Hacking Rhetoric

Manning vs. Snowden

5 Comments

I thought our conversation about Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden in class today was really interesting, so I did a little research on how the situations of the two men differ. They are obviously both whistle-blowers, but a big difference between the two is that Manning wears a beret, and I think that this made an impact on his punishment.  Snowden, however, makes the fashionable choice not to submit to such a ridiculous uniform code and bears his beautiful brown mane with pride.  Coincidentally, after Manning was convicted, Snowden was granted asylum in Russia after Manning’s severe and harsh trials.  The beret was the real reason why Manning was sentenced to prison and Snowden was not.  Clearly the Russians are not fans of berets or else they would have invited Manning over as well.  From reading a couple of articles, I also noticed that Snowden’s leaks seemed to be well planned and he seems to be seen as a hero to himself and his supporters.  Manning, on the other hand, seemed to have intense inner turmoil.  You probably would too if you had to wear a beret to work everyday too.

~Devon Rubbo

Image

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Manning vs. Snowden

  1. I don’t think Manning’s punishment is harsh at all, in fact it’s outlined in training and on our contracts when we accept our clearances what happens if you leak classified information. In my opinion, we all live with the decisions we make. She chose to disclose that information for the greater good, thus you must accept the consequences for such things. I would never expect to get off free if I for example hit a person while driving, kill them, and then call it in to the authorities. I do so knowing that there will be consequences such as me being locked up or sued by that person’s family.

    I will also agree that Manning was used as an example, to deter other people who may want to disclose information.

    What websites did you use? I too would like to look into this a bit further.

  2. Thanks for the input! I agree that Manning should accept the consequences of his actions. He was trusted with information as a part of his job and he misused it. I found a couple of sources that claimed that he was treated badly during the first few years of prison before the big trial. The Washington Post reported that “Manning will receive 31/2 years of credit for time served in pretrial confinement and for the abusive treatment he endured in a Marine brig at Quantico, making him eligible for parole in seven years.” The Guardian also stated that 1294 days is being “taken off the sentence as part of a pre-trial ruling in which Lind compensated Manning for the excessively harsh treatment he endured at the Quantico marine base in Virginia.” I also found an article on google that had Snowden’s father explaining some of the harsh conditions that Manning was under at one point. The first are two sources were used to confirm Manning’s poor treatment in jail, but I used several other Google websites to compare Snowden and Manning.

    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-21/world/41431547_1_bradley-manning-david-coombs-pretrial-confinement
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-35-years-prison-wikileaks-sentence

  3. Cross-posting this comment from the other discussion about Manning:

    Just a quick note on language here, folks: Manning is a woman. She’s expressed her intention to live as a woman, and her preference to be known as Chelsea and referred to by female pronouns. Fundamentally, it’s just plain polite to refer to people however they want.

    This case has been exceptionally high-profile and so Manning’s former name still sticks in everyone’s heads, along with the pronouns that went with the gender she was then presenting as. The common workaround has been to refer to ‘Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning’ — this is in line with the Associated Press style guide, which tells AP members to use a former name ‘if it’s noteworthy’ and to use the pronouns preferred by the person being written about, even when talking about events that happened pre-transition.

    (I may have slipped in speaking on Monday — I KNOW I slipped a lot when discussing the case when she first expressed her intention to live as a woman, right when I was preparing this course and talking to people a lot about it, although I’ve gotten accustomed to the transition since — in which case I may well have set you all on this path and I apologise.)

  4. Oh ya! I remember reading about that change in her personal life, but I forgot to reflect that in my response. My apologies, it is definitely necessary to honor people’s identity.

  5. I thought our conversation about Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden in class today was really interesting, so I did a little research on how the situations of the two men differ. They are obviously both whistle-blowers, but a big difference between the two is that Manning leaked information while still in the military, and I think that this made an impact on his punishment. Snowden, however, worked for a company (Booze Allen Hamilton) when he leaked information about the NSA and then fled to China. Coincidentally, after Manning was convicted, Snowden was granted asylum in Russia after Manning’s severe and harsh trials. From reading a couple of articles, I also noticed that Snowden’s leaks seemed to be well planned and he seems to be seen as a hero to himself and his supporters. Manning on the other hand, seemed to have intense inner turmoil when he released the Baghdad videos and also faced his punishment instead of fleeing. (original post)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s