The Framing of Assange

[Rotobeast]

I haven't read the entire reddit thread, but wanted to share it before I forgot.

Conspiracy is afoot !!
LOL

But anyway, it does seem interesting.

*some bad language, throughout link*

https://m.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/587lbg/i_have_been_looking_into_the_san_fransisco/?utm_source=mweb_redirect&compact=true

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

I didn't know a lot about him (still don't) but I was reading an article about the internet being cut and found out WHY he is fighting extradition.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Sounds like a real stand up guy.

[Devils Advocate]

But, but, but conspiracies do not exist ...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Funny how the worm turns. The far left used to love Assange.

[Belsnickel]

(10-19-2016, 11:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Funny how the worm turns. The far left used to love Assange.

It really is funny. My problem with them has always been that while I understand a need for a certain level of transparency, there is a line. The side that has their position being supported by those materials being leaked will always be the ones with a more favorable view of this kind of activity, but the truth is that there are things that don't need to be in the public sphere and illegal activities, even with the best of intentions, are still illegal.

[Benton]

I'm not a big fan of Wikileaks, Assange or his agendas... but really?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2016, 11:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It really is funny. My problem with them has always been that while I understand a need for a certain level of transparency, there is a line. The side that has their position being supported by those materials being leaked will always be the ones with a more favorable view of this kind of activity, but the truth is that there are things that don't need to be in the public sphere and illegal activities, even with the best of intentions, are still illegal.

I completely agree.  This is my major problem with Snowden and the people who idolize him.  You want to hold him up as a paragon of American values who exposed government overreach?  That all falls apart the minute he exposes US surveillance techniques and activities against foreign countries, any foreign country.  At that moment he ceases to become a whistle blower and became a traitor to his nation.  Much like Assange, and I agree with you on him, there is a line that you shouldn't cross and they both did so eagerly.

[BmorePat87]

(10-19-2016, 11:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It really is funny. My problem with them has always been that while I understand a need for a certain level of transparency, there is a line. The side that has their position being supported by those materials being leaked will always be the ones with a more favorable view of this kind of activity, but the truth is that there are things that don't need to be in the public sphere and illegal activities, even with the best of intentions, are still illegal.

There's also the fact that it's no so much about transparency as it is agenda.

One example is he dumped one email of Podesta's from 2008 regarding a poll about Obama. The spin was that all these Hillary people were asking questions about if people knew if Obama had Muslim ties, etc. 

The problem is these people were Obama leaning people working for PACs in 2008, not Hillary people. The email was about a poll they were creating to test negative rumors/facts about Obama that they assumed McCain would use.

[Belsnickel]

(10-19-2016, 11:46 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's also the fact that it's no so much about transparency as it is agenda.

One example is he dumped one email of Podesta's from 2008 regarding a poll about Obama. The spin was that all these Hillary people were asking questions about if people knew if Obama had Muslim ties, etc. 

The problem is these people were Obama leaning people working for PACs in 2008, not Hillary people. The email was about a poll they were creating to test negative rumors/facts about Obama that they assumed McCain would use.

Well, that is because people assume that these people that are all about "transparency" and "unbiased information" are actually unbiased and don't have their own agenda. They benefit from those that think they are really making their own, independent decisions but are in reality just feeding on the bias being pushed that is just hidden better than in the MSM.

[Rotobeast]

(10-19-2016, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree.  This is my major problem with Snowden and the people who idolize him.  You want to hold him up as a paragon of American values who exposed government overreach?  That all falls apart the minute he exposes US surveillance techniques and activities against foreign countries, any foreign country.  At that moment he ceases to become a whistle blower and became a traitor to his nation.  Much like Assange, and I agree with you on him, there is a line that you shouldn't cross and they both did so eagerly.

I think the difference is that Snowden only wanted certain data, but had to hastily do a full dump and run.
Not sure if he had to agree to the full-montey for asylum, or not.

I would agree that not everything needed disclosed.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

This is an issue when we choose to live in a gray world as opposed to black and white. Anyone who makes state secrets public without consent should be tried for treason regardless of their agenda.

[BmorePat87]

(10-19-2016, 12:40 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I think the difference is that Snowden only wanted certain data, but had to hastily do a full dump and run.
Not sure if he had to agree to the full-montey for asylum, or not.

I would agree that not everything needed disclosed.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Either way, he made the choice to disclose those things. Revealing data monitoring of private citizens is one thing. Revealing monitoring of other nations is another. 

[Rotobeast]

(10-19-2016, 01:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Either way, he made the choice to disclose those things. Revealing data monitoring of private citizens is one thing. Revealing monitoring of other nations is another. 

I do not disagree.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2016, 01:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Either way, he made the choice to disclose those things. Revealing data monitoring of private citizens is one thing. Revealing monitoring of other nations is another. 

