[pc86]

Because rather than making an argument against Mr. Snowden on its merits, they get to just dismiss him as a coward and a traitor. It's the same basic reason why most arguments on the internet devolve into ad hominems and profanity.

I'm not making a judgment either way (although I probably have in my earlier comment history), it's just easier for some people to say "Whatever, he's a traitor and a coward" rather than actually think about why he did what he did, what his motivation(s) were/are, and if they ultimately think the ends justify the means.

[john_b]

Bradley Manning is rotting away in some military jail and the average American still thinks he's a traitor. If powerful interests want to spin your story a particular way, they will spin your story. Snowden at least has a voice while he's on the run. He may be persecuted, but he's not silenced.

[mpyne]

Well in Manning's case the reason is what Manning did to get in trouble in the first place, not about what he did afterwards.

Indiscriminate dumping of classified data that you didn't look at, to opponents of your government, is pretty much on page 1 of "Compendium of Spies".

What the public got out of his leak was that a) war sucks and b) diplomats are not pure as the driven snow. Both of which the public knew, and have known, and will pretty much always know.

What AQ, TTP, Taliban and other extremist groups got is detailed ground-level descriptions of how the Army operated against them, what informants they used, and much much more. As an intelligence analyst himself, Manning would be in an exception position to understand just how useful those documents would be in their hands, and if we are charitable somehow still judged that the gain to the enemy was somehow still less than the gain to the public.

And this is why Snowden was so careful to note in his initial interviews that he took specific things from the NSA instead of just copying what he could.

[john_b]

That's a valid point, and indiscriminately dumping data definitely deserves some punishment (though far less than the Gitmo style treatment he got, if you ask me).

However, the most relevant point is that, based on what is being written in the media, there is no real distinction in the average American's mind between the two except that one was caught and the other is on the run. They are both labeled as "leakers" and "traitors" by the government, and except for a few outlets, the mainstream media largely parrots the official talking points. Being treated as a traitor based on a label the government applies to you rather than on the details of what you did is what is really frightening.

[mpyne]

I am 110% convinced that if Snowden had made his leaks about PRISM, and wiretapping of domestic data, and nothing else, and had not run to Russia/Ecuador/CHINA/WikiLeaks that the American people would consider him different.

The media has little choice about the distinction the people draw though. He fled to Hong Kong, away from a nation where at least 1/3rd of the population still has a jingoistic antagonism to China. He allied with WikiLeaks, who the American people know are at least somewhat more anti-American than anti-secrecy. He tried to get asylum from Ecuador (who is already allied with WikiLeaks), and Venezuela has been chomping at the bit to grant him asylum (I'll let you guess what Americans think about either country at this point).

To put the cherry right on top he delivered his TS-containing brain and his TS-containing gear to effing Russia.

His father has been the smartest Snowden in this whole sorry affair; there's a reason he's worried about the perceived association to WikiLeaks, and that's because it's not favorable to Snowden in the USA.