If you're so inclined, send something to her legal defense fund: https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-...
Scraping the secret-classified documents of the State Department, handing them over to a foreign organization, and saying "You'll make the best use of this, I trust you" isn't whistleblowing. At best, it's irresponsible; at worst, it's irresponsibility that walks right up to the edge of malicious treason. I'm very glad Manning wasn't convicted of treason, because she got dangerously close to it (apparently, her crimes are treason-equivalent in Canada).
So Snowden isn’t a whistleblower because he gave them to the Guardian?
Technical (legal): No, clearly not. There's a reason he's hiding from the US justice system in Russia. He didn't follow the legal process for whistleblowing (and he probably should not have).
Moral: The major difference between Manning and Snowden's leaks is that Snowden read the documents he forwarded and only collected and forwarded enough to blow the whistle. Manning never read all the cables she extracted; she had no idea what the blast-radius of that declassification would be.
In July 2014, The Washington Post reported on a cache previously provided by Snowden from domestic NSA operations consisting of "roughly 160,000 intercepted e-mail and instant-message conversations, some of them hundreds of pages long, and 7,900 documents taken from more than 11,000 online accounts."
He did not read the 160k emails he provided to the Washington Post.
Imagine being a contractor and having no established procedures to go to, and when you blow the whistle, they just bring the hammer on you. Have you read about what Katherine Gun went through for blowing the whistle on a completely illegitimate war where an ally - the US (not her own country) - was pressuring countries in the UN to join the war?
You speak in black and white for Snowden and Manning's morality, but refuse to acknowledge the downright terrible greys of the govts involved.
The State Department keeps secrets, and keeps more secrets than it needs to. The NSA's full-time job is generating and keeping secrets. The fact secrets exist (and some secrets should be publicized) doesn't imply unbridled leaking of those secrets is objectively good, and it doesn't imply the world would be a better place if the State Department or NSA operated in the open in general.
On the other end of the spectrum, would you draw the line with Scooter Libby? Would you draw the line with Trump revealing state secrets to Russians behind closed doors?
The double standard between those in power and whistle blowers is out for everyone to see, and there is little that can be done by whistle-blowers to be "careful".
A democracy also can't function with blinding light shining into absolutely every corner. Otherwise, we wouldn't see nearly as many people concerned about privacy in the democracies of the world. In practice, a grey balance appears to be successful.
> What restraint would you advocate in not leaking all secrets?
Some awareness of the possible impact of leaks, and awareness of the contents of leaked documents. Both Snowden and Manning appear to have failed to read all the content they leaked, which is dangerous. In practice, we have gotten fortunate in that there were no obvious immediate lethal consequences to the leaks. But hope is not a strategy.
> On the other end of the spectrum, would you draw the line with Scooter Libby? Would you draw the line with Trump revealing state secrets to Russians behind closed doors?
I'm not sure what lines you're looking for me to draw. So far, all the leaks you've named were dangerous and had significant potential for negative consequences exceeding their benefit. I'm in favor of impeachment of President Trump for the way he has chosen to handle the state secrets he has been entrusted with (along with a host of other, more pressing reasons).
> The double standard between those in power and whistle blowers is out for everyone to see, and there is little that can be done by whistle-blowers to be "careful".
They can always flee to Russia, it seems. ;)
You are suggesting they make judgements, but they are not independent authorities on making such judgements. People who are, are making judgements arbitrarily too, hence why being a legit whistle-blower in any organization is a problem. If you read or listen to Snowden, he worked with journalists to proof the leaks. Yes, he handed them to journalists, because if he went through official channels, nothing would have worked out.
Snowden also took a lot and leaked a massive dump, it was Greenwald, et al. that parred it down.
Snowden: I've evaluated all of the documents that are in the archive.
Oliver: You've read every single one?
Snowden: Well, I do understand what I turned over.
Oliver: But there's a difference between understanding what's in the documents and reading what's in the documents.
Snowden: I recognize the concern.
Oliver: Right, because when you're handing over thousands of NSA documents, the last thing you want to do is read them.
So, what better method should she have used? Remember she was on active duty, and already under a lot of stress from personally being aware of the atrocities being hidden.
The military have a different way of dealing with justice, especially in U.S.
She was in fact sentenced by court-martial not by a regular court.
> technically she stole classified documents
You can't steal online data. You can only copy it.
