Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So there's been a lot of talks about whistle blowing recently, with Bradley Manning's trial beginning and the manhunt for former NSA contract Edward Snowden. Depending on who you are one of these men or both are traitors, or heroic whisleblowers. What's the dividing line? What makes a man who leaks intell a traitor or a whistleblower doing the right thing?

Off the top of my head...

Bradley: Not a traitor, but not a hero. Didn't show any consideration for what was being revealed or who he was revealing it to. He just dumped a huge disk of secrets out to an internet celebrity. I would put him closer to traitor, but he also seems to have some mental issues that played a role in his act.

Snowden: Released only enough to prove what he was saying was real, and to verified, trusted sources, and did so in a way that embarrassed the administration and congress, but didn't add undue risk to others.

Both are Traitors in my eyes, and I hope they get locked away for life.

Bradley Manning starting his sentencing trial...thinking 25 to life...not sure but might be wrong. also No Parole. Basically put the military in more danger.

Snowden only gave enough info to draw attention to the programs but didn't put anyone at risk unlike Manning. I say.....25 to life


Both signed documents, both knew the type of material that was being handle, and both agree not to divulge say materials. Snowden could have mailed the subject matter and not become a media sensation.

 Ahtman wrote:
Off the top of my head...

Bradley: Not a traitor, but not a hero. Didn't show any consideration for what was being revealed or who he was revealing it to. He just dumped a huge disk of secrets out to an internet celebrity. I would put him closer to traitor, but he also seems to have some mental issues that played a role in his act.

Snowden: Released only enough to prove what he was saying was real, and to verified, trusted sources, and did so in a way that embarrassed the administration and congress, but didn't add undue risk to others.

I think Ahtman has summed up my thoughts on the matter.

A whistleblower is someone who acts in a responsible matter to air their grievances to an outlet which ensures that attention is given over to the matter. Snowden has done such, IMO.
Manning is not someone who I consider to be a whistleblower. I think saying that he is a traitor is a bit much, but I would say that he has behaved in a manner ill befitting a member of the armed services and seemed to be primarily driven by anger and frustration at circumstances that were not necessarily related to the leaks he committed.

I would've thought you had to have intent to harm to be a traitor. I don't think either of them had that. I'm not convinced you can accidentally or unintentionally be a traitor.

Bradley Manning: Traitor. Period.

Edward Snowden: Even though his intentions were probably well-meaning, still a traitor.

These men swore to protect and closely guard State secrets, as all who are given security clearances do, and they broke the law, plain and simple. I have no sympathy for those who blatantly disregard their duty to keep classified information just that. I believe that both men should be executed for treasonous actions, more so Manning because he wears the uniform, and potentially put his fellow soldiers in further danger. He broke the oath, and brought disgrace to the uniform.

Slightly off-topic: are we really so ignorant that the information Snowden leaked is a surprise? If Facebook and other sites can target ads at you based in your search history, what do you think the government is doing? I'm not saying its right or lawful, but really? I for one wasn't shocked in the least.

I don't think I have all the necessary details to form a solid judgement, but from the little I do know, I consider Snowden to be a lot closer to "hero" than "traitor". My pedestrian understanding of this is that he divulged only enough information to bring to light massive breaches of constitutional rights on the part of the government; and anyone who considers him a traitor for purely not following orders or adhering to an NDA in such an unjust circumstance is no better than someone claiming the Nazis were only following orders. (Godwin'd on the first page, oh yeah!)

Please, someone feel free to correct me if I've gotten a basic understanding of the situation incorrect.

Traitor is not the opposite of Hero. Both a subjective to your point of view. One can also be both at the same time.

Betrayal can be a heroic act, or a villainous one.


Does a whistleblower betray whoever he is blowing the whistle on. Yes, if he was in a position of trust by that person/organization. So yes, this man is a traitor.

This doesn't mean he did a bad thing, that's a subjective viewpoint, but he most definitely betrayed the trust he was given.

Neither are traitors under the strict definiton of the term as it is spelled out in the US Constitution. It's funny like that because in most other countries they both would absolutely be such.

