People who blame Snowden for running should applaud Manning for staying.

[redgreenandblue]

However, I have seen little of that. It appears that the same people who call Snowden a coward also think that Bradley Manning is a traitor who deserves what he got: Torture, followed by imprisonment, possibly for life.

This inconsistency tells me exactly how little such accusations are worth.

[MotherPetrie]

1. They would be applauding both if the NSA still answered to Bush. Since it now answers to Obama,

and Obama supports its egregious activities, whistle-blowers like Snowden and Manning must be considered the enemy. If it was Bush they were making look bad, and Senator Obama was still pretending to oppose NSA's overreach, it would be a different story. Inconsistency, indeed.

[RC]

3. Absolutely 100% true

The word "Hypocrite" comes to mind. But that is how the 3rd Way, DLC and DINO types think. They have no problem holding two or more counter intuitive thoughts in their mind at the same time, without ever seeing the conflict. They are analytically challenged.

[MotherPetrie]

7. Relentless spinning to justify in one what would be condemend in the other affects the brain.

[demmiblue]

2. .

[kelliekat44]

4. I do. But Manning didn't have a chance to run.. He's military. nt

[wercal]

5. Snowden and Manning are completely different

While admittedly, I am not yet 'sold' on Snowden, I recognize that he sought to expose a domestic (ie they're spying on us) spying program...and he is doing it methodically, and trying to avoid wrecklessly dumping information about foreign spying.

Manning on the other hand did just that. He wrecklessly put data onto a thumb drive, and didn't even look at its contents, before delivering it to a foreigner (Assange). An it turns out that there were some gems in there, which have negatively affected our diplomacy with foreign nations...and have even caused turmoil in foreign nations (Tunisia).

Like I said, I'm not all on board the Snowden train just yet...but unquestionably, Manning should not be applauded. I don't know if he was tortured...I wasn't there...he shouldn't be tortured as it violates our constitution...but that doesn't change the fact that he is guilty.

So the two cannot be compared. They are completely different cases.

Well now I've done it, and waded into the endless Snowden threads.

[redgreenandblue]

6. Solitary confinement for extended periods and sleep deprivation.

"Bradley Manning's treatment was cruel and inhuman, UN torture chief rules"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un

[4Q2u2]

8. Sounds like SERE school

What you described is an everyday occurance in the U.S. Armend Forces. In ceratin schools and Brigs all across the country.
Sleep depirvation is a fact of life for everybody on deployment, specially those in Combat Operations. Many seem to think it is okay to second guess the split second life and death decisions these people make in the face grave danger.

Your own article points out that Mr. Mendez did not come to definitive answer.

"Mendez told the Guardian that he could not reach a definitive conclusion on whether Manning had been tortured because he has consistently been denied permission by the US military to interview the prisoner under acceptable circumstances"

[redgreenandblue]

9. ...

"Sleep depirvation is a fact of life for everybody on deployment, specially those in Combat Operations. Many seem to think it is okay to second guess the split second life and death decisions these people make in the face grave danger."

What does that have to do with my post? Manning was not in combat, and the sleep deprivation was part of the conditions of his imprisonment.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/01/1166253/-The-Torture-Techniques-Used-on-Bradley-Manning#

[4Q2u2]

14. Not torture

All those points listed in the DK article are practiced on Service members in all walks of life. None of them are considered torture by 99.99% of the U.S. military.

They are used to acclimate the Troop to arudus conditions that they will in fact encounter in their daily operations in Combat. That is what the Military trains for. Being able to overcome and strive in those conditions is what the Military is looking for in someone. If you want Alter Boys you are in the wrong business. The Military is trying to forge hardened individuals that will succeed in the worst conditions. That is what all your Civilain experts do not and cannot understand. What they consider torture is everyday training in the Military.

Your second paragraph dovetails nicely to what you have quoted me on. Manning was not in Combat, (and never was). I am pretty sure he had experienced sleep depirvation many times before he got to the Brig. Secondly, this arm chair quaterback sat back in his comfy chair and passed jugdement on Troops out in the Field after he witnessed a Video. This so called Combat Expert then passed judgement on those people (who may have been sleep deprived) with a lot less due process than he is recieving now. He was their judge, jury and decider of their guilt, but we are not able to second guess him because his is a HEROOOOOOO.

"Oltman and others have testified that psychiatrists who examined Manning at Quantico repeatedly recommended that his conditions be eased. But Oltman, whose command included the brig, said he was skeptical about at least one of those recommendations because another detainee had killed himself in December 2009 after his custody status was reduced based upon the advice of the same doctor, Navy Capt. William Hocter, the psychiatrist assigned to the brig."

