What is the diffenence btwn Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden?

[brooklynite]

...because the debate here is markedly different.

But cases involve unlawful leaks of Government documents. Both have involved the DU community expressing differing views of whether they respectively deserve prosecution or support. But the Snowden discussion seems far more divisive and hyperbolic. What's the difference?

[Arctic Dave]

1. What's the difference between Obama and Satan?

Or Hitler for that matter!

[Gregorian]

5. Hey, knock it off. We're tryiong to be serious here!!!

insert stupid emoticon sarcasm thing right here *

[Arctic Dave]

7. Oh! Sorry, I thought this was the pointless arguement forum.

My apologies.

[Gregorian]

2. The difference is meaningless since they're both messangers, and the message is what is important.

And all but lost on everyone and the media, I mean junk news.

[MNBrewer]

3. No, the vitriol aimed at Manning was just as bad as that aimed at Snowden, if not worse

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. Manning knew he broke the law, and stayed put. The other one wussed & ran. nt

[MNBrewer]

8. Manning didn't publicly leak his info

had he known how he would be tortured, he probably would have fled US jurisdiction. And I wouldn't blame him.

[sabrina 1]

20. Once a country decides to torture Whistle Blowers, they generally become asylum seekers

after that. History is full of asylum seekers from countries that punish Whistle Blowers in the manner in which Manning was treated. It was inevitable that future Whistle Blowers would seek asylum elsewhere after that.

This is why State Dept Official Crowley called Manning's treatment 'stupid and non-productive' and why the torture ended after he spoke out and the UN Rappateur among others, condemned the treatment.

It was worse than we knew as evidenced by Manning's own testimony in the beginning of his trial. Shameful that we have come to this.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. Maybe we should play some that Nth dimensional chess you like so much?

[treestar]

24. This ^^^^

And Manning is subject to military jurisdiction, which makes things harder for him. He went on suicide watch giving people some room to yell "torture."

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. The same people screaming at Obama for an apology that they'd never accept anyway. Screw 'em!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. About the same as between Frederick Douglass and Nat Turner.

One stayed and faced the music (and, was hanged). The other fled and spread the word.

[Enrique]

9. much easier for people to ignore Bradley Manning

because the government captured him and isolated him immediately.

[quinnox]

10. I don't know that much about the Manning case

But that has to do with exposing war crimes committed by the U.S. military, while Snowden is all about exposing massive spying on Americans, and concerning spooks.

[Aerows]

11. Snowden's revelations

were far more embarrassing to President Obama. This has nothing to do with what he revealed, it's that he revealed it while Obama is POTUS. There would have been an entirely different tune being sung had this happened under Romney.

[randome]

13. S&G's 'revelations' are, at best, ambiguous.

Why didn't either of these two 'geniuses' get stronger evidence? Maybe it's because Snowden lied and did not have the access he claimed?

Surely you can see that's a cogent point regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Aerows]

16. I see a lot of people

scrambling to disregard the message outright by discrediting the messenger. You know, had most of you just said "Oh wow, that's interesting", 90% of the people would have blown it off. The fact that an entire PR campaign has been launched to discredit the messenger tells a lot of people that what he said is closer to home than you want to admit. The fact that Snowden has apparently taken on mythical proportions of capture at any cost lends that credence.

How's that 11 dimensional chess working out for you on this issue? Because it looks to me like those who protest are protesting far too much, and that tells me more than Snowden's revelations ever could.

Party and personality over principle. That is something to be proud of in the world of such people, I guess. It will always look like intellectual cowardice to me to value a politician over integrity. We've seen numerous examples of that, too.

[randome]

19. Please. Over-the-top posts come out of both ends.

Celebrating the perceived 'authoritarian angst' or 'watching the authoritarians squirm'.

Since the evidence is ambiguous, of course everyone defaults to character and motivation. Now if S&G were to publish something more meaningful than a lame PowerPoint slide, we would all switch to looking at the evidence again.

But what it looks like right now is that they don't have anything stronger.

Which leads to a strong conclusion -again, not one you need to agree with but which I hope you can at least understand why it's shared by so many- that Snowden never had the access he claimed. He lied.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Aerows]

22. Take my post for what it is worth

I really believe what I posted, and I don't see it as hyperbole. The over-reaction if all of this was untrue is as ridiculous as the assertion that none of it is true.

