Opinion of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden

[CatoMinor]

Perhaps Lief just has some hipster tendencies that taking over. Now that more and more people do not trust the gov't and are upset about this, its becoming less cool for him to be a liberal on civil liberties and thus is forced to join the neo-cons.

Well that or Lief is just that much a party hack and would Obama even if he announced he was disbanding Congress and renaming the US "Oceania".

[Lief 🗽]

Maybe I recognize that there's a lot of gray area between North Korean police state and lawless maximum freedom anarchy, that the government needs to constantly balance privacy and security, and finally that the government knowing you called your friend is not really a big deal and doesn't really infringe on anyone's liberty/privacy.

But no, the correct answer must be that I just love sucking Obama's cock.

[dead0man]

I think it says more about how dumbed down the news cycle and American people are that we need whisteblowers to leak things that are legal and posted clearly as law.

Indeed.  Wasn't the Supremes case on this topic handled in like, 1977?

<google fu>

1979.  Smith v Maryland

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CatoMinor]

But no, the correct answer must be that I just love sucking Obama's cock.

At least you can admit you, a good first step. Maybe you're journey to fascism is reversible.

[courts]

Maybe I recognize that there's a lot of gray area between North Korean police state and lawless maximum freedom anarchy, that the government needs to constantly balance privacy and security, and finally that the government knowing you called your friend is not really a big deal and doesn't really infringe on anyone's liberty/privacy.

But no, the correct answer must be that I just love sucking Obama's cock.

fair enough. but there's an awful lot of 'what ifs' here.like say, what if your friends happen to all be known homosexuals? or you know people with a criminal record? what if you made calls to something like alcoholics anonymous? or a suicide hotline? or phone sex hotline for that matter? how do you know the above won't be used as blackmail or to otherwise discredit you if you step out of line? and what about protecting confidentiality for press sources?

now obviously i'm pretty far from a libertarian. but it doesn't exactly take a genius to see how this sort of program could be massively abused. not to mention the government's position is basically a classic 'heads i win, tails you lose type' kind of fallacious argument. they don't have to actually prove they've foiled any terror plots, they can just say they have but that's classified. but if there is a successful terror attack then obviously they need more power to stop future ones from occurring.

that said on some level i feel the typical civil libertarian position on this is somewhat naive. i keep asking myself all kinds of questions on this honestly. like, what exactly is a warrant other than the government asking itself permission to invade people's privacy after all? do people really expect the government to stop doing this even if the courts do say spying is unconstitutional? and if it wasn't the government doing this, what about your boss or companies data mining your information? would that be okay (a lot of libertarians would say yes...)? is this sort of thing even preventible given that video surveillance technology and spyware and all of that keeps getting more advanced every year? it just feels like anyone that cares about these things is in a losing position by default.

[Old Man Svensson]

Maybe I recognize that there's a lot of gray area between North Korean police state and lawless maximum freedom anarchy, that the government needs to constantly balance privacy and security, and finally that the government knowing you called your friend is not really a big deal and doesn't really infringe on anyone's liberty/privacy.

But no, the correct answer must be that I just love sucking Obama's cock.

Admittance of a vice is the first step toward recovery. Maybe you'll be a true leftist yet.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I wonder if the same leftist posters, who are now basically calling for Manning and Snowden being convicted as traitors, would demand the same for Daniel Ellsberg in the 1970s?

[7,052,770]

Lief, do you want to denounce Chavez while you continue to submit to imperialism? Might as well do it now since you started getting patronage from Obama.

You're a fool if you think Manning or Snowden have accomplished anything against American imperialism. All they've done is possibly endanger innocent people and win over hordes of paranoid middle-class white guys on the internet who have read the Wikipedia plot summary of 1984.

You haven't come close to demonstrating how Manning hurt anyone.  Even pro-war people don't generally endorse atrocities and Americans have the right to know what's being done in the name of America.

I guess you could argue Snowden hurt us if there's a terrorist attack in a few years that would have been prevented if PRISM hadn't been revealed, but that would be very tough to prove.

[opebo]

Reckless, treasonous idiots.

This whole thing makes me cringe.

But why?  Why do you support the fascists just because these poor fellows are not supermen?

Bradly manning had all kinds of personal and social problems.  That kid was not mentally okay.  Plus all the so called Pentagon Paper analogists need to remember the Pentagon papers were handed over to the NY Times.  They were not handed over to some crazy white haired guy who commits rape in Sweden.

Why on earth should we care whether he had social problems, or whether Assange is accused of some unrelated 'crimes'?  Again, this is completely irrelevant.  (perhaps more relevant is the fact that the NYT is an agent of the self-same fascism).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Reckless, treasonous idiots. Having said that, this latest tedious internet hero doesn't seem to have jeopardised anyone's lives, so he at least he's better than Manning in that regard. I still look forward to both being imprisoned (or not, since that will only prolong the orgy of moral outrage).

I have nothing but contempt for Manning and the Greenwaldian teenagers who venerate him, and I'm a bit alarmed by Snowden, who's seeming more and more like a delusional fantasist living every Paultard's dream of "saving internet freedom" - if you read that Guardian article you'll notice he claims he could have taken down the entire US intelligence system in an afternoon. If you believe the NSA would give that level of access to a contractor with a GED... I can't help you.

This whole thing makes me cringe.

Treasonous is harsh and a lot of is said about the NSA program is accurate if not for the exact reason Paultards and Libertarian Internet warriors imagine, but yeah, like this.