"Col. Oltman explained that Pfc. Manning was classified a suicide risk even before he arrived at Quantico because Manning had mentioned suicide while detained in Kuwait and had even fashioned a makeshift noose. Oltman went on to say that he remained classified as a risk to himself because the staff observed no change in Manning's behavior and even witnessed him do strange things like lick the bars of his cell, play peek-a-boo with guards, and withdraw from any interaction with the staff."


What would have been said if Manning hurt himself or even killed himself in the Brig. What side should they err on.

[redgreenandblue]

17. If the troops in the video did nothing wrong, then why was the video classified?

They did nothing wrong, so they don't have anything to hide, correct?

BTW, the OP was about people calling Snowden a coward for leaving the country, aguing that his actions would have more legitimacy if he had stayed in the US. Manning did exactly what they say Snowden should have done. Where is the praise for that?

[4Q2u2]

19. You raised the Issue of Toture in a Sub Reply

I could not let that go without rebbuttle. I see you had no response to Mannings idea of due process, or if he hurt or killed himself.

Manning retrieved that Video from the JAG folder, which meant it was already under investigation by the Army. How many open investigations you know of that just release their info to the public.

There are 2 reasons that it was Classified. First off the video shows the Visual capabilities of the Choppers Optics and the Weapons systems, (These are Classified). Being able to view the video allows an enemy to know focal distance and field of view. Knowing those will allow someone to develop a plan of attack, becuase you would know the possible blind spots and safe targeting distances.

Secondly Manning's station was a Classified computer, so by Military edict any and all information that he transfered to that computer automatically gets tagged as Classified. He could have even downloaded a Barney Video, and subsequently it would have been made Classified. That is how the system works. The mindset being it is better to protect everything than have one damaging peice of info leak out to help the enemy. "OPSEC at all times the enemy is listening to you" These would have been hanging in Manning's office.

Manning was in Iraq, then in custody, you cannot just hop a plane and go home. Snowden and Manning's situation are not even comparable.

[redgreenandblue]

24. From what I know, none of the soldiers in the video where convicted of anything.

So I fail to understand your points on due process. There was no conviction of the soldiers in the video based on Mannings actions.

As for the torture, the UN apparently holds the opinion that the treatment was "at the very least, cruel and inhumane". You are free to disagree with that.

[4Q2u2]

27. I do disagree

They were not convicted because they acted within the ROE,(Rules of Engagement). Does not make it any less brutal, but for the most part Civilain sensiblities cannot and do not exist in a Combat Zone.

Manning viewed the video and in his own eyes decided that this was a War Crime and was one of his supposed motivating reasons for the leaks. He alone deicded that the Chopper Crew were War Criminals and should be exposed as such. Not knowing the full evidence, without any defense. He convicted them in his Kangaroo Court and the Court of Public Opinion. Any one of those troops on the video would have given their life to protect Manning if he was standing next to them, he could not even give them the benefit of doubt.

War is cruel and inhumane that is why it is trained for like that.

[stevenleser]

59. Plenty of documents and videos are classified that don't show wrongdoing.In this case Assange admits

the people fired on had weapons

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/14/julian-assange/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-tells-colbert-per/

Host Stephen Colbert called the title "emotional manipulation." He noted that while soldiers in the Apache did mistake cameras with long telephoto lenses slung over the shoulders of the two journalists for weapons, there were, in fact, two other men in the group with weapons.

"How can you call it 'Collateral Murder?' " Colbert asked guest Julian Assange of Wikileaks, referring to the controversial and widely-viewed video.

"So it appears there are possibly two men, one carrying an AK-47 and one carrying a rocket-propelled grenade -- although we're not 100 percent sure of that -- in the crowd," Assange answered. "However, the permission to engage was given before the word RPG was ever used and before the Reuters cameraman, Namir Noor-Eldeen, ever pulled up his camera and went around the corner."

Assange is referring to a moment in the video when a Reuters cameraman peers from behind a wall, pointing a long telephoto lens. A soldier on the Apache yells "He's got an RPG!" According to a military investigation several days later, there were U.S. ground troops less than 100 meters away, and "due to the furtive nature of his movements, the cameraman gave every appearance of preparing to fire an RPG on U.S. soldiers."

It's true that that's the first time the word "RPG" is uttered by the Apache crew in the unedited 40-minute version of the video. And it's also true that the permission to engage was given prior to that.

