[stratos]

$1:

In the US the oath that everyone takes is to defend and protect the Constitution. In this case I'd say Snowden is actually fulfilling that oath given that the NSA is doing things far beyond the scope of what they're allowed to do under the law.

Agreed for all of those that take that oath, not everyone does. Politicans sworn into fedreal office and the Military I know do. I could be wrong but isn't this guy a contractor? If so I don't think he swore the oath you and I are talking about. He most likely signed a non disclusre document. And the reverse side of my non disclusre document is the whistleblower laws. I'm not sure what side of the argument this guy falls on.

[DrCaleb]

DanSC DanSC:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

There will be no extradition, because there will never be any warrant. Despite being distasteful to some, he didn't do anything illegal.

Releasing classified information is definitely illegal.

Since the NSA director had a press conference the next day as to the PRISM program, I'm betting it wasn't 'classified' so much as 'not spoken about'.

http://www.mobilemag.com/2013/06/11/dir ... m-and-nsa/

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/e ... prism.html

[DrCaleb]

raydan raydan:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Since when did telling people what their government is up to become so wrong?

Bradley Manning...

The knife edge that Manning is under is for it to have been treason and a violation of his oath, the Military must prove that the enemy had access to that information. Since they most likely did not until it was released by news media organizations, it's likely that Manning did not violate his oath.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Sounds more like a confirmation bias to me.

It will be an interesting psychological study to read the comments in the Bradeley Manning threads and compare them to the Snowden comments.

Why? I didn't say Snowden was correct in his actions, but at least, (according to his interview with the Guardian) he specifically chose to release information that won't put actual human lives at risk.

Both individuals certainly were forbidden from releasing any information, and they both should face the consequences for their actions, but, I'm SLIGHTLY more sympathetic for Snowden for having better judgment in what he decided to leak.

I don't have too much sympathy for Manning--he was a soldier, as Martin points out. He swore an oath. I don't really support this business of hunting down Assange though--that, to me, is like hunting down the journalist who prints the story.

The thing with Manning's release is that it didn't actually reflect very poorly on Americans. The supposed cold-blooded shooting of Iraqi civilans and a journalist turned out to be an attack on armed insurgents. Apart from rather unflattering hubris on the part of some American dimplomats, most of the leaked cables reflected a genuine desire for America to live up to its stated values. Did the release put agents in the field in danger? Well, I'm not convinced on that one, myself. It may have been useful information for enemy intelligence agencies, but not much direct actionable intel.

This release is much more embarrassing, because it's clear that the administration went to great lengths to hide it from the public, by actually legislating that affected companies could not talk about it. So Snowden's release is, somewhat paradoxically, less traiterous but more damaging.

In both cases the stated reason for the release of the documents was moral, not financial.

Personally, I'm torn. The government has become more secretive (both in the US and Canada), so there is a need for whistleblowers now, more than ever. On the hand, when I swear an oath, I take that very seriously.

[stratos]

$1:

Personally, I'm torn. The government has become more secretive (both in the US and Canada), so there is a need for whistleblowers now, more than ever. On the hand, when I swear an oath, I take that very seriously.

Exactly how I feel in this case.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't have too much sympathy for Manning--he was a soldier, as Martin points out. He swore an oath. I don't really support this business of hunting down Assange though--that, to me, is like hunting down the journalist who prints the story.

The thing with Manning's release is that it didn't actually reflect very poorly on Americans. The supposed cold-blooded shooting of Iraqi civilans and a journalist turned out to be an attack on armed insurgents. Apart from rather unflattering hubris on the part of some American dimplomats, most of the leaked cables reflected a genuine desire for America to live up to its stated values. Did the release put agents in the field in danger? Well, I'm not convinced on that one, myself. It may have been useful information for enemy intelligence agencies, but not much direct actionable intel.

For the most part, I agree with you. However, I do remember a few articles stating that there was some compromising information for either agents, or informants that put those people in extreme risk due to divulging information about their locations or things like that.

If those articles panned out or not, I don't remember. However, I find it highly unlikely Manning went through all those documents that were released to make sure no people could be hurt.

