bradley manning

[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.

[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).

[Aloha_Shooter]

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.

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).

Sorry, no, that's complete crap. Retribution WILL be swift and harsh because what he did doesn't fall under whistleblowing. This isn't even comparable to Benghazi or the IRS which is why I say you're stretching to defend him. His fears -- if he had them -- are incorrect, inappropriate, and/or irrelevant. Publishing this kind of stuff in a foreign paper because of his misunderstandings and ill-begotten fears is BS and the distortions being written in the media will do incalculable damage to the country just like Manning's Wikileaks.