The Clinton Thread II - Part 2

[Anita18]

So Asange bad, Snowden good?

http://www.afr.com/technology/web/s...-snowden-leaks-will-cost-lives-20140507-itzi8

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-fugitives-leaks-intelligence-operations.html

Snowden didn't leak the documents himself, he passed them on to journalists who he trusted to redact and leak only the non-identifying ones.

Assange leaks everything now. (Wikileaks used to go through journalists too, now they just publicize everything themselves.) He even said that he does not care if US Afghan informants get killed because of his leaks.

So yes, Assange bad, Snowden good.

 

[DeadPresident]

One is being awfully cavalier with American lives. How does the line go..."Threats both foreign and domestic", right?

 

[Schlosser85]

Yep, which is why I don't care if Hillary wanted to drone strike Assange.

 

[chaseter]

Snowden didn't leak the documents himself, he passed them on to journalists who he trusted to redact and leak only the non-identifying ones.

Assange leaks everything now. (Wikileaks used to go through journalists too, now they just publicize everything themselves.) He even said that he does not care if US Afghan informants get killed because of his leaks.

So yes, Assange bad, Snowden good.

Snowden leaked it all to the press. He didn't take the time to redact or leak only things that matter without endangering lives. He is just as irresponsible. The only difference is Asange is a large, repugnant rat. Snowden is a scared little rat. Both are rats that no one would miss. Ironically, they also look like rats.

 

[Anita18]

Snowden leaked it all to the press. He didn't take the time to redact or leak only things that matter without endangering lives. He is just as irresponsible. The only difference is Asange is a large, repugnant rat. Snowden is a scared little rat. Both are rats that no one would miss. Ironically, they also look like rats.

That's your interpretation about what Snowden did. What most journalists recognize is that Snowden didn't know what information would be harmful (he was a cybersecurity expert, not a political analyst), which is why he passed the documents to journalists who were more knowledgeable about it, then they publicized it with redactions.

What Assange did was that he publicized it all, without redactions. He didn't care to have other people go through it to okay it.

 

[Marvolo]

Snowden leaked it all to the press. He didn't take the time to redact or leak only things that matter without endangering lives. He is just as irresponsible. The only difference is Asange is a large, repugnant rat. Snowden is a scared little rat. Both are rats that no one would miss. Ironically, they also look like rats.

Thats why snowden sent it to the press. The press has teams who have the job of going through data and determining what can or cant be released. There would have been no sense for Snowden to attempt to redact anything. He isnt even qualified to determine that. Ans unlike the press he can't just follow sources and investigate. The press is protected in ways a hacker isnt. And he is only one man. The press are much more equipped to sort through that data than Snowden or Assange. So no Snowden is not equally responsible. He did the right thing sending it to the press.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Yep, which is why I don't care if Hillary wanted to drone strike Assange.

So you don't care that she wanted to possibly drone strike someone who's only leaked information like a terrorist who's actually killed people? That seems a bit far and heavy-handed.

 

[Marvolo]

So you don't care that she wanted to possibly drone strike someone who's only leaked information like a terrorist who's actually killed people? That seems a bit far and heavy-handed.

Did you read what was posted by Orba on the last page?

Here is a bit of it:

A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."

If Assange leaks info knowing that it will kill our informants and continues to leak info that kills americans and allies then the military can reduce him to his base atoms for all I care. Shove a bunker buster right up his albino ass.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Snowden is a traitor. He may have disclosed crimes, but by defecting to Russia, America's archenemy and a state with an abhorrent human rights record, he has abandoned any moral legitimacy he might have had.

 

[Marvolo]

Snowden is a traitor. He may have disclosed crimes, but by fleeing to Russia, America's archenemy and a state with an abhorrent human rights record, he has abandoned any moral legitimacy he might have had.

And why is any of that his fault or responsibility or concern? Why does going to russia make him more of a traitor than if he went to another country that would refuse an extradition order?