This all day.  This is also why a pardon of Snowden would be insanely inappropriate.  He did our intelligence gathering in other nations immense damage.  That is not whistle blowing, that is treason.  We certainly have no concrete evidence of it but anyone who thinks he didn't supply similar information to China and Russia is willfully naïve.

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2016, 11:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Funny how the worm turns.  The far left used to love Assange.

The far right who always complained that "big government" was too powerful and secretive also loved Asange and Snowden.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2016, 10:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The far right who always complained that "big government" was too powerful and secretive also loved Asange and Snowden.

Non-sequitur.  Par for the course from you.

[xxlt]

(10-19-2016, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree.  This is my major problem with Snowden and the people who idolize him.  You want to hold him up as a paragon of American values who exposed government overreach?  That all falls apart the minute he exposes US surveillance techniques and activities against foreign countries, any foreign country.  At that moment he ceases to become a whistle blower and became a traitor to his nation.  Much like Assange, and I agree with you on him, there is a line that you shouldn't cross and they both did so eagerly.

So, can you just clarify your personal take on Snowden a bit? Are you saying you are OK with him exposing illegal government activities when they violate the rights of U.S. citizens, but not when they violate the rights of foreign countries? Or are you saying you that you don't want your government doing illegal things but you also oppose anyone who exposes the government; when the government is ready to admit transgressions it will do so? Or are you saying you are OK with a government that does whatever if wants, the rights of U.S. citizens and foreigners be damned?

[Belsnickel]

(10-20-2016, 09:20 AM)xxlt Wrote: So, can you just clarify your personal take on Snowden a bit? Are you saying you are OK with him exposing illegal government activities when they violate the rights of U.S. citizens, but not when they violate the rights of foreign countries? Or are you saying you that you don't want your government doing illegal things but you also oppose anyone who exposes the government; when the government is ready to admit transgressions it will do so? Or are you saying you are OK with a government that does whatever if wants, the rights of U.S. citizens and foreigners be damned?

I'm not SSF, but I want to address this because I am someone that does not think Snowden should be pardoned. Had Snowden operated domestically and contacted someone he trusted in the government or a news agency (even if he only trusted a foreign based one) to provide information to show the violation of rights, I would consider him a whistleblower and would not consider him. But when any information is given to another nation state, that's a crossing of the line.

This is a very simplified version of it all because the type of information would also be a concern and that's something that would be beyond my knowledge on the subject, but my most important focus is on to whom the information is given. The second is intent, and I personally don't think Snowden actually had noble intentions. I think that is something the public have placed on him as a mantle and he has worn it in an effort to garner sympathy, but that wasn't his intent.

[xxlt]

(10-20-2016, 09:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not SSF, but I want to address this because I am someone that does not think Snowden should be pardoned. Had Snowden operated domestically and contacted someone he trusted in the government or a news agency (even if he only trusted a foreign based one) to provide information to show the violation of rights, I would consider him a whistleblower and would not consider him. But when any information is given to another nation state, that's a crossing of the line.

This is a very simplified version of it all because the type of information would also be a concern and that's something that would be beyond my knowledge on the subject, but my most important focus is on to whom the information is given. The second is intent, and I personally don't think Snowden actually had noble intentions. I think that is something the public have placed on him as a mantle and he has worn it in an effort to garner sympathy, but that wasn't his intent.

Interesting. To me that seems a difficult ethical position to hold, but I bet a lot of people will be there holding it with you.

It sounds a lot like this to me: "I was OK with the private investigator releasing to the police and the prosecutor the video of the man beating his wife, but not the video of him beating his mistress and his prostitute." I don't know how one justifies exposing some illegal behavior and not other illegal behavior. I can't help thinking of Nixon's logic, that if the President does it then it isn't illegal.

Thanks for you response. (And for claiming not to be SSF )

[Belsnickel]

(10-20-2016, 09:40 AM)xxlt Wrote: Interesting. To me that seems a difficult ethical position to hold, but I bet a lot of people will be there holding it with you.

It sounds a lot like this to me: "I was OK with the private investigator releasing to the police and the prosecutor the video of the man beating his wife, but not the video of him beating his mistress and his prostitute." I don't know how one justifies exposing some illegal behavior and not other illegal behavior. I can't help thinking of Nixon's logic, that if the President does it then it isn't illegal.

Thanks for you response. (And for claiming not to be SSF )

No, I think you might be misunderstanding my position. It isn't as much about what is disclosed. If there is a disclosure of illegal activity by our country, which is really what we are discussing, then it is a matter of to whom that information is given. A closer analogy would be: I was okay with the PI releasing the video of him beating his wife, mistress, and a prostitute to the police and the DA, but I was not okay with him releasing the videos to the families of the victims along with his personal information so that they could more easily take vengeance outside of the legal system and then the PI sought protection from those families.