If you're knowledgable enough to censor the documents yourself before release, that's the way to go. Not everyone has perfect knowledge. Releasing only to journalists and stuff is a fairly good method too, but maybe create unnecessary exposure.

Manning also went for a bulk dump strategy rather than being selective. Ultimately when you're dealing with a lot of data, that might be the only reasonable way to get it, but leaking unnecessary data where no incriminating evidence is present certainly detracts from the legitimacy of whistleblowing claims. If you can afford the time to be selective in your dumping or at least in your releasing, take it.

Unfortunately some of Manning's stuff got leaked in full, I believe not due to anything of Manning or Wikileaks' fault, but because an uninformed or careless journalist published an insurance key he shouldn't have.

Snowden was very selective, and look where that got him...

Oh yeah, for sure. You aren't getting around the nasty governmental environment towards whistleblowsers. Just improving your image in the eye of some people and your odds if it does come down to a legal matter, really.

Running, like Snowden did is really your best bet there I think. He's pretty much the textbook example of how to do this in the most correct way possible and still keep some degree of freedom for yourself. If you're willing to be a martyr, then you can stand up for that. Some people insist you must.

But I'm more than willing to accept both that someone finds something egregiously offensive that needs to be publicized, but also wants to keep their freedom.

The press was selective in what Snowden released. As far as we know, Snowden wasn't selective in what he obtained, or in what he then provided to adversary intelligence services in China and Russia.

I don't like what Snowden did, but I would respect the hell out of him if he had decided to stand up for his convictions and face the music. He'd have had a far better case, and would have had incredible EFF and ACLU lawyers on his side, and a ton of public sympathy. Instead, he turned an act of patriotism into an act of espionage and treason.

Snowden wasn't selective, the journalists he chose were.

As to where it got him-- he actually accomplished his goal, to start a conversation about privacy, government outreach, and secret courts.

Also he's living in Moscow with his girlfriend while Manning rotted in solitary for seven years and attempted suicide several times.

i guess it's always good to have an exit strategy.

> Snowden was very selective, and look where that got him...

Snowden leaked to people who were more selective than Manning, at least. And we don't actually know where it would have gotten him with the legal syste, since as well as learning "how to leak" from Manning's negative example, he also seems to have learned "where to be when the leaks become public" by the same method.

I think reasonable people can disagree about how selective Snowden was.

He wasn't very selective. If he were being selective he would only have released information that had constitutional issues. Most of his documents were regarding foreign spying.

Just because something is constitutional does not make it ethical.

Irrelevant when it comes to whistleblowing and legality. The government could not function if people were justified in releasing all information they disagreed with. Surely the set of information related to actions that no one disagrees with is empty or nearly so.

I don't think it's as black and white as that. Maybe the NSA spying on some overseas entities isn't strictly illegal. But to understand the bigger picture of their all-encompassing reach and sheer pervasiveness better emphasises their wrongdoings on US soil because it helps explain why the NSA's general mentalities of 'we have the right to collect ALL of the information' and 'we are above the law' exist.

Am I saying I think it's outright justified? No, because I'm honestly not sure. I am however sure that it's not as black and white as 'legal' vs 'illegal' when it comes to whistleblowing because the extra infromation helps us establish a context and understand a sense of scale of the wrongdoing, for example.

edit: Here's an example: It's probably not illegal that the 'official' estimates of civilian deaths in the Iraq war were likely far lower than the reality. Assume for the sake of discussion that this was intentional. Having a better understanding the more realistic magnitude of civilian deaths helps the public understand the realities of such wars and helps them make more informed decisions on whether they're comfortable with the actions of their government. It changes the context of the Iraq war and may go from 'we were justified in doing it' to 'it wasn't worth it' for some of the voting public.

I agree with you. I don't have a clear opinion of Snowden. The point was just that those who try to claim he was just blowing the whistle and therefore shouldn't be prosecuted or pardoned are missing the point of whistleblowing with respect to legal protections.

From prior discussions, both the DOD[0] and intelligence communities[1] have whistleblower programs. This inevitably leads to questions of whether the DOD/IC IGs can be trusted to investigate the DOD/IC without the forcing function of a public release, but the programs are in place.

[0] - http://www.dodig.mil/programs/whistleblower/index.html

[1] - https://www.dni.gov/index.php/about-this-site/contact-the-ig...

The top NSA official who would have received Snowden's whistleblowing report was just fired for retaliating against a whistleblower.

Also, Snowden was a contractor not a NSA employee so he wasn't covered by such programs.

Your argument does not hold together.

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2016/12/intelligence-community-land...

I'm not sure what argument you think I was making other than 'yes, whistleblower programs exist' in response to the parent's question of

> Has there been any sort of "ethical" system designed to show a person how they are supposed to whistle blow?

As you helpfully exemplified, many people dismiss the IG's programs due to the potential for (or reality of) retaliation (which I mentioned), but I specifically wanted to avoid that whole set of arguments because there's only so many times I can read through all that.