[opebo]

Treasonous is harsh

it is, but what I don't get is why people oppose treason.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I have some concerns whether or not 'accountability' is an absolute... I mean, I don't like the idea of reasonable intelligence gathering having to have every step known publicly. I mean... I don't think there's a problem with the operational framework being held up with the utmost clarity and accountability (although I think specific operational stuff should be confidential).

But what's the point if everything is known...

Snowden is a bit of odd-case, his story doesn't exactly add up, plus he's a combination of two movements... Paultard and Assangeism. Plus, as I said before, I get Manning as a whistle-blower if he leaked certain documents for certain purposes, but 750,000 documents, very few of which he would have known or understood the context of... while I get the 'nobility' in some of it, there's something 'off' to both of them for me.

[Bacon King]

I mean he did a good thing but ^^^ Oakvale, Gully, Lief, etc

Does anyone else appreciate the irony that he fled to Hong Kong?

[tpfkaw]

I wonder if the same leftist posters, who are now basically calling for Manning and Snowden being convicted as traitors, would demand the same for Daniel Ellsberg in the 1970s?

Almost certainly, if Hubert Humphrey was POTUS.  Consistency!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Reckless stupid and obviously mentally unbalanced.  There is a right way to do things and a wrong way.  These clowns chose the wrong way.

What's the right way?

[tik 🪀✨]

Reckless stupid and obviously mentally unbalanced.  There is a right way to do things and a wrong way.  These clowns chose the wrong way.

What's the right way?

Apparently it's to start off by having impressive credentials so that it seems more respectable.

I don't think these were the actions of FFs or HPs. I haven't made up my mind. I do think they did it in the spirit of dissent to show us how we fall short of our ideals. Manning perhaps was spiteful, I do not know. I think he was unable to find exclusively the juicy bits and pieces, so he just gave it all. Dangerous decision. I can't shake the pity I feel for him, though.

[bballrox4717]

HP/FF. There's a big difference in my mind between Manning, who was an emotionally messed up guy who indiscriminately leaked sensitive information to shady sources, and Snowden, who took a clear initiative to make sure none of his information damaged national security. Anyone who says that leaking PRISM damaged national security is kidding themselves.

They are both criminals, no doubt under the current law, but I would love to see some protection for whistle-blowers. It wouldn't surprise me if Snowden gets off a lot easier than Manning.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have yet to hear a single principled left-wing argument against what these people did. And no "but paultards like them!" isn't a valid argument - nor is "but they harmed Obama's image!". Some people here are either machiavellians or utter hypocrites.

[rejectamenta]

I don't care to invest myself emotionally into these issues and venerate them like many have, but it is impossible not to identify with in some way people who rile up the Owners and their janissaries. FFs!

[bballrox4717]

I have yet to hear a single principled left-wing argument against what these people did. And no "but paultards like them!" isn't a valid argument - nor is "but they harmed Obama's image!". Some people here are either machiavellians or utter hypocrites.

I don't think there is a left-wing argument against it. It's not really an issue between the left and right. It's an issue of whether what they did was wrong, hurt national security and should be punished, or what they did was expose the government's constitutional abuses and should be protected against prosecution despite criminal activity. There's bipartisan support for each option.

I would agree that people who support the Obama administration over this because they don't like the Pauls or believe that the administration can do no wrong are utter hypocrites, just like the people on the right who are blasting Obama over this yet never said a word when Bush did it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I have yet to hear a single principled left-wing argument against what these people did. And no "but paultards like them!" isn't a valid argument - nor is "but they harmed Obama's image!". Some people here are either machiavellians or utter hypocrites.

Its not about left or right... this is far more complicated than that (and I worry when people assume there should always be a distinct left and right wing response to everything). I don't think they did an objectively brave or noble thing, there's nobility in the idea... I know I keep coming back to this, but Manning could not have read all of those documents therefore he didn't know nor care about the consequences of their release. Snowden is a different case, there's a lot more sophistication and consideration in his actions.

I expect the government to do things I don't know about - my only real concern about this is whether their actions were legal and administered properly.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Please tell me how a lowly PFC has access to that many documents?  No one has explained this.....how does he get things only 4 star Generals can see?  I still think he had an accomplice or accomplices.

[Oakvale]

I mean he did a good thing but ^^^ Oakvale, Gully, Lief, etc

Does anyone else appreciate the irony that he fled to Hong Kong?

I'm told Hong Kong is a glorious paradise in comparison to the fascist police state of the US, so there is no irony.

I have yet to hear a single principled left-wing argument against what these people did. And no "but paultards like them!" isn't a valid argument - nor is "but they harmed Obama's image!". Some people here are either machiavellians or utter hypocrites.

I don't know if there is one. I'm not concerned about whether my reasoning here is left-wing or not. The lionisation of reckless narcissists as heroic whisteblowers is disturbing, and occurs on both the left (with the exception of the few valiant warriors against Greenwaldites, such as the undeniably left-wing Lief, etc) and the libertarian right.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not saying that this is a clear left/right issue. However, what I fail to see is how a genuine progressive could possibly disapprove of actions which did nothing except to expose a manifest and unacceptable abuse of power. Or alternatively, how a progressive with a conscience could possibly argue that spying on millions of everyday conversations is not a a manifest and unacceptable abuse of power. Have we really come to the point where the idea that there is a level of basic individual privacy that shouldn't be forsaken in the name of the "war on terror" isn't even defended by the left anymore?

Oakvale, I don't really give a crap about the personal worth of these people (well, unless they are Assange-level scumbags, which, AFAIK, they aren't). The only thing that matter is their actions, and in this case their actions were just and courageous.

[Insula Dei]

Hong Kong seems pretty sweet. I suppose you better be in money, though.