The Framing of Assange

[xxlt]

(10-20-2016, 09:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Ah, good clarification. Thanks.

But, in this case the "man" in the videos beating 3 different women is the US government, right? So, not sure if expecting protection and fair treatment of the whistle blower from "the man" is realistic...

The only case I am aware of with similar dynamics is the (Pentagon Papers) Ellsberg case, and last I checked I think Ellsberg was advocating for both of these guys. That carries a lot of weight with me, but I fully admit both the Snowden and Assange cases are complex and I am nowhere near intimately familiar with all the ins and outs of either...

[Belsnickel]

(10-20-2016, 10:09 AM)xxlt Wrote: Ah, good clarification. Thanks.

But, in this case the "man" in the videos beating 3 different women is the US government, right? So, not sure if expecting protection and fair treatment of the whistle blower from "the man" is realistic...

The only case I am aware of with similar dynamics is the (Pentagon Papers) Ellsberg case, and last I checked I think Ellsberg was advocating for both of these guys. That carries a lot of weight with me, but I fully admit both the Snowden and Assange cases are complex and I am nowhere near intimately familiar with all the ins and outs of either...

I know that there is a lot of skepticism about fair treatment of whistle blowers in this country, especially when it comes to this sort of thing. But my position is that laws are in place for a reason and not everyone in the government is going to be coming after you. Had he approached someone he trusted in the government, even if it had been an elected official he felt would help, and gone that route than my opinion of him would be much greater. Our government is massive, and believe it or not (not necessarily directed at you specifically) most people in it want to do the right thing. Government workers are people, too, and are subject to the same violations of liberties and rights as anyone else.

If he had gone this route, public opinion would have been overwhelmingly on his side, and in that situation the government would have an extremely hard time throwing the book at him, especially if he had followed the guidelines laid out in whistle blower laws.

[xxlt]

(10-20-2016, 10:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know that there is a lot of skepticism about fair treatment of whistle blowers in this country, especially when it comes to this sort of thing. But my position is that laws are in place for a reason and not everyone in the government is going to be coming after you. Had he approached someone he trusted in the government, even if it had been an elected official he felt would help, and gone that route than my opinion of him would be much greater. Our government is massive, and believe it or not (not necessarily directed at you specifically) most people in it want to do the right thing. Government workers are people, too, and are subject to the same violations of liberties and rights as anyone else.

If he had gone this route, public opinion would have been overwhelmingly on his side, and in that situation the government would have an extremely hard time throwing the book at him, especially if he had followed the guidelines laid out in whistle blower laws.

Good points. But now we are talking about his judgment and mental capacity as much as about whether his revelation of wrong was proper or not. I think the good deed trumps (pardon the use of the "T" word) the poor judgment/paranoia or whatever compelled him to share with whom he did.

I see no evidence of treasonous intent. And, if treasonous intent can be proven couldn't the government put on this proof in his absence. Perhaps trying him in absentia would be unprecedented, but isn't much about the matter unprecedented? Are they afraid he still has more he can retaliate with?

[Belsnickel]

(10-20-2016, 10:26 AM)xxlt Wrote: Good points. But now we are talking about his judgment and mental capacity as much as about whether his revelation of wrong was proper or not. I think the good deed trumps (pardon the use of the "T" word) the poor judgment/paranoia or whatever compelled him to share with whom he did.

I see no evidence of treasonous intent. And, if treasonous intent can be proven couldn't the government put on this proof in his absence. Perhaps trying him in absentia would be unprecedented, but isn't much about the matter unprecedented? Are they afraid he still has more he can retaliate with?

The good deed trumping the poor judgement would really be a matter of what was shared with what nation(s) and the damage that could do to our intelligence community or other operations abroad. Honestly, I don't think he had treasonous intent, but he did still commit treason. I think this is more of a case of someone that had access to information, took it with the intention of seeing what he could do with it, got scared and made poor decisions. I don't see him as a villain or as a hero, but he should be charged and go before a jury to let them decide what is to be done.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(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 appreciate Matt's very adroit response but I'll add mine as well since I was directly addressed.  You asked a lot of questions so I'll simply state my opinion.  As a person working for the US government you can claim whistle blower status for exposing possible unconstitutional, in this instance surveillance, activities against US citizens.  You cannot claim the same status when exposing the same types of activities against foreign nations for a very simple reason, the Constitution does not protect people outside of the United States who are not citizens.  What kind of government would we have if every government worker felt they had the discretion to expose whatever they personally felt was their moral duty to expose?  How about the guy working on a top secret weapons project that he felt would give the US an "unfair" advantage over Russia or China?  Using Snowden's logic that would be equally acceptable.

Unless the behavior being reported is so against human decency, e.g exposing the population of Congo to radiation to observe the effects, you do not have the right to expose US government activity to a foreign nation and then claim whistle blower status.   