> betrayed her country that she swore to protect
Exposed crimes against the constitution by the government and the military to the people. This sounds like a very honourable (and whistleblow-y) thing to do.
> She was in fact sentenced by court-martial not by a regular court.
Which is an extremely corrupt move.
that's stealing a document in anyone's book.
> Exposed crimes against the constitution by the government and the military to the peopl
You're arguing with me, but I agree with you, I'm simply saying that a military court said that.
That's why I said technically.
The law is all about technicalities.
Manning wore a uniform, she was subject to court-martial, and court-martial ruled against her.
I'm just reporting it.
> Which is an extremely corrupt move.
Which is what happens when you're in the armed forces and have to deal with justice.
It's the same for everyone who joins the military.
She wasn't treated in a special way.
It would certainly be stealing if she deleted the documents in the server afterwards, which she did not. Stealing implies that the original is gone in everyday speech. Most people would be very upset if you stole their car, not so much if you copied it.
> I'm simply saying that a military court said that.
You might want to edit your previous post then. From "technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect." to "The military court claims that she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect", in which case I would claim that the military is corrupt and trying to cover their own asses. Anyway, whatever the military court said does not change the reality of the situation.
> Which is what happens when you're in the armed forces and have to deal with justice.
Yes, and I am against that as the objective of such "courts" is to do the military's bidding (which is to unfairly punish whistle-blowers and give lighter punishments to war criminals).
"Data theft" is understood to mean illicit copying, with no assumption that originals were destroyed. In everyday speech, "stealing data" implies unauthorized copies.
There are advantages to controlling the terminology in a narrative, but the ship has sailed on this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_theft
If you find out that Coke products secretly include arsenic and you share that with the general public, I don't think anyone (besides Coke) would be calling you a thief.
If you steal their secret formula so that you can profit off of it, or just because you want to share it with the world to break their monopoly of their own product, I would consider that stealing.
Stealing a "secret" is a weird notion
Again, not a lawyer, not trying to counter you personally, but if someone clones my credit card and take money from it, it is stealing, even if the card is still in my pocket.
If someone use my bank's password to transfer funds to his account, it is stealing, even if my account is still in my possess.
> "The military court claims that she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect"
That translates to "technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect."
because that's what a court does, it establish the facts, unless we prove the court-martial framed Mannings for something she did not do.
If I'm sentenced by a court for fraud, it means I committed fraud, unless I prove the court is wrong.
Saying "the court says that X did that" and "X did that" it's the same thing.
> which is to unfairly punish whistle-blowers and give lighter punishments to war criminals
I agree it is unfair, but the military know how it is, it's not something special to Mannings's case.
I would disagree (although it is closer to the definition of thieft than stealing data is as you lose the ability to withdraw the money).
> That translates to "technically she stole classified documents and betrayed her country that she swore to protect."
No, it doesn't. The "court" could as well say "the sun rotates around earth and the moon is made out of cheese", it would not make it correct.
> unless we prove the court-martial framed Mannings for something she did not do.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
> Saying "the court says that X did that" and "X did that" it's the same thing.
You seem to be putting a lot of trust to the authority of the court. To me the court does not hold any more credibility than anyone else.
> it's not something special to Mannings's case
Not claiming otherwise.
The difference between stealing and theft was unknown to me.
Secondly: no, it's not guilty until proven innocent, Manning has been proven guilty, she never denied of illegally obtaining those documents.
third: in this case Manning confessed. There's no much debate we can do about it.
fourth: no, I don't put any particular fate on courts, is just how the system works.
I'm not a sex offender until a court says so.
And after that people would say "he's a sex offender" not "the court said he's a sex offender".
Unfortunately I don't make the rules.
Feel free to read it as "I would disagree (although it is closer to the definition of stealing than 'stealing data' is as you lose the ability to withdraw the money)." -- I was not implying that there are differences between stealing and theft.
> Manning has been proven guilty, she never denied of illegally obtaining those documents.
> third: in this case Manning confessed. There's no much debate we can do about it.
I was talking about the general case, not specifically about Manning
> is just how the system works
I did not know that the courts can magically bend the laws of nature at will.
> And after that people would say "he's a sex offender" not "the court said he's a sex offender".
Well, the people would be wrong.
> and take money from it
Now it’s stealing, but not your card, but your money has been stolen.
If you copy a secret document you steal the informations in it.
What's the difference?
