I'm not prejudging the out come of the case merely presuming the defendant to be innocent until proven otherwise.
Nor would I would assume that the prosecution's strategy represents fact.
There is no need to prejudge anything. Manning has admitted guilt. You can speculate all day any number of possible scenarios that could have happened that you may claim "forced" him to admit guilt, but the point is that he plead guilty and that means you are guilty in a court of law.
I would deduce that Snowden wants to avoid a prison sentence which would appear to be a certainty reading the reactions of the predictable patriots posting on this forum. Snowden's choice of refuge is relevant when considering that Russia does not have an extradition treaty with the United States and is unlikely to be coerced into handing him over.
The next chapter in this saga has yet to be written.
I would agree that it is a high likelihood, considering he BROKE THE LAW and admitted to it to the world.
Also, many of the EU countries he just applied for asylum in not only have extradition treaties with the United States, but are very friendly with the United States. The only reason he would have to apply for asylum in some of these countries is if he suspected they might be mad enough at the US to get back at them. And lo and behold, documents showing intelligence activities against the EU are released. Hmmmm.............
If Snowden's revelations are conspiracy theories one would need to ask why the United States is so determined to have him returned to the USA to face American justice.
Stonewalling and denying that the NSA has been snooping on United States citizens would suggest that you are blind and deaf to the facts of the matter.
Because he broke the law in releasing classified secrets, all of which he still has possession of as well. This isn't some unpaid parking ticket they are going after him for. He committed a major breach of trust with the US, stole secrets, and is willingly distributing them to benefit his own ends.
And repeating over and over the NSA is snooping on Americans without ever providing any of this "fact" you claim to have doesn't make it true. The ONLY thing that proof has been provided for is 4 pages of a 41 page PowerPoint showing the NSA has some method of obtaining this list of data from large internet providers and a warrant issued by a court allowing NSA to collect the metadata of all calls that are routed through Verizon's switches (which make up around 24% of the total global telephone calls.) There is no evidence that PRISM was ever used against Americans. There is no proof that the Verizon metadata has EVER been correlated with names to target American citizens. There is no proof that ANY data has ever been collected from Americans internet and phone transactions. There is no evidence that ANY American has been charged with any crimes at all in relation to any of these programs.
What I have been saying this entire thread (and in the other PRISM thread) is that the only evidence out there is that NSA possesses a technical capability to spy on SOMEONE (the PRISM documents) and that they have the legal authority to collect ALL metadata Verizon switches process when routing telephone calls (the Verizon warrant). Snowden claims these capabilities could be used against Americans and the NSA claims they use these abilities against foreign targets. It's funny because then Snowden release ZERO evidence that these programs were used to spy on Americans and releases information that shows they were used to spy on foreigners. It appears that the current preponderance of evidence Snowden continues to trickle out is supporting the NSA claim and not his own.
As a result of his many visits Manning's lawyer has publicly stated that his client has never been a suicide risk...rather, that the military felt the need to exact punishment earlier....
Of course his lawyer would say that. IT'S HIS LAWYER. There have been no charges against people who handled him at Quantico and there have been no charges dropped due to any said claims.
What happened to your presuming innocence until guilt is proven? You know that has to work on those you don't agree with as well? When they charge someone for mistreating him or throw out his case because of that, then we can discuss this inhumane treatment.
Releasing information that serves the common good is a different ball game from selling national secrets to a potential enemy.
Since when did Snowden SELL national secrets? For this is your allegation.
You have a pretty subjective view of the law. If we all believed in the fact that doing something that you believe is in the common good, then we can throw all laws, all Constitutions, and all governments out the window. Everyone will have a different idea of what is right and what the common good is. That's why there are laws that are a consensus of the governed on what behavior should be. They felt the need to safeguard certain information from release and so it is the law. Snowden broke that law so he is being pursued for punishment.
And I don't believe it is a different ballgame at all. What if someone believed the war in Afghanistan wasn't for the common good and they either gave or sold secret information to other governments, the press, or even directly to the enemy which resulted in hundreds of deaths of coalition troops? Why would what be any different from what Snowden did? They would have felt justified in that they were doing the right thing. They would have given information that would have been at the same classification level as the information Snowden did. They would have claimed it was to provoke change.