That being said, Manning did what he did because he's nothing more than a little

Snowden might not have the same craven motives as Manning but we don't have the whole story and I think we should leave open the possibility that he's posturing to cover an alterior motive.

True, although you would have to determine if you are talking common usage or strict Constitutional definitions.

This isn't a Constitutional issue AFAIK so that specific definition wouldn't be used.

Neither are traitors in my eyes, they saw that their Government was overstepping its bounds and had the balls to let everyone know about it. That's not treason, that's justice.

Depends on whether or not you're sympathetic towards the party the whistle is being blown on.

 spectreoneone wrote:
These men swore to protect and closely guard State secrets, as all who are given security clearances do, and they broke the law, plain and simple. I have no sympathy for those who blatantly disregard their duty to keep classified information just that. I believe that both men should be executed for treasonous actions, more so Manning because he wears the uniform, and potentially put his fellow soldiers in further danger. He broke the oath, and brought disgrace to the uniform.

I'm sorry, what duty?

The Duty to uphold the Law of the US Government?

The Duty to uphold the US Constitution?

Those two are not always the same thing.

Manning falls under UCMJ. He does not fall under regular laws of the USA but he is sworn to defend the US Constitution from foreign and domestic enemy. He was prosecuted under UCMJ and right now is in his sentencing phase. 25 to Life. He be breaking rocks on Thursday. Snowden does not fall under UCMJ but under Federal Laws. Wonder if convicted what type of sentence he is going to get.

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, although you would have to determine if you are talking common usage or strict Constitutional definitions.

This isn't a Constitutional issue AFAIK so that specific definition wouldn't be used.

Okay. It is true that both "betrayed" their country and both will pay a rather stiff price for doing so. However, neither of them is a "traitor" as defined by the law in the USA.

Anyone notice how the media in the US has turned on Snowden? Talking about how he got a G.E.D. and is just 29, etc. None of them seem to be playing him off as some noble whistleblower type since he's identified himself. Now contrast this with what the same US media said about Kazinski (the Unibomber) when he was finally caught.

Jihadin wrote:Manning falls under UCMJ. He does not fall under regular laws of the USA but he is sworn to defend the US Constitution from foreign and domestic enemy.

So what happens when that enemy is the US army? I'm not saying that's the case here, but rather just asking: do you consider the oath to be to the Constitution, or to the institution?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Manning falls under UCMJ. He does not fall under regular laws of the USA but he is sworn to defend the US Constitution from foreign and domestic enemy.

So what happens when that enemy is the US army? I'm not saying that's the case here, but rather just asking: do you consider the oath to be to the Constitution, or to the institution?

That question was actually put to the test when the US Civil War happened. States ceceeded and soldiers fled the Army to take up arms for the Confederacy. They could have been tried and punished as traitors (the Confederacy being the enemy in this case) but President Andrew Johnson declaired a general amnesty in order to take the country away from a course of vengeance and toward one of reconciliation and healing.

 Sasori wrote:
Both are Traitors in my eyes, and I hope they get locked away for life.

This, pretty much. They signed a contract and vowed to keep secrets..a secret. They are textbook-definition of traitors and need to be treated as such.

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, although you would have to determine if you are talking common usage or strict Constitutional definitions.

This isn't a Constitutional issue AFAIK so that specific definition wouldn't be used.

I figured from the start we were just using common, if a bit hyperbolic, use of the term.

I stand by Manning being a tool, as his 'bringing light to injustice' seems more incidental than purposeful. He just dropped a disk full of secrets on Wikileaks doorsteps, many of which I imagine he had no idea what they were. His release was reckless and problematic. If he had shown some restraint or thought over what information he was leaking I would probably have a more compassionate stance, and that he did so to a narcissist like Assange just makes it that much worse. Much of what was released from that didn't help anyone other than AQ and the Taliban. Such a small amount of it actually was worth exposing, the rest were not, and dangerous to do so.

