Bradley Manning: Traitor or Whistleblower?

Congressional oversight is clearly somewhat mythical.

Congress expresses anger over NSA surveillance program

Quote :

The Judiciary Committee’s senior Democrat, Representative John Conyers of Michigan, noted that the panel had ‘‘primary jurisdiction’’ over the surveillance laws that were the foundation for the NSA programs. Yet one lawmaker, Representative Ted Poe, a Texas Republican, said some members of Congress would not have known about the NSA surveillance without the sensational leaks: ‘‘Snowden, I don’t like him at all, but we would never have known what happened if he hadn’t told us.’’

As if the NSA wasn't enough.

Court: Chevron Can Seize Americans' Email Data

Manning's judge is supposed to rule today.

Sentencing is today.

Like copyrights, privacy and security laws have not caught up with digital media.

Oh, yeah! Only 90 years. Now there's some fucking leniency for you. What a bargain.
I had heard that the sentencing wasn't scheduled until around the 23rd.

I pretty much called it. The "lenient" sentence is 35 years.

You're right.  That sucks.  With good behavior (or a changing political clime?) he'll be out in 8.

Quote :

He will most likely serve out his sentence in the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. The 1,182 days he has spent in confinement since he was arrested in May 2010 will be applied toward his term. Added to the military's extensive credits for good behavior, Manning could be eligible for parole in about 8 years, when he is 33.

It'll be funny as hell if the Committee awards him a Nobel in the meantime.

Manning's long-rumored gender identity issues have resurfaced, now he wants to be known as Chelsea. The army unfortunately will not pay for gender reassignment surgery while Manning is incarcerated.

Welcome to the gulag, Bradley.

I have no doubt that the NSA (and other agencies of the government) violate the law on an ongoing basis, and that their crimes make Snowden's actions appear insignificant.

And that is the very reason that the government will seek harsh treatment for Snowden. If he is arrested and put on trial, don't expect the gov to present any evidence that shows real damage from Snowden's actions. They will just stick to the old tried-and-true "national security" gambit to be relieved of the burden of proof - both as to Snowden's guilt and to the gov's innocence.

Sad, Very sad.

_Howard wrote:

If he is arrested and put on trial, don't expect the gov to present any evidence that shows real damage from Snowden's actions.

They have to catch him first.

Brazil -- the home of so many ex-Nazis -- may make that impossible.

I can't find it online, but last night or this morning (can't remember where or when) I heard a report where some analyst -- I think it was somebody from the NSA -- looked at Snowden's leaks and concluded that he had *not* harmed national security.

He'd pissed off a bunch of spooks. He's damaged the US's reputation overseas by revealing a bunch of stuff we didn't want revealed. And he'd caused some major pieces of legislation to be proposed to rein in the cowboys at NSA.

But none of his leaks -- which, like Manning, had been carefully vetted and responsibly chosen -- none of his leaks actually caused any demonstrable harm to the country.

Wish I could find that story -- 'twas a good one.

Mostly he just embarrassed a bunch of assholes and showed how fucking arrogant they are.
Hardly a reason to prosecute him. Maybe egg his car. That might be about right.

In case you were thinking that Kafka was a foreigner...

If Snowden returned to US for trial, could court admit any NSA leak evidence?

Just before Christmas Edward Snowden said he'd already won the battle. This seemed a bit hyperbolic at the time.

Yet today Obama confirmed it. Now the government can have no legal standing for prosecuting him, right?

NoCoPilot wrote:

It'll be funny as hell if the Committee awards Bradley Manning a Nobel in the meantime.

Edward Snowden is also on the list -- he's officially been nominated.

I've started reading an article in The New Republic, in which Snowden comes off as a bit of a wacko. They have some internet forum posts of his from a few years ago which make him seem a little unstable, and certainly not anyone who could be described as having progressive political positions.

For example, he hated Social Security and posted that the elderly "wouldn't be fucking helpless if you weren't sending them checks to sit on their ass and lay in hospitals all day."

Until Obama took office, he seemed to be very much in favor of secret programs and classified material.
His opinion on whistle blowers? Sources who leaked "classified shit" to the Times ought to be "shot in the balls."
Responding to a poster who suggested that it might be ethical to report on governmental intrigue, he replied "VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? No. That shit is classified for a reason."

And just for grins, he agreed with Ron Paul that the country should go back on the gold standard.

Don't believe everything you read in The New Republic.

I don't automatically believe what I read in any magazine. I just use the articles as a jumping-off point

The HuffPost article stops well short of denying the truth of what was presented in The New Republic article. They seem concerned about the fact that the author borrowed from other articles without citation.

I just presented what the article said; it's up to you to validate what was presented if you care to.

Use Google to search for Snowden's user name, TheTrueHOOHA, and see what you think about it.

_Howard wrote:

The HuffPost article stops well short of denying the truth of what was presented

HuffPost wrote:

She told HuffPost Live’s Alyona Minkovski: "He heavily lifted from three major, well-researched articles in The Advocate, in BuzzFeed, and in Rolling Stone pieces that were favorable to Glenn Greenwald and to Edward Snowden. And he didn't do much independent research at all from what I can tell."

She also admonished Wilentz for failing to interview the key subjects of his piece in Greenwald and Snowden, claiming “he clearly had an agenda, which was to serve as a distraction and to give oxygen to the fire that Snowden is a Russian spy."...

--------------------

The author of The Advocate profile, Natasha Vargas-Cooper, also took issue with Wilentz’s methods, saying, “Wilentz didn't directly lift from my Advocate piece. The paragraph where he talks about Greenwald's early days in Florida, that's from my reporting but he doesn't cite or link or reference me. It’s not unethical -- just rude.”

Janet Reitman’s 11,000-word profile, titled “Snowden and Greenwald: The Men Who Leaked The Secrets,” is a deep dive into the life stories of the two key figures behind the massive NSA disclosures which have been dominating the news and leading to calls for major surveillance reform. Reitman secured interviews with both of Greenwald and Snowden, and she weaves together a story about how both men’s backgrounds and sense of alienation led them into each others’ lives and into their collaboration.

Reitman, whose piece appeared in the Rolling Stone for which Sean Wilentz is also contributor, gave a much more diplomatic answer. She noted that she does not believe Wilentz “plagiarized,” but "obviously our interpretations of Snowden and Greenwald's motives and beliefs differ pretty dramatically."

BuzzFeed’s Jessica Testa, the third profile writer cited by Radack as providing all the research for Wilentz’s attack, declined to comment.

Maybe you didn't read the same article I did.

And where do any of your highlighted phrases accuse the author of making false statements?

_Howard wrote:

Use Google to search for Snowden's user name, TheTrueHOOHA, and see what you think about it.

Nothing unexpected here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/nsa-leaker-ed-snowdens-life-on-ars-technica/
And despite the incendiary headline, a quick skim didn't turn up anything here either:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/