But that doesn't mean the group of men on the street was believed to be unarmed prior to that, or that U.S. troops were given permission to shoot at a group of what they believed to be unarmed men.

[backscatter712]

22. John Yoo, is that you?

Actually, no it isn't - Yoo actually knows how to spell.

[4Q2u2]

31. Boo Hoo for Yoo

I see the high and mighty spelling police are out in force.
Great response.

[Union Scribe]

32. "practiced on service members" who are volunteers

It's a little different when you didn't volunteer and can't say stop. Do you really not see the difference?

[4Q2u2]

37. Absolutely

There is a difference. My main goal was to show that this behavior is not way great out of the norm. That these techniques within themselves does not always consitute torture. I could say being subjected to Barry Manilow for 23 hrs strait is torture but it does not make it so.
Manning did also volunteer for the "full" Army experience. Being that good or bad. You do not get to pick and choose how bumpy that road is, just what road you are going to walk down. Be it extra suckie treatment because everybody thinks you a POS who turned their back of fellow service members, or life long admiration for sacrificing your fellow service members. It is also not always right, and rarely fair. But that is the ride you take once you pay your money. If you are Enlisted it usually takes only a couple of months to know you are going to get Fucked, how bad, that is usually up to you.

[Morning Dew]

36. Right, because they were obviously prepping Manning for combat

and forging him to succeed.

[4Q2u2]

42. They were the whole time

Up until he leaked Classified Info. Was he listening or learning? Maybe some of it actually worked, and those bizare incidents that were documented at the Brig were coping mechanisms.

[wercal]

10. So what?

The standard of care that Manning got in prison has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he is guilty or worthy of scorn.

But if you want to talk torture....lots of inmates in this country are in solitary confinement. And, I didn't see anything in that link about sleep deprivation...but frankly, that is used as an interrogation tool in domestic felony cases all the time, also.

I have very little sympathy for Manning. There was no purpose or goal in exposing secrets as he did....other than his quest to befriend some hacker types. He didn't do this for a higher purpose...he's just an idiot who did this for himself.

[bravenak]

25. Not as bad as our Prison system.

They have unlimited solitary confinement, murders by guards, assaults by guards an rapes galore.
IF he was tortured then so is every prisoner in our prisons. We'd need to let them all out.

[Johonny]

11. because if in jail or on the lamb some people don't celebrate criminals

so there isn't really any inconsistency

[redgreenandblue]

13. People have repeatedly argued that Snowden should have stayed in the US.

As if his decision to stay or go would serve as to validate or invalidate his actions.
Manning stayed. Where is the validation that people are suggesting this should yield?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. It's a rather pathetic, and far too obvious, attempt to blame the messenger.

[phleshdef]

15. Its not inconsistent. Manning went beyond exposing illegal activity.

If you are going to go play whistleblower, stick specifically to information that regards a possible crime and go through the proper, legal channels for exposing it.

Otherwise, you get what you fucking get, and that's that.

[redgreenandblue]

16. So you approve of Snowden's actions but disapprove of Manning's actions?

Just so we are clear.

If so, then yes, the OP does not apply to you.

[phleshdef]

21. No, I disapprove of both.

I disapprove of Manning for willy nilly leaking a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with any kind of crime or wrong doing to some foreign media entity (aka wikileaks) instead of going through the proper channels to whistleblow on only actions that could be wrong doing by the military.

I disapprove of Snowden for stealing thousands of documents from the NSA and then running off to China and Russia with them instead of going through the proper channels to take up his concerns with a likely sympathetic congress critter like Rand Paul or Alan Grayson or Bernie Sanders.

If either guy had followed the proper legal channels and did things the right way, then I think the conversations regarding both would be very different today.

[riqster]

29. This:

"If either guy had followed the proper legal channels and did things the right way, then I think the conversations regarding both would be very different today."

Damn straight.

[redgreenandblue]

34. And I approve of both, for essentially the same reason in both cases:

Because their actions sent shockwaves through institutions of power and privilege and may eventually bring us closer to a more egalitarian society.

[phleshdef]

39. So you approve of both for being idiotic dipshit criminals?

When, had they done things the right way, they could've actually been whistle blowers and qualified for protections?

And "may eventually bring us closer to a more egalitarian society" is some really fantastic delusions of grandeur. The vast majority of Americans won't even remember their names in a few years. Manning will be in prison and Snowden will either be in prison or rotting in some third world country where government oppression goes way beyond anything that's going on here.

