Let's also take a moment to remember James Risen who will likely be sent to prison in January for exposing what the NY Times refused to print.
(and of course Manning who will be left to rot for the next 35 years by each president)
(and of course Manning who will be left to rot for the next 35 years by each president)
It's both discrediting and insulting to compare the two of them.
The person's gender doesn't matter at all in this case.
It's probably best to avoid this argument altogether by never using first names or pronouns to refer to Pvt. Manning.
I am all for transparent dealings and in principle i agree with both of their actions, but snowden was inarguably more meticulous and conscious of his actions.
In Manning's case those journalists removed the names before publication.
Snowden released a lot of sensitive information to the exact same organisation who decided what to publish. It was essentially just an internal Wiki dump. He didn't personally curate it.
You'll have to cite cases where Manning published the names of people directly which put them at risk. Last I heard everything went through third parties before publication.
Secondly, Manning dumped a lot of info without knowing what he dumped. Snowden knew what was in the docs he leaked, and he made sure to protect human lives.
That's what I've heard, at least. It seems to make sense to me, but I'm open to having my mind changed if you have a different perspective.
The diplomatic embarrassment is what made the news, but whose fault is it that -- and who stands to gain from it? People like a good embarrassing story. And I'm sure governments prefer you think of them as having their diary exposed to the public as opposed to the guys paying thugs to torture people.
[0] http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/08/2013...
Manning specifically released that among other information. It was incredibly important.
This is smart because Snowden can't have access to the archive because it isn't safe for him to have a copy whilst in Russia. It is also smart of Greenwald because the USG are looking for any tiny chink in the armour to be able to descredit Greenwald and by association, Snowden. That's why Greenwald has still only released and estimated 1% of the archive. Each release needs to be analysed, reviewed and judged for release before carefully timing the release for maximum impact. Any damage to the safety of US personel on the ground is going to become a propaganda coup for the USG. Greenwald only has his integrity. Once he loses that it is very hard to get it back, which is why I hope he hasn't made a mistake choosing his FirstLook backers.
There was a reason that Snowden chose Poitras and Greenwald over Assange. Firstly he did his research well. He hoped that these two in particular were noble enough for the task. He knew that both were somewhat ostracised from the US and certainly targets for sigint, and both were living outside the US.
Snowden also let slip his opinion of Assange in the NZ-Dotcom presentation. He said:
"I think its wrong of any politician to
take away the public seat at the table
of government and say you'll simply have
to trust us and you know what, its not
in the public interest to know about
these programmes, unless it threatens my
reputation, in which case I'm going to
throw documents in the air like I'm
Julian Assange. No offence there Julian"
They don't throw documents in the air like Julian Assange (for personal reasons). The documents should transcend personal issues.
What Obama's administration is doing to Risen is horrible, but let's make sure context is clear. Risen is not a good person.
EDIT: I should note there is really no evidence that the improper handling charge was "true." He merely pled guilty to it as part of a plea bargain, probably to appease the prosecutor.
Which is why when he refuses to give the name in January after there are no more elections or opinions to matter, he will be put in prison as an example.
After all these years you really think they aren't going to do that to him?
The press will cover it for a week and then something else will come up and he will never be mentioned again.
A group of news agencies should create a scoreboard of unresolved or forgotten stories of great importance. This scoreboard should be mirrored in different places, and have competing scoreboards hosted by different groups, to prevent ninja editing of its contents. The scoreboard history could be tracked and shared in Git with signatures on every change.
This way, even if the front page forgets and the headlines change, there is an ongoing reminder of everything we should still be concerned about.
I think that kinda ignores the fact that the guy in question is star reporter at the NY Times. There are many media big shots who know this guy personally and aren't going to just let it go.