who is a terrorist?

[Greenday]

Manning got 35 years in prison for being a whistleblower. Which begs the question what would they do to Snowden. -.-

Whistleblowers don't snoop through the systems to find as much classified information as possible to release to the public.

[s_stabeler]

Manning got 35 years in prison for being a whistleblower. Which begs the question what would they do to Snowden. -.-

I'm not sure Manning counts as a whistleblower, since IIRC, he merely disclosed material. Not to mention, the material wasn't all that controversial, all told. Basically all it did was confirm some much-suspected things. A whistleblower really needs to reveal something that is actaully news to people. which si why, I suspect, that until the information was released via Wikileaks, no newspaper wanted it)

As for Snowden, it rather depends, but he actually has a much better argument tan Manning for being a whistleblower, since a) he revealed something actually new (that the American Government was routinely spying on the American people) and b) what he released was in the public interest

[Panacea]

I'm not sure Manning counts as a whistleblower, since IIRC, he merely disclosed material. Not to mention, the material wasn't all that controversial, all told. Basically all it did was confirm some much-suspected things. A whistleblower really needs to reveal something that is actaully news to people. which si why, I suspect, that until the information was released via Wikileaks, no newspaper wanted it)

New to whom? A lot of that material was news to the folks in the Middle East. Manning's leaks are credited with leading to the Arab Spring. The fellow who immolated himself in Tunisia had heard about the President's daughter and husband flying in ice cream while he couldn't even get a job.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not sure Manning counts as a whistleblower, since IIRC, he merely disclosed material. Not to mention, the material wasn't all that controversial, all told. Basically all it did was confirm some much-suspected things.

The material revealed tons of unreported and hidden civilian deaths at the hands of US forces. A failure of US forces to investigate rape, torture, etc by Iraqi police forces. US forces classifying civilians as enemy casualties. Unreported friendly fire casualties. So on and so forth.

Manning also leaked video, such as the one where a gunship killed a couple of Reuter's journalists thinking their camera was an RPG. Which was footage the Pentagon originally refused to release under the Freedom of Information Act. Claiming it didn't have it. The military did not fully admit the incident until the leak forced them too.

He also released the Gitmo files that showed the US was imprisoning innocents for information gathering purposes. That officials were relying on information from a small number of detainees whom they had tortured. That over 100 detainees had developed depression or psychosis due to their treatment. Also that they had knowing tortured people that they knew had no connection to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Even that they had imprisoned that journalist from Al-Jazeera for 6 years so they could torture and interrogate him about the news network he worked for.

I think Manning qualifies as a whistleblower given the level of shit she revealed or confirmed.

[s_stabeler]

The material revealed tons of unreported and hidden civilian deaths at the hands of US forces. A failure of US forces to investigate rape, torture, etc by Iraqi police forces. US forces classifying civilians as enemy casualties. Unreported friendly fire casualties. So on and so forth.

Manning also leaked video, such as the one where a gunship killed a couple of Reuter's journalists thinking their camera was an RPG. Which was footage the Pentagon originally refused to release under the Freedom of Information Act. Claiming it didn't have it. The military did not fully admit the incident until the leak forced them too.

He also released the Gitmo files that showed the US was imprisoning innocents for information gathering purposes. That officials were relying on information from a small number of detainees whom they had tortured. That over 100 detainees had developed depression or psychosis due to their treatment. Also that they had knowing tortured people that they knew had no connection to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Even that they had imprisoned that journalist from Al-Jazeera for 6 years so they could torture and interrogate him about the news network he worked for.

I think Manning qualifies as a whistleblower given the level of shit she revealed or confirmed.

you aren't wrong, but what Manning did was reveal as much information as possible- I'm not sure her motivation was "this is awful, I must reveal it" as much as "this is classified, I must reveal it"- there is a difference. One is laudable (if it was revealed with the intent to show abuses) one is not ( releasing it juts because it was classified). For example, the diplomatic cables didn't need to be released. The information on Gitmo, Iraq and Afganistan WAS information that could be whistleblowing, but again, Manning's motivation is crucial. So no, I don't believe Manning is a whistleblower, because I suspect her motivation.