$1:

This release is much more embarrassing, because it's clear that the administration went to great lengths to hide it from the public, by actually legislating that affected companies could not talk about it. So Snowden's release is, somewhat paradoxically, less traiterous but more damaging.

In both cases the stated reason for the release of the documents was moral, not financial.

Personally, I'm torn. The government has become more secretive (both in the US and Canada), so there is a need for whistleblowers now, more than ever. On the hand, when I swear an oath, I take that very seriously.

True enough. I think the biggest issue is that most of the information about how the government is entrenching themselves into our personal lives, and how they're being more "Big Brotherly" will probably be done by individuals who swear to never divulge the information to the public for *insert excuse here*.

So, yeah.

[Thanos]

Charles Johnson at LGF is on the case doing the yeoman's job or ripping this entire thing apart, and it looks more and more like this entire Snowden tempest could be a scam. Snowden could be as legitimate as that queer little freak who claimed to be the killer of JonBenet Ramsey just so the US government could safely rescue him out of some demented shit he'd gotten involved with in Southeast Asia. If the end result of all this hysteria is that the wildly over-rated credibility of Glenn Greenwald could finally be coming to an end, which would do a good job of taking the air out of some stuffed shirts.

Now, if you'll excuse me, before I sign any petitions demanding that the evil Hitlerian governments of Barack Obama and Stephen Harper respect my privacy I have to get all my PINs, bank accounts, SIN, and home address, and the hours that I will and won't be at home onto Facebook as well as download a video of my junk to YouTube. *farts*

[DanSC]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't really support this business of hunting down Assange though--that, to me, is like hunting down the journalist who prints the story.

If Assange doesn't want to be hunted, he should probably stop the whole raping people thing.

[Zipperfish]

DanSC DanSC:

If Assange doesn't want to be hunted, he should probably stop the whole raping people thing.

Hopefully the truth will emerge, but that whole business looks a little contrived to me.

[BartSimpson]

DanSC DanSC:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't really support this business of hunting down Assange though--that, to me, is like hunting down the journalist who prints the story.

If Assange doesn't want to be hunted, he should probably stop the whole raping people thing.

Given that the sexual assault charges against Assange didn't surface until after the Bradley Manning documents were posted I consider those charges to be politically motivated. So does the government of Ecuador.

Also, the US thought that Assange was a good guy when he was posting secrets from Russia and China. It was only when he aired OUR dirty laundry that Assange was suddenly painted as a dastardly rapist.

[Jughead]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Jughead Jughead:

I'll bet he's on the run. Staying at the hotel would most certainly involve capture by Hong Kong officials, and eventual extradition to the U.S.

There will be no extradition, because there will never be any warrant. Despite being distasteful to some, he didn't do anything illegal.

Since when did telling people what their government is up to become so wrong?

Perhaps. They may however decide to charge him with knowingly providing classified material to an unauthorized person. As far as his safety is concerned, all bets are off.

[Thanos]

I'm going to put this one down that Snowden's some kind of head-fucked famewhore narcissist looking for attention. This has all the hallmarks of a public stunt being pulled off by a chronic liar. His claims about his salary at BoozAllen have been proven false and the NSA says that anyone at his level of analyst has nowhere near the access to information that Snowden claims. This is more about our cretinous media once again running with a story only to find out a few days later that they've fallen for the equivalent of the Balloon Boy and his crazy dad.

[BartSimpson]

Whatever Snowden's motivations were, what he has revealed is the real story.

[commanderkai]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Whatever Snowden's motivations were, what he has revealed is the real story.

That I'd agree with. What Snowden lied, or didn't lie about, and what his fate should be is something of serious concern, but he did reveal something that warrants discussion, much like the Wikileak cables did.

[Gunnair]

stratos stratos:

$1:

Personally, I'm torn. The government has become more secretive (both in the US and Canada), so there is a need for whistleblowers now, more than ever. On the hand, when I swear an oath, I take that very seriously.

Exactly how I feel in this case.

Guess it depends on whether your 'oath' to the Government in general is being violated by the actions the Government in particular requires of you.