bradley manning

[Aloha_Shooter]

I don't give a damn about his sexual preferences except if they led him to his treasonous actions. Asswipe is a traitor pure and simple and should have been put in front of a firing squad years ago.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Is the guy who leaked the info about PRISM a traitor? What about the ATF agent who leaked the info about Fast and Furious? What about the IRS agent who leaked the info about the Tea Party refusal scandals?

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. My understanding was there was no "leak" from the IRS ... someone made a mistake and sent an e-mail with the info uncorking the proof. The IG report to Congress was required and therefore neither a leak nor whistle-blowing.

[Ronin13]

Yes, there are laws against releasing classified information. Those laws are necessary and you have either broken them or you have not. The mess we find ourselves in as a country is because there are no absolutes. Everything is open to interpretation and "considering the situation", values clarification hogwash. You are either obeying the laws, or you are not. Breaking a law for the right reason is still breaking the law.

Our court systems were set up with the concept that there is a conviction AND a penalty phase. The penalty phase is where the sentencing can utilize discretion. However, our legal system has sunken to the point where the charging and trial phase are using "intent" discretion where it was never intended to be. Take a law history class and it is easy to see that where we are is nowhere close to the original intent of the US justice system.

Can I conceive of a situation where breaking a law, and taking the risk of being sentenced as a traitor might be beneficial, even preferable? Sure. But that is a different discussion.

When/if an AWB with no grandfather clause goes into effect, you'll just turn your guns in then, right?
Even if a law is unconstitutional, because it's a law we have to follow it, right? Even if there's a law against releasing classified information, blowing the whistle on unconstitutional practices can't happen if those practices are protected by putting "Secret" on the top of all of the evidence... So to follow the law you have to break the law... I don't see what Mr. Snowden did as being much of a choice- the law was protecting potentially unconstitutional practices, then if found to actually be in violation of the constitution, Mr. Snowden had to break the law to expose the violations. That deserves nothing less than an acquittal.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I don't see what Mr. Snowden did as being much of a choice- the law was protecting potentially unconstitutional practices, then if found to actually be in violation of the constitution, Mr. Snowden had to break the law to expose the violations. That deserves nothing less than an acquittal.

Actually, Snowden had plenty of choices. He could have raised the issue to the NSA IG, the DNI IG, or to his elected representative. He chose to expose a classified program in a way that is rife with mischaracterization and exploitation by people who want to damage the country. What he did is far from exposing the Clinton Administration placing a sweetheart deal for Tyson in their negotiations with Russia or China (diplomatic negotiation points are typically classified before the talks).

[Ronin13]

Actually, Snowden had plenty of choices. He could have raised the issue to the NSA IG, the DNI IG, or to his elected representative. He chose to expose a classified program in a way that is rife with mischaracterization and exploitation by people who want to damage the country. What he did is far from exposing the Clinton Administration placing a sweetheart deal for Tyson in their negotiations with Russia or China (diplomatic negotiation points are typically classified before the talks).

Actually we had this issue once in the Army... When you don't trust your Chain of Command (or fear that going to the IG could result in you getting in trouble) where do you turn. Maybe he feared this would be reported, then swept under the rug and/or he would be demoted or worse for having reported it. Many reasons to go the route he did... mainly, so it would get out, I assume.

[MarkCO]

Actually we had this issue once in the Army... When you don't trust your Chain of Command (or fear that going to the IG could result in you getting in trouble) where do you turn. Maybe he feared this would be reported, then swept under the rug and/or he would be demoted or worse for having reported it. Many reasons to go the route he did... mainly, so it would get out, I assume.

Your Federal elected officials have a liaison office that will help you.

[Ronin13]

Your Federal elected officials have a liaison office that will help you.

Have you seen what happens when you go over your Chain of Command and report something to congress? Again, the faith in the system deal... many don't have it, understandably, anymore. I'm not trying to assume I know the reason, but perhaps he went the way he did was because he didn't trust it would get out or anything would be done any other way.

[Aloha_Shooter]

You're stretching to defend the asshole. You said he didn't have a choice, we've pointed out he did, he had several. What Snowden did was right up there with Christopher Boyce even with the same allegedly altruistic motives.

[MarkCO]

Have you seen what happens when you go over your Chain of Command and report something to congress? Again, the faith in the system deal... many don't have it, understandably, anymore. I'm not trying to assume I know the reason, but perhaps he went the way he did was because he didn't trust it would get out or anything would be done any other way.

Unlikely, but possible. If he just HAD to make it public due to no response from multiple attempts up the chain of command, then that should have been part of the "outing". Trapped and no other choice is different than calling in an airstrike because Billy took your lunch money.

[Ronin13]

You're stretching to defend the asshole. You said he didn't have a choice, we've pointed out he did, he had several. What Snowden did was right up there with Christopher Boyce even with the same allegedly altruistic motives.

Not stretching at all, I simply said I would believe his reasons for going the route he did was to ensure that it got out and not buried (remember, remember, 11th of September... Benghazi anyone?). That's all. I can understand his reluctance to use the "appropriate" channels.

Unlikely, but possible. If he just HAD to make it public due to no response from multiple attempts up the chain of command, then that should have been part of the "outing". Trapped and no other choice is different than calling in an airstrike because Billy took your lunch money.

Or he feared using the appropriate channels out of fear that a) retribution would be swift and harsh, or b) it would be swept under the rug (or c) all of the above).