Those two kind of tell me that, yeah, it is true. When you deny things so stringently then ground the plane of a leader of a sovereign nation based upon UNFOUNDED RUMORS that one person is on his plane, um, yeah, that's over-reaction.

I'll take hyperbole which is language that needlessly inflames a situation over ACTIONS that needlessly, and without cause violate international law and protocol.

Please proceed to tell me which you would prefer. Seriously.

[randome]

30. The entire Bolivian plane incident is a mess.

It sounds to me like the U.S. ambassador had bad information and acted on his own. However, I would agree that if there was a coordinated 'plot' to interfere with Morales, that would be something worth getting angry about.

But it sounds like Morales isn't going to follow through on his word, which makes me doubly suspicious of what actually happened.

But if there is one person in this entire adventure who isn't paying attention to law and protocol, it's Snowden.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Aerows]

31. The thing is that it isn't about Snowden anymore

The blundering actions of the US ambassador took care of that. Now it's about a head of state that has been disrespected on a national stage, 4 countries that had to apologize and whoever generated the rumor that Snowden is on the plane with egg on their faces to the point that he will likely be able to leave Moscow because no one is going to stop a plane again on rumor.

See how smart this makes everyone look?

[randome]

33. It makes quite a few people look stupid.

But if Morales doesn't follow through on his 'threats' to the United States, that, to me, indicates more of a misunderstanding on his part. Perhaps a willful misunderstanding.

I don't know who the ambassador is but he/she might be due for a reprimand or reassignment. But maybe that 'error' can be overlooked. There are a lot of unwanted players in this ridiculous 'game'. Including Assange, who did Snowden a grave disservice with his attempted forgery.

And even though the Wikileaks attorneys turned away from Snowden, Wikileaks itself is hell bent on using Snowden for their own purposes.

Too many players. Someone's life is getting more bent out of shape than it should.

Someone pointed out that Snowden might get away with a 36 month sentence. Makes you wonder why he doesn't just serve his time and get back to work removing the spy apparatus he claims is all around us.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Aerows]

36. You said it

It makes quite a few people look stupid. Who is going to go off anyone's word that Snowden is on a plane now after this rigamarole?

[sabrina 1]

21. I think the President has acknowledged how strong the evidence is. Maybe you missed his statements

on the issue?

I eg, know now that my phone company has been spying on me without any justifiable cause that I can find. No one is denying that and no one is happy about it, other than the inventors of these policies, Cheney et al.

[randome]

32. I think the majority of people would not agree that a business keeping business records...

...constitutes spying. I'd think most people also don't have much of a problem with metadata -obtained legally and routinely ruled to not be in violation of the 4th Amendment- being stored by the NSA in their current black box environment.

Carl Bernstein said that it sounds to him that the NSA has sufficient safeguards in place. If anyone can point to an example of misuse or malfeasance, let's see where it leads.

The President said no one is listening to your phone calls. That's not even addressing the 'evidence' that S&G provided. It's the simple truth so far as we know.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cali]

40. yep. on the whole, we're somewhat inured to

or calloused to accusations of atrocities in Iraq and that's the revelation from Manning's info that got most press. (the helicopter double tapping) Snowden brought up an issue that's long been festering and from which President Obama has done a 360 since he was candidate/senator Obama. And of course you're correct about a different tune being sung (at least from certain DUers) had this happened under Romney.

[randome]

12. "I am not here to hide from justice."

That one always makes me laugh.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Aerows]

14. "I'm not biased because the President has a D behind his name"

"or the fact that it's President Obama" is the one that makes me laugh. Or cry, because apparently principle doesn't mean shit.

[treestar]

26. Just curious

Why the desire to be so very, very objective on a Democratic site? It sounds like the bitterness of right wingers.

Even so, who cares who is President? It's the same national security apparatus. Bush as most Republicans use it to the max and go OTT in what they think they can do. It has been said over and over that President Obama went back to warrants. So he looks better than Bush on this. At least, should do from the alleged left.

[Aerows]

28. I've always been objective

I was objective under Bush, I'm objective under Obama. Would you prefer that I hare off on an emotional tangent? That doesn't seem to be conducive to policy discussion, nor meaningful discourse.

