Comment by methehack | Hacker News Reader

Comment by methehack | Hacker News Reader

I'd give it to Snowden; Manning I'm not so sure about.

I may be alone on this one, but I think Snowden and Manning are very different.

I think Manning's actions were a lot sloppier than Snowden's. Yes, Manning courageously uncovered crimes, and that's to be acknowledged. But, in my opinion, he wasn't careful enough about the impact of what he was releasing, specifically all the diplomatic communications. He seemed to have a stance that all information should be public by definition. I don't agree with that. I'm too practical -- I don't see how that would work at all. Further, I honestly think it undermined the democratic process to indiscriminately make it all public. Maybe I should be blaming wikileaks for this approach.

In contrast, Snowden has shown the world's people that it's on candid camera on the US tax payer's dime -- illegally and unbeknownst toa almost everyone, including most of Congress. What he's uncovered is fundamentally undemocratic and very, very dangerous. That's worth a blown whistle. In my opinion, it does a disservice to Snowden to lump Manning together with him.

He seemed to have a stance that all information should be public by definition.

According to Daniel Ellsberg, this is not true:

"The public has been very misled about Manning, I would say," Ellsberg says. "They talk about his being indiscriminate. That's simply false. Like me and like Snowden, he had access to communications intelligence higher than top secret. He gave none of that out."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/03/208602113/pen...

It was not humanly possible, given the time scales involved, even in the most generous interpretation, for Manning to have reviewed all or even most of the material he released.

Also: how would Ellsburg know what Snowden had access to? That knowledge is part of the premise of his assertion.

Your first sentence is true, but doesn't change the point that if Manning did hold back more sensitive material, he must not have thought that all information should be public by definition.

Also: how would Ellsberg know what Snowden had access to?

Good question. I don't know the answer to that in either case.

To make this point even further, a lot of what Manning leaked were mundane diplomatic cables of no national security or criminal consequence (e.g. Clinton discussing how they book frequent flier miles for diplomats). In these instances he was merely a saboteur of otherwise private conversations.

I disagree as Manning's action prompted the Arab Spring, which continues on in many Middle Eastern countries. More democratic Middle Eastern countries is better for the US and for citizens of those countries.

Snowden in my eyes revealed and reminded us what we already learned back in 2006. Though he revealed the size and scope of the US surveillance program and inner linings.

> I disagree as Manning's action prompted the Arab Spring, which continues on in many Middle Eastern countries. More democratic Middle Eastern countries is better for the US and for citizens of those countries.

It may eventually be good, but right now Syria and to a lesser-extent Egypt are still mired in military conflict. You might as well have given the Nobel Peace Prize to President George W. Bush if "bringing democracy to a Middle East state" were the only qualification. As far as I'm concerned Manning would be disqualified for the Arab Spring alone.

> I disagree as Manning's action prompted the Arab Spring

You mean like David Hasselhoff brought down the Berlin Wall?

George Bush started the Arab Spring. You think these other Arab countries weren't pissed off that the most democratic country in the region was Iraq?

I tend to agree that the award should go to Snowden, mainly because he knew fully of the potential consequences to himself and yet still chose to reveal the information.

Think about what Manning did as collateral damage. Its exactly the same kind of argument any government uses when going to war and hitting innocent civilians.

In that light, Manning did nothing wrong.

Moreover he is just one guy so he doesn't really have "surgical strike" capability much like the US military advertises.

agreed. Manning is a totally different story, I think. The stuff he released didn't do much to protect innocent people, etc. Snowden I could stand behind.

That said, it would be just awesome if Manning got the Nobel Peace Prize, just, what, 5 years after Obama did?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com