I have a serious question for Bradley Manning supporters.

[NaturalHigh]

First a little background.

Bradley Manning allegedly disclosed thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks. I say "allegedly" because he has not yet been convicted of anything, but I don't think that what he did is in serious dispute. By giving the information to Wikileaks, he essentially made the information available to anybody with a computer, including sworn enemies of the United States.

Compare Bradley Manning to Jonathan Pollard. In 1985, Pollard (a civilian naval intelligence analyst) was arrested for passing classified information to Israel, an American ally. He has been in prison ever since (given a life sentence in 1987). He undoubtedly passed along at least as many classified documents as Manning, but he only passed them to Israel.

Pollard's motivation has never really been in dispute; he passed the documents to Israel because he felt our government was withholding information that was vital to Israeli interests and that he believed the U.S. was obligated to share with the Israelis under the terms of several information-sharing agreements. Yes, he was paid for the information, but that is a common tactic used by intelligence agencies to try and establish leverage over their sources. He has always claimed (with very little dispute from anybody) that he felt obligated, as a Jew, to help Israel. For the most part, he is considered a hero in Israel.

A campaign to free Pollard has gained momentum over the past decade. The Israeli government has asked that his sentence be commuted and that he be allowed to emigrate to Israel. Several current and former U.S. government officials (including Barney Frank, Anthoney Wiener, and James Woolsey) have endorsed this request, saying that nothing Pollard passed to Israel (an ally, remember) caused any significant damage to U.S. intelligence interests.

The campaign to free Jonathan Pollard has been given cursory attention at most by the media. I don't recall seeing anything about Pollard here on DU (not saying there hasn't been anything, just that I haven't seen it).

My question is this: why the double standard? Why is Manning, who it could certainly be argued did release information that could damage U.S. interests lionized while Pollard is ignored by the media and the left? Is it because he spied for Israel? Is it because it's just not as "fashionable" to lobby for Pollard as it is for Manning, who has become a celebrity of the left and a symbol of resistance to the unpopular war in Iraq?

Why do so many people seem to want Manning freed and celebrated while they are indifferent to Pollard rotting in prison? This seems to me like selective outrage at best, hypocrisy at worst.

A quick edit to clarify: I'm not saying that Pollard did not deserve to be punished. After 28 years in prison, though, I think he's paid his debt.

If Manning is convicted, I'm not saying that he should spend the rest of his life in prison, but he should be have to serve time as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

1. Pollard was a professional spy for a specific government, taking money to get them

what they wanted. He did not take them to a media outlet like wikileaks, he sold them to a government.
The differences are enormous. Feel free to compare the content of the documents in each case, which you fail to do, if you think it will help your case.

[NaturalHigh]

2. "He did not take them to a media outlet like wikileaks..."

Yes, that's actually part of my argument. As I said in my OP, I think it is likely that Manning actually did more damage by giving the information to Wikileaks, thereby making it accessible to anyone with a computer and internet access.

As for the content, I don't think most of it has been made public. Former CIA director James Woolsey, though, said that Pollard's releases did no actual harm to U.S. interests.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. That's worse than becoming a paid operative of a government for money? How?

Plus you are not correct that the Manning's documents were placed on the internet for all to see, he gave them to Wiki which did not release the unedited documents, was not haphazard and did not as you claim make them accessible to anyone with internet, that's just false stuff you are saying. Manning also did not become a paid operative of a foreign intelligence agency. Which Pollard did.

[NaturalHigh]

5. First, I am somewhat suspicious of any Wikileaks "edits."

By definition, an "edit" means that not all of the story is being told.

Do you really believe that the information Pollard passed to Israel was seen by more people than the Wikileaks material? The fact that Pollard was paid by an Israeli intelligence agency does not change the likelihood that Manning's disclosures were more damaging than Pollard's.

Again - serious questions. Do you believe that Bradley Manning should not face trial for his disclosure of classified information? Do you think Jonathan Pollard has not served enough time (28 years and counting) for his crimes?

[randome]

15. 'Hundreds' of informers' names were released.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[NaturalHigh]

17. Wow...I had forgotten about that.

I wonder how many informants may have been killed as a result.

[randome]

18. Doesn't matter. They're just 'collateral damage'.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[xchrom]

4. A paid spy working for a foreign government is a

A pretty big difference.

[NaturalHigh]

6. Yes it is...

but a lot of people have served less time for the same crime. Also, the fact that he was paid does not make his disclosures any more damaging.

As I said above, I don't believe that Jonathan Pollard should have gotten off without punishment. I also don't believe that Bradley Manning, if he is convicted, should go unpunished.

[xchrom]

7. Being a paid informant of a foreign government

Is a huge distinction.

Manning dumped info expecting - & in this case, Not getting - Americans to learn about what is being done in our name and with our money.

One might describe Manning as naive - but Pollard is, for sure, a traitor.

[NaturalHigh]

11. A traitor is someone who intends to harm his own country.

Treason is very hard to prove in court. The actual intent to do harm has to be proven.

Jonathan Pollard was never convicted of treason. He had no intent to harm U.S. interests (at least none that was ever publicly presented). His intent was to help Israel by informing their intelligence agents of Arab activities, and yes, he was paid for it. His crime was espionage, not treason.

Although Manning has not been charged with treason, I think he fits the definition of a traitor much more than Pollard does.

[pnwmom]

8. Actually, he did plead guilty and was sentenced to 20 years in an earlier trial.

Now he's facing further criminal charges that could lead to a life sentence. I don't know why it was done this way, with two trials.

[NaturalHigh]

9. Yeah, I remember that he did plead guilty to a few charges...

I guess I didn't read that he already got 20 years, though. If he's found guilty of the other charges, I imagine any additional sentence he gets will be consecutive with what he already got.

[msanthrope]

10. Manning has not been sentenced to anything, nor has his plea been accepted.

He's made a 'naked plea' on 10 charges.

[KinMd]

12. One thing about this whole affair bothers me

why would you allow a 22 yo Private to have access to classified documents? My sister in law worked for a credit reporting firm and they have more controls on access to info than the Army does apparently

[NaturalHigh]

13. It's common in the military.

I was 19 when I got my top secret clearance. The truth is that a lot of classified material is handled by junior enlisted personnel.

[bemildred]

14. Most of the stuff that is secret is unimportant twaddle, and secret clearances are used

as a perk and career tool in the government, it's a status marker. So basically, most of the security apparatus is theater, not all of it mind you, but most of it. And that is why 22 year old privates get access to all sorts of stuff, nobody takes it that seriously most of the time. And that gets habitual after a while, until the next "security breach" occurs.

[NaturalHigh]

16. At one point (like 20 years ago)...

I think the military was starting to cut back on the number of personnel who were getting top secret clearances because of the cost of the background checks involved. I don't know if that's the case anymore. Almost everybody I ever knew in the military, though, had secret clearances. The background checks for those are much less stringent and less expensive.

[bemildred]

19. Yeah, I remember that "cutback". Didn't last long.

I had a clearance all the time I was in defence, usually "Secret", but never for anything in particular (I did my best to stay far away from anything secret, it was such a hassle) just so I would have status and be allowed to run around wherever I was needed. Often the clearance was a prerequisite for the job.

I have a written record of every place I ever lived and the basic stats for all my family members because of that.

There are fundamental conflicts in the system that would have to be resolved in a real war, a real conflict, where real security was required. As it is we get these occasional show trials and the Congress passes even more laws and nothing changes.