The differences between whistleblowing Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning -- and some similarities to Daniel Ellsberg

The case of Edward Snowden, who
came out yesterday (Sunday) as the
leaker supplying the info to the Washington Post and the Guardian about the NSA's data-harvesting
program, on first impression reminds me more of Daniel Ellsberg than of
Bradley Manning.

I opposed what Manning did. I thought his actions were
reckless. He did a data dump, making secret information public without knowing
what it was or what he was really doing. I remember mentioning, for example, an Ethiopian journalist
who wound up in the hot seat because of the WikiLeaks release.

Manning's act was that of a goofball anarchist. Snowden's,
by contrast, seems to have been one of civil disobedience. That is, he seems to
have known exactly what he was doing. Snowden does seem to have some elements
of Manning, a mixed-up kid, but on balance seems to me to be more of an
Ellsberg -- that is, a disillusioned insider who was appalled by what he saw
and made a choice to disclose the existence of certain government programs.

As for the assurances of intelligence officials that we
should not worry because they will be careful: I don't buy them. The
intelligence community has not come clean about the torture of captives, so why
should it have credibility on this? At any rate, the health of our Bill of
Rights should not be dependent upon the constitutional interpretations and
tender mercies of secret policemen and their staff lawyers.   

So, do I think Snowden should go to jail? Yes, I think he
should expect to. Martin Luther King, Jr. did too, when he consciously broke
the law in protest. Breaking the law to make a point and then doing some time
in consequence fit well within the American tradition. That said, knowing what
I know now, I would hope it would be just a few months on a prison farm.

I have several friends who have a very different view, and
think this guy is more of a Philip Agee, someone who has changed sides, and
should be considered at worst a traitor and at best a
self-righteous little jerk. Listening to them, I have to admit to some qualms.
Foremost is Snowden's flight to Hong Kong. I want to know more about that
before concluding that this guy was right. Leaving the country is not what a
pure act of civil disobedience would entail. In addition, I find his choice of
refuge, Hong Kong, a bit odd. It looks more like a defection than civil
disobedience. It is possible that this guy will turn out to be more Guy
Burgess than Daniel Ellsberg.

Speaking of Burgess, I would like to know if Snowden is
providing cover for other, still undisclosed leakers. If so, that might change
the equation, too. Wouldn't real civil disobedience call for a clean slate?
That is, "This is who we are, and this is what we did, and why we did it."