[Greenday]

I think Manning qualifies as a whistleblower given the level of shit she revealed or confirmed.

So it's only whistleblowing if it's super important.

[s_stabeler]

to an extent, Greenday. Whistleblowing, or at least, my definition of it, is breaking confidentiality with the intent of revealing a greater crime. In other words, the crime revealed must be more serious than the confidentiality breach. ( So, for example, the Iraq and Afganistan files released by Manning may well have been whistleblowing, depending on her motivation. The diplomatic cables were NOT, because they revealed no crime, just information on what the US really thought of some other countries.

[Andara Bledin]

you aren't wrong, but what Manning did was reveal as much information as possible-

Actually, Manning didn't reveal "as much as possible." He did give Wikileaks the entirety of what he had with the understanding that they would be reviewed and redacted, which they were. Unfortunately, someone unrelated released the encryption key under with the original files were stored at the same time.

[Gravekeeper]

The information on Gitmo, Iraq and Afganistan WAS information that could be whistleblowing, but again, Manning's motivation is crucial. So no, I don't believe Manning is a whistleblower, because I suspect her motivation.

Items of historical significance of two wars Iraq and Afghanistan Significant Activity, Sigacts, between 0001 January 2004 and 2359 31 December 2009 extracts from CSV documents from Department of Defense and CDNE database.
These items have already been sanitized of any source identifying information.

This is one of the most significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare.

Direct quote from the readme.txt file Manning included with the files to Wikileaks.

And Andara is correct, Manning did not release the cables. It was a British journalist, David Leigh from the Guardian newspper and his associate Luke Harding, who published the passcode to decrypt the cable files. Wikileaks had kept the files, encrypted, as a sort of dead man's switch. If Wikileaks got shut down, the information could come out as the pass code had been given to journalists like Leigh just in case.

All of the information prior to that had been edited and redacted to ensure the safety of those involved in the classified documents. The cables that Leigh published access too were unedited with no redactions to protect the parties involved. So Leigh fucked up big time.

[Hyena Dandy]

So it's only whistleblowing if it's super important.

I... What's your standard?

Basically my answer is something I'm having trouble quantifying, but basically... Yes.

Okay, here. Got it.

It's whistleblowing if there's something unethical or illegal going on. The leaks that she revealed were of a lot of things that people had the right to know. Why do I say that they have a right to know these things? Not reporting civilian deaths, hiding them, that's something that people have the right to know. We have the right to know, basically, how the war's going. So that we, the people voting, can make a decision. We live in a representative democracy. This means that, presumably, that we make an informed decision based on our own principals. But we need the information.

To tell the truth, one of the qualifications of "Do we have a right to know" that I'd go by is "Would people be really, really pissed off if they knew this was happening?" If so, then that's something that they should know. I'd say the same about if people would be really, really happy if they found out, but governments for some reason tend not to cover up things that people approve of.

We need to be able to make an informed decision about our country, about where it is and where it's going. About whether the laws are being used in a way that we approve of, and, if they AREN'T, do we want to remove the laws in total or change them?

Any information that would effect the government's standing in the eyes of the populace is information that the people have the right to know. If it would 'give aid and comfort to the enemy' for the American people to BE INFORMED about what America is doing, then perhaps that's aid and comfort that the enemy should have.

We need to be able to make an informed decision. We need to be able to choose people to run the government who will act both for us AND in our best interest. If we simply allow people to say it's in our best interest, without having to justify it, we might as well not even have elections. The reason we do is so we can chose to elect people who have an idea that we agree with of what our best interest is, and how to accomplish it.

A Democratic Republic, like ours, is a contract. It's a bargain. The people at the top need to make choices because, quite honestly, we can't be arsed to. There's too many people in America and it'd be too complex for us all to make every decision that needs to be made. Their part of the job is to make those decisions for us. Our side is to choose good people, and to communicate what we want. We do that by voting, by calling our representatives and sending them letters, too, but most importantly by voting. What the public has a right to know, is information that helps us make a good choice. If that kind of information is being hidden, then I support people who release it, with or without the government's consent.