[redgreenandblue]

47. The only proper channel to address American war crimes is an international tribunal.

Thus, passing info to the international community is the proper thing to do.

And: I have a feeling that Manning and Snowden will be remembered for a long time.

[phleshdef]

57. Thats one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

[1awake]

41. This...

"If either guy had followed the proper legal channels and did things the right way, then I think the conversations regarding both would be very different today."

Is 100% true. Because there would be no conversation if he went the route you suggest. There are no "proper" channels when the people you are exposing are the people you are suppose to report to. Lastly, those proper channels don't have exactly a great track record for being viable.

[phleshdef]

46. Bullshit.

You think Rand Paul wouldn't have seized on the opportunity to expose the NSA programs straight from the Senate floor had he been given the chance? Of course he would have, that would've been his 2016 launch ticket.

And what about people on our side? I believe Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson would've gladly came forward with the information about the NSA programs.

Manning also had plenty of people he could have gone to when he decided to expose war crimes. Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich was still in office at that time and so was Russ Feingold.

There is an established protocol for whistle blowing and these guys didn't follow it and they went beyond whistle blowing and released documents that had nothing to do with what they were supposedly inspired to expose. Manning dumped countless documents that were nothing more than communications between diplomats. And Snowden exposed counter espionage targets to the Chinese and that had nothing to do with domestic surveillance.

Just because you don't think those channels aren't viable is no excuse to break several laws and release classified information that isn't related to any suspected criminal activity on top of the main information that you are trying to get out there.

Both men were/are incredibly STUPID for the way they went about doing what they were trying to do and such stupidity deserves the forthcoming consequences.

[xchrom]

18. du rec.

[backscatter712]

20. They're too busy creaming their pants fantasizing about torturing Manning to praise him.

I can see the usual creepy obsession with punishment coming out of the bashers. The symptoms of the mental disorder known as authoritarianism manifest in this thread.

[great white snark]

53. Please cite DUers clammering for his torture.

Or at least back up something you say.

[cthulu2016]

23. I don't blame anyone for running. It would be hypocritical.

I would probably run, and I am not enough of a keybaord commando to demand that ther people do thingsI wouldn't do.

[backscatter712]

45. If I were Snowden, I'd run too. American prisons have become medieval dungeons.

It'd be one thing if the punishment was proportional to the crime - a year of prison, and I mean a civilized prison, no prison rape, no supermaxing, regular visits from the outside, no beatings, real medical care, etc.

But Snowden wouldn't get that kind of proportional punishment. He'd get a sentence normally given to a serial killer, he'd get supermaxed, he'd get "diesel therapy", he'd get medical care and medications withheld, he'd get the shit beaten out of him by the guards, he'd probably get raped in there.

I'd run too. Snowden's not stupid.

[great white snark]

52. So all criminals should run?

Or just the ones you got a stiffy over?

[ProSense]

26. I don't

People who blame Snowden for running should applaud Manning for staying.

However, I have seen little of that. It appears that the same people who call Snowden a coward also think that Bradley Manning is a traitor who deserves what he got: Torture, followed by imprisonment, possibly for life.

This inconsistency tells me exactly how little such accusations are worth.

...undertand the point. Manning isn't being called a "coward." The point about Snowden fleeing the country is that he broke the law and didn't want to face the consequences.

Manning faced the consequences; being in the military helped that to come about more easily.

Running or staying is not about the act of breaking the law, it's about facing the consequences.

Who called Manning a "coward"?

[whatchamacallit]

30. This is where all your blatant propaganda falls apart

Manning's reward for the bravery you pretend to prize is years in prison. Only a fool would do your "right thing" now.

[ProSense]

33. I suspect

"This is where all your blatant propaganda falls apart

Manning's reward for the 'bravery' you pretend to prize, is years in prison. Only a fool would do your 'right thing' now."

...that you would encourage anyone who broke the law to run?

Is that your idea of "bravery"? Are you saying Manning was a "fool"?

Many real whistleblowers didn't flee the country and they are not in prison.

No charges for man who leaked surveillance program

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has dropped its investigation into a former department attorney who tipped off the media about the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program.

The department informed Thomas Tamm’s attorneys that he will not be prosecuted for the leak that then-President George W. Bush called a breach of national security.

Tamm has said he called The New York Times about the program because it “didn’t smell right” and he thought the public had a right to know.

The Times won the Pulitzer Prize for its 2005 story exposing the program designed to catch terrorists by eavesdropping on international phone calls and emails of U.S. residents without court warrants.