They're both traitors. They both appear to have thought they were a lot smarter than they are.

 spectreoneone wrote:
These men swore to protect and closely guard State secrets, as all who are given security clearances do, and they broke the law, plain and simple.

Legalism is not a valid ethical system. When there is an unjust law you have a duty to oppose it, and that's what happened in this case. The government is violating our rights, so the government forfeits its right to secrecy. The only people who deserve to be executed are the ones who approved the blatantly illegal spying.

Slightly off-topic: are we really so ignorant that the information Snowden leaked is a surprise? If Facebook and other sites can target ads at you based in your search history, what do you think the government is doing? I'm not saying its right or lawful, but really? I for one wasn't shocked in the least.

So if this is something we already knew then how can leaking confirmation of it be such a big deal?

 Peregrine wrote:
Legalism is not a valid ethical system. When there is an unjust law you have a duty to oppose it, and that's what happened in this case. The government is violating our rights, so the government forfeits its right to secrecy. The only people who deserve to be executed are the ones who approved the blatantly illegal spying.

I have a feeling we're going to find out they're not in fact violating our rights.

I personally think he skipped out of his Hong Kong hotel once he saw polling on how his revelation played. He was waiting for reaction, hoping to get conquering hero status, and when he found out the majority of Americans are fine with the program, lit out. Now he'll end up with asylum in Iceland - though Russia's thinking about it, amusingly - and we'll just have to go and get him.

I think John Oliver said it best on the Daily Show when he said "I think you are missing the point Mr. President. No one is saying you broke the law, we are saying it is weird that you didn't have to." One can violate the fundamental nature of the Constitution without breaking the law, especially where technologies undreamed of at the time of creation are involved, like massive data-mining and surveillance are concerned.

 Seaward wrote:
I have a feeling we're going to find out they're not in fact violating our rights.

Yeah, I'm sure our power-loving government will soon tell us how everything is ok, and all of their spying is perfectly legal. There will be some technicality and we'll once again assume that if the government says something is legal it must not be a violation of our rights. Who cares about privacy, Something Must Be Done About Terrorism*.

*Especially terrorist plots created by the FBI. How will we catch the terrorists we manufacture if we have a right to privacy?

Governments all over the western world are restricting freedoms under the guise of 'protecting the people'. Personally i would rather be freer than safer by some unknown degree. I dont know abouy anyone else but i dont feel under threat now any more than i have at any point in the past... other than from my own government of course...

Not specifically commenting on either of these cases, but at what point does signing the official secrets act or equivalent mean you have to be party to covering up acts you consider illegal? And if someone does do that unquestioningly, later they are criticised for claiming they were 'just following orders'. You can't have it both ways, sometimes people can be a traitor to their government and be morally in the right.

Read some interesting stuff in the newspaper about how whistleblowers are treated by the average American.
The guy that released information about US military violating human rights was deemed a traitor and had to go in hiding because have been killed otherwise.
Also people wanting to lynch Snowden. I mean, why? Because he tells you everything you do is being spied on?


It really makes me wonder how weird Americans in general must think.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Read some interesting stuff in the newspaper about how whistleblowers are treated by the average American.
The guy that released information about US military violating human rights was deemed a traitor and had to go in hiding because have been killed otherwise.
Also people wanting to lynch Snowden. I mean, why? Because he tells you everything you do is being spied on?


It really makes me wonder how weird Americans in general must think.

Those people betray their very own country - I can't think of anything less moral or correct one could do besides terrorism.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Read some interesting stuff in the newspaper about how whistleblowers are treated by the average American.
The guy that released information about US military violating human rights was deemed a traitor and had to go in hiding because have been killed otherwise.
Also people wanting to lynch Snowden. I mean, why? Because he tells you everything you do is being spied on?


It really makes me wonder how weird Americans in general must think.

Those people betray their very own country - I can't think of anything less moral or correct one could do besides terrorism.

The administration of a country doesn't always coincide with what makes a nation.

There are many cases where people betraying their administration was definitely not the least moral thing they could have done. Like all those German scientists who defected during WWII.