I guess your mileage may vary, though. I am surprised that objectivity is suddenly an objectionable trait in discussing policy and politics, but Treestar, I'll remember that you really don't care for that in the future.

[treestar]

38. I gave the reason Obama is better than Bush

It's the same national security apparatus, so why the bitterness about the alleged lack of concern re Bush. I am objective, but not to the point where I'll be mad at Democrats having the apparatus rather than Republicans, who I believe will abuse it and cheat and waste it with useless agendas they have. Nobody's totally objective and so I can see some concern with the national security apparatus but not to the extent I see here even saying Obama is as bad as Bush just for having those powers. May as well complain he is just like Bush for using the Oval Office.

It is possible for you to make any statement without going overboard in the other direction. I mean if my hair is not blonde that does not mean it is raven black either.

[Aerows]

39. Lack of concern under Bush?

Um, I already stated I was concerned about it under Bush. Putting words in my mouth in an attempt to generate a narrative isn't going to change the contents of the post I posted right above you, the countless posts I've made before, and my assertion that I am concerned about principle over politics and party.

Feel free to re-interpret my post again, but it doesn't change that I stated in plain English what I believe. It's very clear that objectivity isn't your strong point, because you just redo whatever someone states clearly to be whatever you want it to mean instead of what they state baldly. Not a good foundation for logical, rational discourse.

[sabrina 1]

23. Your posts always make me smile.

Oh and since we have abandoned the rule of law here, see War Criminals and Economic Criminals, that statement is correct. To find justice you have to be somewhere where the law is applied equally and 'no one is above it'. When do you think we will apply the rule of law to the same degree we have applied it to Manning (absent the torture, I am opposed to torture under any circumstances) to the War Criminals and the Wall St. Criminals?

[cthulu2016]

15. Manning was far more irresponsible than Snowden

[Cleita]

17. Snowden hasn't been imprisoned and tortured yet.

When that happens, you will probably see more sympathy and some regret for the mean things said.

[WovenGems]

18. Only the facts maam

One has been tortured while the other has not. One embarrassed the state department and the military and the other the NSA. One has had nasty rumors spread about them while the other has had false charges levied against them. Other than that they be brothers.

[Orsino]

25. Manning was a government employee. n/t

[1-Old-Man]

27. Manning is tied up in a Kangaroo Court and Snowden is avoiding one.

[dtom67]

29. the difference is that Manning is in jail and Snowdon is not ( yet ).

Manning is all done. Deep down, we all know His is a show trial. Guilty w/ life in prison.

Snowdon is still at large, and this is a problem. The longer he is free, the more encouragement it might give to other conscientious objectors ( or "whistleblowers" ) who might wish to reveal illegal government activities. Therefore, those that wish to preserve the status quo ( Elected officials, military leadership, members of the intelligence community, rabid partisans and conservative hacks ) must turn public opinion against Mr Snowdon. IF Snowdon is a "hero", that might serve to encourage others to step forward. Snowdon must be made an example of , whereas Manning IS an example. An example of the treatment Snowdon can expect when captured ( i.e. torture, fake trial and life in prison.).

Manning does not need to be smeared the way Snowdon has to ( and will ) be. He is a soldier and many Americans believe that a soldier MUST follow orders at all times. Of course, that 98 year old Nazi that was arrested in Budapest recently wishes that were true....

Anyways, the Snowdon discussion is more divisive because those that support the current Regime are defensive because this site is supposed to be friendly to them. Those that do not believe in " My President- Right or Wrong" are taken aback that the Party that has championed Civil Liberties in the past can so readily abandon the basic Rights we are all supposed to believe in.

Oversimplified, but it is my opinion.....

[MineralMan]

37. Manning is facing the charges against him.

Snowden boogied.

That is the difference. Both knowingly broke the law. One is someone who engaged in civil disobedience. The other is skipping the second part of that activism. One has my respect, if not my agreement with his actions. The other does not have my respect.

[sabrina 1]

41. Manning was tortured, which means from now on Whistle Blowers will do what they always

have done when governments torture them, seek asylum elsewhere.

[MineralMan]

42. OK. Whatever you say.

I am no longer intereste in attempting any discussion with you. Good luck.