<...>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/no-charges-for-man-who-leaked-surveillance-program/2011/04/26/AFt9o6rE_story.html

“He’s in for a pretty overwhelming investigation,” Tamm, now a criminal defense attorney in Rockville, Md., told POLITICO in an interview. “I think the government will use a lot of their resources to try to find him.”

But if Snowden is returned to the United States, Tamm said, “I think with the right representation, and with the right way of presenting what he did, I think he’ll be able to put his life back together.” Tamm says he’d even be willing to be part of the defense team.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/what-happens-to-whistleblowers-92744.html

Still, it's interesting that you think my disagreeing with you is "blatant propaganda."

[whatchamacallit]

35. No Manning wasn't a fool

but after he was burned at the stake by this secret loving administration, your shouts of "Snowden is a coward!" ring hollow. Considering Obama's abysmal record on whistleblower protection, and civil liberties in general, only a fool would trust their commitment to justice. Now post some self-referential, bullshit links that nobody bothers to read anymore...

[ProSense]

38. Snowden is a coward.

"Now post some self-referential, bullshit links that nobody bothers to read anymore..."

OK.

Snowden, "famously paranoid"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023456236

[mindwalker_i]

56. Snowden risked his life to tell us about the government spying on us

You continue to defend the government and their spying, and call Snowden a coward?

[ProSense]

60. Snowden is a coward.

Stealing information, fleeing the country and revealing U.S. state secrets to other countries is not admirable.

[mindwalker_i]

62. Telling you and everybody else

that this country is breaking it's laws and spying on everybody IS admirable. What's cowardly is supporting the criminal activities of the government.

[great white snark]

50. What a nasty person you are.

EVERYBODY's who's interested in facts reads her posts.

Anyone like yourself who insists that people shouldn't educate themselves are agenda driven ideologues.

[sgtbenobo]

55. "Many real whistleblowers didn't flee the country and they are not in prison." Really?

Maybe you are just too young to remember what the "Pentagon Papers" were and what it took to bring them to light.


Carry on.

[redgreenandblue]

48. If you spent equal amounts of time repeating that Bush and Cheney broke the law...

...and should be prosecuted as you spend time smearing Snowden, you would be credible in your claim to care about laws. Through your omissions, it is clear that justice is not your agenda.

[ProSense]

49. I would, but time travel back to before 2008 isn't possible.

WTF?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. That is not logical, captain - I don't applaud people just for not doing bad things.

Yes, Manning did not aggravate his crime by fleeing.

That does not earn him applause.

[arely staircase]

40. he had the chance to run?

when?

[Hydra]

43. I was noticing the same thing

But they are applauding Manning's horrid treatment and are asking the same for Snowden.

In other words, you have to be a sacrifice to the system to be legit. There's just one problem with that- they'd still be screaming if both of them got drawn and quartered in the public square, because they disturbed the "Perfect Presidency."

[karynnj]

44. Did Manning even have that choice?

I think he was overseas in the military when he was found to have leaked secrets. Had he even attempted to leave before he was arrested, wouldn't that be going AWOL?

Of course, his treatment was uncalled for and illegal - so I suspect that he did not anticipate that.

One odd similarity in both their cases to me is that had they stopped with their first revelations -- the war crimes in Iraq/Afghanistan in Mannings' case and the data systems that Snowden had first hand knowledge about, they would be far more defensible as whistleblowers to most of the country.

In fact, I think Snowden could have done the same thing without leaking documents. Most of the details he spoke of were in obscure PUBLIC documents - like House and Senate committee reports, hearings and floor speeches. Snowden could have framed the issue as him quitting a well paid job because it went against his principals - he could then have defined it using PUBLICLY available and credible documents. He then could have BASED ON THOSE put together for others what this meant. He would have about the same GG story - and he could have been on various left and libertarian shows. The story would lead to the same examination of the systems and he would be in no legal jeopardy -- and not in Russia, the great bastion of civil rights.

In Manning's case, he would elicit far more sympathy - though he would still face a trial.

[DevonRex]

51. I did.

[great white snark]

54. I don't think he had the chance to run did he?

[gulliver]

58. I'm starting to feel a little sorry for both of them.

They committed crimes, so they need to face the consequences. But they both also seem to be troubled. We shouldn't be putting shaky, impulsive personalities anywhere near sensitive material. Putting Homer Simpson in charge of a nuclear reactor is a joke, right?

[Cha]

61. You would be wrong..

"Good! Wow.. someone standing up and willing to pay the price for

their decisions. Quite admirable!

Thanks struggle and for all your reporting on this over the time involved."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3463969