Snowdon is a dummy

Frank Apisa wrote:

I doubt that...but I think people like you...and I have different ideas.

Certainly - but mainly, because the term "fair trial" here (in Germany and Europe) means something different than in the USA (and I admit that I'm kind of struck in our legal system)

If it had been information on how to build a nuclear weapon and given to Iran, how would you feel about it?

For the record...and so that I can better understand your position here...what do you see as the major differences between what we Americans call a "fair trial" and what you Germans do?

Everybody Leaks in Washington: What the Bradley Manning Trial Tells us about a Broken System
By Juan Cole | Mar. 13, 2013

[...] Today there is a gentlemen’s agreement of sorts between the press and the government. For its part, the government tacitly recognizes that intelligent discussion of national security matters requires the disclosure of some types of classified information to the media. This has led to a routine practice of selective leaking, usually between high-ranking government officials and select members of the elite Washington national security press corps.

Meanwhile, others in the government leak to the press to pursue a policy agenda. While these leaks are usually accompanied by outrage, gnashing of teeth, and promises of a “leak investigation,” the gentlemen’s agreement means that these matters are usually quickly forgotten and written off as the cost of doing business in a messy democracy.

The press’ part of the unstated agreement is to refrain from wholesale publication of national security secrets. The media does not report on troop movements, intelligence sources and methods, scientific information about our weapons systems, or other information that (in the media’s view) could cause actual damage to the nation’s security. The government and the press often disagree on what types of disclosure will result in such “damage,” but because the press has, by and large, acted responsibly when it gets hold of national security information, the government is willing to tolerate at least some level of leakage.

The Wikileaks/Manning case has blown this all apart.

First of all, Wikileaks has provided an outlet for the raw disclosure of classified information, without the filtering mechanism of responsible press outlets. The government cannot, and will not, tolerate this.
More importantly, however, if you put aside the sheer volume of Manning’s disclosures, it is difficult to distinguish Manning’s conduct from leaks that happen in Washington every day. If Manning is convicted during his trial in June for “aiding the enemy” and receives a life sentence – the risks of leaking classified information will have been significantly ratcheted up.

If Manning is given a life sentence because documents he leaked were read by the enemy, the government will be hard pressed to look the other way when far more important secrets than what Manning disclosed show up on the front page of the Washington Post. Manning’s case could damage the détente between the government and the media that has allowed for substantial reporting of national security matters without a constant drum beat of leak prosecutions, subpoenas for reporters to reveal their sources, and the like.

I admire him for taking his licks.

Snowden did not sell/give military information to a hostile power, he exposed war crimes.

Does this mean that no matter the crime they will be judged in trial by the same judge?

You dont even know to whom he gave information or what kind of information he gave to China, and Russia

As far as I am aware, Snowden didn't expose war crimes. Name some.

Tony Gosling: Obviously, he’s got his options rather limited. The real impact of what he’s done here is only now starting to be realized. Not only is he exposing the criminality of the GCHQ – the signals intelligence part of the British intelligence services – and the NSA, but he is also showing that much of that intelligence contains information which may bring criminal prosecutions. For example, of war crimes, or criminal prosecutions against bankers, people who’ve been doing money laundering, such as Lord Green who was in charge of HSBC. There’s a vast amount of information there.