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.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think it is clear that Snowden and Manning acted from good intent. That is a worldview-level argument you're writing off.

It was the biggest 4th amendment violation in American history. The American public had a right to know.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think it is clear that Snowden and Manning acted from good intent. That is a worldview-level argument you're writing off.

It was the biggest 4th amendment violation in American history. The American public had a right to know.

Right to know what?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It was the biggest 4th amendment violation in American history.

There is quite a lot of disagreement about that.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think it is clear that Snowden and Manning acted from good intent. That is a worldview-level argument you're writing off.

It was the biggest 4th amendment violation in American history. The American public had a right to know.

Right to know what?

That their government was secretly collecting information on them without their knowledge.

Last I checked, the USA was The United States of America, not East Germany


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It was the biggest 4th amendment violation in American history.

There is quite a lot of disagreement about that.

True, but I'm siding with the American Civil Liberties Union on this one.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
True, but I'm siding with the American Civil Liberties Union on this one.

IME it is never wise to side with a lobby.

Meh, ACLU is generally a good one to side with IMO. They generally know what they are talking about.

They market an effective brand. Not sure if that translates into a lobby you can trust. In fact, there is no such thing.

Sure the ACLU is terrible at protecting civil liberties and is a lobbying group, but it is the best lobbying group we've got for protecting civil liberties.

As for the intent piece, I don't think we can argue about intent as that can not clearly be seen. That is like arguing about opinions.

Once you remove intent, the question is, did Petraeaus, Manning, and Snowden all share classified intelligence? The answer is yes. Then, why the vastly different reactions from the government to the same "crime"?

 Easy E wrote:
Sure the ACLU is terrible at protecting civil liberties and is a lobbying group, but it is the best lobbying group we've got for protecting civil liberties.

As for the intent piece, I don't think we can argue about intent as that can not clearly be seen. That is like arguing about opinions.

Once you remove intent, the question is, did Petraeaus, Manning, and Snowden all share classified intelligence? The answer is yes. Then, why the vastly different reactions from the government to the same "crime"?

It's not the same "crime", neither in what was shared or who it was shared with. There's a reason why different levels of classification exist. To use an analogy, Snowden and Manning saw what they thought was an infected finger and chopped off the entire arm without anethesia and some people are cheering them on because they agree the finger was infected. Its unbelievable.

On the other hand Petraeus isn't being punished for giving Broadwell access but for taking his classified notes home to a location not approved for classified storage.

Try an understand the difference and stop making inaccurate comparisons.

Jerram wrote:
On the other hand Petraeus isn't being punished for giving Broadwell access but for taking his classified notes home to a location not approved for classified storage.

This straddles the line between embellishment and flat out dishonesty, since the "location not approved for classified storage" was her fething laptop. I mean, claiming that's not giving her access is a bit of a stretch.

I thought she got her intel from a black binder note pad/Leadership Pad those of us carry around in the military. She did not have CAC access to his Outlookyadayda.

Manning got nailed by UCMJ
Snowden going to get nailed (eventually/maybe not) by Federal Law

Petraeus had hard copies I believe

Yes, Petraeus had hard copy in binders. And let Boadwell borrow them. He also lied about that initially.

But to equate his crime to Manning's or Snowden's is silly. They are nowhere in the same ball bark.

 Ouze wrote:

Jerram wrote:
On the other hand Petraeus isn't being punished for giving Broadwell access but for taking his classified notes home to a location not approved for classified storage.

This straddles the line between embellishment and flat out dishonesty, since the "location not approved for classified storage" was her fething laptop. I mean, claiming that's not giving her access is a bit of a stretch.

I never claimed he did or did not give her access. I claimed that he is being punished for where he stored them not for giving her access. From the article 2 pages back that you posted, "The criminal information filed in federal court in North Carolina states that from August 2011 to April 5, 2013, Petraeus did "unlawfully and knowingly'' remove classified materials and retained them at "unauthorized'' locations. Petraeus agreed to plead guilty to one criminal count of mishandling classified information. " And since none of us here know either the various classification of items in the notes or the various tickets Broadwell had punched none of us know how much of a grey area her access was, but claiming it's the same level as the damage done by Manning/Snowden is either ignorance or dishonesty.

Sure, but as far as the latter, I have not done so, so I guess it's not me that's ignorant and/or dishonest

I don't seriously expect repercussions for politically connected people who leak or mishandle classified information; after all I remember the Sandy Berger fiasco.

It sort of feels like he got the right verdict for what he did. He shouldn't have done it in the first place, obviously, but no real damage seems to have come out of it. So the problem was officially acknowledged at least, the fine was maximum but still probably just a token fine in the grand scheme of things. Are there likely to be any repercussions for him, or will it just return to business as usual?

Business as usual.

In theory, he is now a convict, and that may effect future jobs.

He is still a Big Name and because of his participation is some major world events he will still be sought out on the lecture circuit and as a consultant.

 Torga_DW wrote:
It sort of feels like he got the right verdict for what he did. He shouldn't have done it in the first place, obviously, but no real damage seems to have come out of it. So the problem was officially acknowledged at least, the fine was maximum but still probably just a token fine in the grand scheme of things. Are there likely to be any repercussions for him, or will it just return to business as usual?

No real damage came out of the Snowden or Manning leaks, either, except to the image of the US on an international stage... which was, frankly, a well-earned embarrassment.

I can't speak for manning, but i don't believe snowden should be charged with anything at all. He was a whistleblower. But then, there's a good reason most people don't blow the whistle.

Snowden was not a whistle blower, unless the Chinese and Russians are the legitimate recipients of info from legitimate whistle blowers. Had he taken his stolen info to congress he may have fit the definition.


And as for the belief there was no damage done by Manning and Snowden, we'll have to disagree.