're simply making the argument that he breached a contract, rather than an oath that he swore by raising his right hand, well I'm not going to waste my time.  Either way, he was wrong and broke the law.

[LongBlade]

A. You're wrong. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.

There's no oath needed to work for BAH, and there's no oath needed to hold a security clearance.  There's a lot of legal documentation, but no oath in the same way one takes an oath of enlistment.  I've not worked directly for BAH (we sub'ed through them) but I know at least a half-dozen people who do, and there's no oath involved in working for a private company. 
Similarly, there's no oath one takes when receiving a security clearance.  I know because I have one, and I got it as a contractor.

My sources beg to differ.  If you're simply making the argument that he breached a contract, rather than an oath that he swore by raising his right hand, well I'm not going to waste my time.  Either way, he was wrong and broke the law.

What about the 4th Amendment? It's pretty clear you need a good reason to perform any search.

What happens when the laws aren't being followed by the good guys?

[Jarhead0331]

What happens when the laws aren't being followed by the good guys?

Like I said, you resign, stop stealing classified information, and do things the legal way.  You do not violate your oath/breach your contract (happy Brant?) and place lives at stake.

[bayonetbrant]

Either way, he was wrong and broke the law.

100% agree

You do not violate your oath/breach your contract (happy Brant?) and place lives at stake.

yep :)

[Jarhead0331]

You do not violate your oath/breach your contract (happy Brant?) and place lives at stake.

yep :)

See...who says I'm not sensitive to the feelings of others?

[airboy]

Below is a link to a former Army Intelligence Officer's comments on Manning.  The big take-away for me is how many signals Manning gave that he was not to be trusted to be in the uniform, much less with classified information and how the Army just ignored the evidence.  Read the thing.  It is frankly unbelievable to me that the Army allowed this unbalanced fool access to classified information.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/manning_enablers_s3uiOB919w0ohSMEgcmlsL

I think that Manning's commanding officers should be sacked for gross incompetence.  If his commanding officers were following Army policy, then those responsible for forming the policy should be sacked.

[Centurion40]

What happens when the laws aren't being followed by the good guys?

Like I said, you resign, stop stealing classified information, and do things the legal way.  You do not violate your oath/breach your contract (happy Brant?) and place lives at stake.

Bingo.  +1