In the context of stealing secret documents from the government - the question is, did the government have a legal right to keep those documents "secret" from its people. Did those documents contain evidence of illegal activities by the government that it was attempting to keep hidden?
Whether or not it's stealing in this case, is irrelevant, imo. If the information being hidden is of detriment to the people and your intent is to share the info with the people it is harming, then I would argue that it's entirely reasonable to share the information.
Hasn't she in fact protected her country from commiting further war crimes?
The court ruled against Manning in favour of the prosecutors.
She was "acquitted of the most serious charge, that of aiding the enemy, for giving secrets to WikiLeaks" under the spionage act, which means treason.
If you want an explanation from me, they said that the fact that she stole classified documents regarding national security and gave them to wikileaks, which is foreign to U.S.A., is an act of treason.
The central point is that Manning never denied to taking those documents illegally, at the time she (was still a he) said she wanted to spark public debate on the matter.
And I mean, she was acquitted of aiding the enemy, ie. that charge didn't stick. All of the charges that did stick are around improperly storing classified data.
And as I've said before, the prosecution couldn't come up with any actual harm at her trial, so "betrayed" is you embellishing the story.
"The facts of this case, leave no question as to what constituted national defense information. Appellant's training and experience indicate, without any doubt, she was on notice and understood the nature of the information she was disclosing and how its disclosure could negatively affect national defense."
Manning, the judges ruled, "had no First Amendment right to make the disclosures—doing so not only violated the nondisclosure agreements she signed, but also jeopardized national security."
apparently they did stick.
Furthering the cancerous distortion of the truth via willful ignorance.
The assertion that whistleblowers must use official channels is just a paper-thinly veiled argument for silencing all whistleblowing.
Deep throat identity has been a very well kept secret for over 30 years, Manning and Snowden have been exposed merely weeks after the material was published.
It looks to me that Wikileaks is the real paper-thinly veil.
If I was a conspiracy theorist I would think that wikileaks was created exactly with the purpose of exposing whistleblowers.
Anything that makes the intelligence community deflated is a good thing.
We're also working with a messy definition of "terrorism." For all its problems, the US doesn't have a destabilized central government; I would imagine one could ask the leadership of countries undergoing active revolutions whether they consider the opposition "terrorists," and if they do, I'd say they have a bigger "terrorism" problem than the US.
Congressional oversight is a mild annoyance to them at best, and the CIA has been caught lying to them before. No reason to trust they are working in our interests except "I believe the propaganda" and wishful thinking.
Will continue to care about more about feeding their family.
There is no connection between being victim and becoming a terrorist or we in Italy should be all terrorists, because in the 70s a lot of people have been killed by state terrorists.
Lookup Giorgiana Masi, for example, or Stefano Cucchi.
Their families didn't kill anybody.
They just asked for justice.
Vengeance has never been a pathway to justice, kamikazes go to die because their families are compensated or because their families are threatened or because they are radicalized in other ways, there's no connection between bombings and suicide bombers, in fact you don't see fathers or mothers do it, you see young males do it (85% of all suicide bombers are man).
Radical organizations use bombers as weapons, they need them to be reliable (as reliable as possible) you can't just count on the momentary lapse of reason that could bring a father to hope to kill his son's killers.
Hamas, for example, was against using women as suicide bombers, but in 2004 they changed idea, after the first woman was used, they said “this is a significant evolution in our fight. The male fighters face many obstacles... Women are like the reserve army―when there is a necessity, we use them.” 
 https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/PUB408.pdf [PDF]
Then I would consider the possibility that they were framing you.
I confess I don't know, but I imagine that if you make some mistake while working for agencies like CIA or MI5 or KGB you simply disappear, you die if you're lucky, or something worse happens to you.
> They can murder as many innocent people as they want without having to prove their usefulness.
I seriously don't think it works like that...
Point of reference, TSA has a 90% failure rate on tests of their performance while consuming vast amounts of money and inconveniencing every traveler. Does the public have any good reason to believe the CIA is more effective than the TSA?
Is there any reason to believe the CIA does more good than harm?
I assume they do it because they hate American freedom.
The freedom of the people to chose their own representatives and leaders, something U.S. agency CIA has tempered with many times, especially in South America.
> I assume they do it because they hate American freedom.
Or is the CIA that hates other countries freedom to not agree with them?
Maybe other countries created their agencies to defend them from CIA.
There are always two sides in a story.