Also, the first line in the DNI whistleblower program mentions "An IC employee, assignee, detailee, or contractor" so unless that means something other than the plain reading, it would apply to someone today who is similarly situated.

I read your post as saying they should have followed the chain of command rather than leaking data. I apologize for not catching the nuance in your response.

The WaPo covered Snowden's claims in great detail. Reading it, I certainly would not have felt protected against retaliation myself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/...

Snowden claimed he raised his concerns internally before coming out publicly, but the government denies that. I can't say who is correct, but I don't really trust government agencies to investigate themselves.

But whistle blowing on what? That the US diplomacy has secret conversations with every one, negiciates deals, and collect information locally in confidence? That's pretty much their job description. What did Manning whistlebow on?

Leaking confidential information isn't whistleblowing.

It's right there in the article:

She copied hundreds of thousands of military incident logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which, among other things, exposed abuses of detainees by Iraqi military officers working with American forces and showed that civilian deaths in the Iraq war were likely much higher than official estimates.

That was not in the diplomatic cables. What wrongdoing has been exposed in the diplomatic cables?

Nothing in particular. That's where Manning went wrong. There was no malfeasance or injustice exposed in the cables. They embarrassed the US and caused diplomatic difficulty for no public gain.

It has been argued that the diplomatic cables had a strong influence on the uprising in Tunisia after they spread on Facebook and when Bouazizi lit himself on fire the stage was set for their revolution, which was the first domino of what we later called the Arab Spring, which Syria became a part of, but has not resolved for six years.

One of the largest takeaways that I had from most history classes that I took is that events rarely have a single cause--and complex events such as the Arab Spring and Syrian civil war typically have many, many layers of causes (even if they aren't all clear at the time). Insinuating that all of that happened because Pvt. Manning released secret documents does a disservice to any attempt to understand the complex events that we see in the world today.

There was no collateral damage to people in the field due to the Manning leaks, so I guess she figured it out.

From the NYT [0]:

"The disclosures set off a frantic scramble as Obama administration officials sought to minimize any potential harm, including getting to safety some foreigners in dangerous countries who were identified as having helped American troops or diplomats. Prosecutors, however, presented no evidence that anyone was killed because of the leaks."

So no one was killed, but it does seem to have put people at risk.

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commute...

That's what they _said_, yes. Remember the rhetoric of the time-- distinguished government officials said both Manning and Snowden had "blood on their hands". Manning was in custody, but multiple senators and representatives called for Snowden to be assassinated.

In summary, I'm gonna need to see some actual proof.

Even assuming anyone could actually know this, the real damage is going forward. FSOs gather a lot of information just by talking to people, and people are going to be very circumspect if they think what they say will be repeated to the world with attribution. How much would you say to a friend or relative if you knew the first thing they'd do is put up a Facebook post with whatever you told them?

How do you know?

The prosecution admitted as much at her trial. Read up on United States vs Manning for more details.

I agree. It will make it seriously difficult for anyone to discuss with a US diplomat in confidence given that the guy will log it in his little secure system and that the transcript will be on the web within 5 years. Not really worth risking your life.

I think it is safe to assume this leak will have seriously affected the US diplomacy.

I believe that we would definitely have been told if there was.

This isn't about ethics. It's about power.

Whistleblowing is the powerless and disconnected eroding the power of the powerful and well connected.

They don't appreciate that.

As a result, nearly every whistleblower will suffer greatly for their actions no matter how they do it - unless they can curry favor of the powerful somehow. Public perception can be purchased.

For further enlightenment I recommend the 20 minute youtube video Rules for Rulers by CGP, as well as the followup.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a fascinating piece for the New Yorker last month that reviews the "etiquette" (for want of a better word here - maybe "procedure"?) of government leaks and whistleblowing.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/19/daniel-ellsberg...

Long story short - leaks are a desirable thing for the executive branch, but there is a "right" way to do them. Snowden and Manning did them the "wrong" way, and it's implied that that is one of the reasons they both had the book thrown at them.

Okay, so there is punishment say, as some others have said here. Is 7 years enough? She was sentenced to rot in jail till 2045, how can that be just?

Which leaked documents would have warranted a harsher sentence?

Judging by the sensitivity of the documents is not how you judge the ethics of it. That by chance the damage from the leak wasn't a lot worse does not count in Manning's favor.

That doesn't make sense to me. Not every document is equally damaging. The punishment should fit the crime.

But the crime should be determined the action, not the chance outcome. The alternative is that the same exact action result in wildly different punishments due only to chance. This is unjust. People who have the same exact mental state and perform the same action should have the same punishment. If I punch someone in a fight and that person hits their head on the ground and dies, I should not get 10 years in prison simply due to the chance occurrence of him dying, while everyone else gets probation for getting in a fist fight where everyone walks away. The punishments should be exactly the same. The sentencing just should take into consideration the chance that someone dies and be applied evenly.

I don't think anybody has answers to your questions, and there seems to be no solution in sight for these issues.

He did damn good job!