Opinions of the issues surrounding Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden?

1. 69

   Nicholas Fioritoposted 10 years ago

   I'd love to hear people's opinions on these subjects.  Are they heroes or traitorous spies?  Is what they did ethical and right, or incredibly wrong?  What is the role of freedom of information when it comes to the government?  How does the concept of "whistle-blowing" affect this discourse?
   
   All opinions are welcome, as long as they are presented in respectful and informative terms.  The purpose of this is to educate and help present clear ideas and points of view.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      “There is something peculiarly sinister and insidious in even a charge of disloyalty. Such a charge all too frequently places a strain on the reputation of an individual which is indelible and lasting, regardless of the complete innocence later proved.”
      - John Lord O'brian
      
      If there is any honor in these deeds, it does not belong to the man who fled rather than accepting responsibility for his actions. It belongs to the Pfc. who pled guilty to the charges he deemed to be appropriate and faced a court to defend himself against those he claimed to be in error.
      

      replyreport
      1. 66

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Is a man still  dishonourable to flee dishonourable laws?

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Hey there, Innersmiff. Nice to see ya.
            
            Your question strikes me as irrelevant. It has not been established that the laws being applied to these men are dishonorable. In this country, however, a defendant is permitted to argue against a dishonorable law.
            
            Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience advised citizens to NOT try to avoid the consequences of their disobedience-- they should not go into hiding or exile; they should not resist arrest. In his words, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." {1}
            
            {1} http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/ci … ion2.rhtml

            replyreport
            1. 66

               innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I probably need some time to construct an argument as to why these laws both of these men are being tried for are dishonourable - I was attempting to point out that you're just assuming, in the statement: "If there is any honor in these deeds, it does not belong to the man who fled rather than accepting responsibility for his actions.", that the laws and the procedure for the enforcement of the laws are honourable in the first place. You're simply taking it for granted. It is also conceivable that a person can take responsibility for his or her actions but still choose not to be arrested and imprisoned.
               
               Having to flee your own home, for me, is also a kind of prison, though it may be preferable to do that than to suffer what may be a ridiculously large sentence, like it could be with Manning. What if it was even worse? The application of Thoreau's argument is not so drastic when it only leads to prison, but is the only place for a just Jew in Nazi Germany a concentration camp? The only place for a just business man in Soviet Russia a gulag? It strikes me as a stretch to argue that every time a person flees a law, he or she is dishonourable.

               replyreport
2. 75

   Reality Bytesposted 10 years ago

   This Forum Thread is Inactive
   
   No one has posted in this forum thread for over two months. Please DO NOT reply to this thread UNLESS you have truly new information to add to this conversation. Consider creating a new forum thread instead.
   
   The thread was started eleven minutes ago!!!
   
   
   Anyway, the criminalization if these individuals supports the old street slogan:  "Snitches get stitches"
   
   It does not matter what level of criminal activity is revealed.  No one likes a rat!

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So you'd rather turn a blind eye to corruption and greed, in the hopes that you'll get a piece of the pie as long as it's being cut?
      
      What a saint you are.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Reality Bytesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Inability to recognize sarcasm?
         
         Ironic!

         replyreport
3. 65

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   Heroes. Freedom of information should prevail if we were a democracy. When the government abuses of its power to subdue freedom knights by prosecuting them (Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning...), chasing them down (Michael Ruppert, Snowden...), killing them (Michael Hastings) a counter-power should exist to ensure equitable rights without the fear of being banned from their country to hang over their heads. In a court of the people, they would be innocent. With private entities such as the army (since it isn't accountable to us, since transparency doesn't exist) and the NSA those men are guarantied to be lynched.

   replyreport
4. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 10 years ago

   I have mixed feelings about both of them.  I have historically been firmly on the side of whistleblowers, but personally hearing the perspective of someone I know intimately who is a former intelligence officer gives me a more nuanced perspective.

   replyreport