[xxlt]

(10-20-2016, 10:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The good deed trumping the poor judgement would really be a matter of what was shared with what nation(s) and the damage that could do to our intelligence community or other operations abroad. Honestly, I don't think he had treasonous intent, but he did still commit treason. I think this is more of a case of someone that had access to information, took it with the intention of seeing what he could do with it, got scared and made poor decisions. I don't see him as a villain or as a hero, but he should be charged and go before a jury to let them decide what is to be done.

That actually makes a tremendous amount of sense. 


(Not like that hasn't happened before.   )

[xxlt]

(10-20-2016, 11:03 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate Matt's very adroit response but I'll add mine as well since I was directly addressed.  You asked a lot of questions so I'll simply state my opinion.  As a person working for the US government you can claim whistle blower status for exposing possible unconstitutional, in this instance surveillance, activities against US citizens.  You cannot claim the same status when exposing the same types of activities against foreign nations for a very simple reason, the Constitution does not protect people outside of the United States who are not citizens.  What kind of government would we have if every government worker felt they had the discretion to expose whatever they personally felt was their moral duty to expose?  How about the guy working on a top secret weapons project that he felt would give the US an "unfair" advantage over Russia or China?  Using Snowden's logic that would be equally acceptable.

Unless the behavior being reported is so against human decency, e.g exposing the population of Congo to radiation to observe the effects, you do not have the right to expose US government activity to a foreign nation and then claim whistle blower status.   

Well, I am sure you know the story of the Tuskegee experiment. And that only went on for 40 years...

But, thanks for clarifying your position. 

[fredtoast]

This is a v ery complicated issue.

Assange released a lot of info that people needed to see. But he also released information that endangered the lives of people collecting information for the United States in foreign countries.

The government has to have some secrets. We would not be safe without them.

[Rotobeast]

(10-20-2016, 05:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a v ery complicated issue.

Assange released a lot of info that people needed to see. But he also released information that endangered the lives of people collecting information for the United States in foreign countries.

The government has to have some secrets. We would not be safe without them.

Agreed.

FWIW.... Snowdon tried the good boy/legit route.
He got threatened and turned away.
Instead of going in to get certain files, he done an entire dump.
He had no idea what all he had, until (maybe) when on the run.
He was forced to turn it over, in it's entirety, for asylum.

New Rumor Alert:

The Secret Service stole Hilltron's laptop (brimming with emails) and handed it over to WikiLeaks, as revenge for mistreatment over the years.

Not sure I buy it, but...meh..

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2016, 11:25 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: New Rumor Alert:

The Secret Service stole Hilltron's laptop (brimming with emails) and handed it over to WikiLeaks, as revenge for mistreatment over the years.

Not sure I buy it, but...meh..

That would pretty much prove that there are no sensative state secrets in any of the emails.  No secret service agent would hand over government secrets just to hurt Hillary.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2016, 03:07 PM)xxlt Wrote: Well, I am sure you know the story of the Tuskegee experiment. And that only went on for 40 years...

But, thanks for clarifying your position. 

I'm not sure how Tuskegee fits into my argument or contradicts it seeing as it happened in the US.  That being the case it would definitely fall under the whistle blower category for me.

[xxlt]

(10-21-2016, 11:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not sure how Tuskegee fits into my argument or contradicts it seeing as it happened in the US.  That being the case it would definitely fall under the whistle blower category for me.

So, it is inconceivable to you that a government that would experiment on its own citizens without their knowledge would experiment on those of another nation (which you directly referenced in your post as an example of when you would defend a person disclosing a secret government program)?

I realize that there was probably a long interval between your posts, but the connection between Tuskegee and your post was quite obvious if you go back and look at post 25.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-21-2016, 12:10 PM)xxlt Wrote: So, it is inconceivable to you that a government that would experiment on its own citizens without their knowledge would experiment on those of another nation (which you directly referenced in your post as an example of when you would defend a person disclosing a secret government program)?

I realize that there was probably a long interval between your posts, but the connection between Tuskegee and your post was quite obvious if you go back and look at post 25.

This post makes me further wonder why you would bring this up as I already acknowledged that would be an incident in which I would condone informing on US government activities outside the country. 

[xxlt]

(10-21-2016, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This post makes me further wonder why you would bring this up as I already acknowledged that would be an incident in which I would condone informing on US government activities outside the country. 

Right. You acknowledged it would be an incident in which you would condone informing on activities outside the country. And, I mentioned one example of such conduct inside the country that went on for longer than about half our members here have been alive, while many others were alive. This indicates to me a need for citizens to be judicious in considering the conduct of our government and those who challenge said conduct, both foreign and domestic.

So, it seemed like there was some common ground there which my post affirmed, and I thanked you for clarifying your position. Your response was that you were more or less baffled. You can be a difficult person to agree with. Here, have a heart: :heart:

[Dill]

I have no real contribution to this thread, but I just want to say that I loved reading it and enjoy the back and forth between participants which at once clarifies and further complicates "whistle blower" activity. People present positions, post questions, shift positions with new information. The subject deepens. Kudos to all.

No one has mentioned Bradley/Chelsea Manning yet, whom I greatly respect--much more so than Snowden or Assange.