You're telling me if you were in his shoes you would have not went to Russia because of its human rights record and its history with the US. Really?

 

[Thundercrack85]

And why is any of that his fault or responsibility or concern? Why does going to russia make him more of a traitor than if he went to another country that would refuse an extradition order?

He's given our archenemy a PR coup and undermined America's international standing by defecting with classified intel. At best it makes him look like a hypocrite, at worst, he is a double agent.

More importantly, we have no idea what he has given them. If this were the Cold War he would be executed for being a spy.

 

[Infinity9999x]

He's given our archenemy a PR coup and undermined America's international standing by defecting with classified intel. At best it makes him look like a hypocrite, at worst, he is a double agent.

More importantly, we have no idea what he has given them. If this were the Cold War he would be executed for being a spy.

Russia may have been our archenemy from the 50s to the late 80s, but now? They're one of many. They're not the top threat anymore though. China is far more powerful and potentially dangerous than they are. Though we aren't as openly antagonistic with China as we were with Russia.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Russia may have been our archenemy from the 50s to the late 80s, but now? They're one of many. They're not the top threat anymore though. China is far more powerful and potentially dangerous than they are. Though we aren't as openly antagonistic with China as we were with Russia.

You only have one archenemy, and it remains Russia. China is neither friend nor foe, and its more concerned with its immediate surroundings than competing with the US for global dominance (though check back in a few years, and things might be different).

Russia still has most of its nuclear arsenal pointed at America. Right now we are waging a proxy war with them in Syria. The Cold War never ended in Putin's eyes, there was simply an intermission. Just look at Europe. We are on the brink of going back to nuclear brinkmanship, especially in light of Russia defying the Budapest Memorandum (invading Ukraine, and annexing Crimea). Now Putin has torn up a nuclear treaty. They are building a whole new generation of ICBMs.

ISIS is a sideshow.

As long as the Russians sit on 4,500 nuclear weapons designed to obliterate the West, they will always be the archenemy.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

He's given our archenemy a PR coup and undermined America's international standing by defecting with classified intel. At best it makes him look like a hypocrite, at worst, he is a double agent.

More importantly, we have no idea what he has given them. If this were the Cold War he would be executed for being a spy.

The problem here is the US would throw him in a jail cell for the rest of his life for doing the right thing. For exposing things to public they deserved to know. However he needed to protect himself, I have no problem with. Especially as what has happened with Chelsea Manning.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The problem here is the US would throw him in a jail cell for the rest of his life for doing the right thing. For exposing things to public they deserved to know. However he needed to protect himself, I have no problem with. Especially as what has happened with Chelsea Manning.

See, I think if he turned himself in, he could have won over the public. But by defecting to Russia, he's essentially painting himself a traitor. Many Americans believe he did the right thing in spite of defecting. Stay and fight a legal battle, and the Obama administration might be forced to cave.

That said, I don't think you can equate him with Bradley Manning. Manning was a soldier, and leaked information to a foreign third party, a lot of it which had nothing to do with extrajudicial domestic surveillance. They can't let that go unpunished. Though for the record, I am surprised with how harshly Obama has dealt with Manning given what a weak image he projects as a leader. I guess they had to make an example out of someone.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

See, I think if he turned himself in, he could have won over the public. But by defecting to Russia, he's essentially painting himself a traitor. Many Americans believe he did the right thing in spite of defecting. Stay and fight a legal battle, and the Obama administration might be forced to cave.

That said, I don't think you can equate him with Bradley Manning. Manning was a soldier, and leaked information to a foreign third party, a lot of it which had nothing to do with extrajudicial domestic surveillance. They can't let that go unpunished. Though for the record, I am surprised with how harshly Obama has dealt with Manning given what a weak image he projects as a leader.

Winning over the public would not have kept him from prison for life. And again, I also disagree on the Manning story. None of this stuff needs to be leaked if we aren't doing it in the first place.

Also it is no longer Bradley. It is Chelsea.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Winning over the public would not have kept him from prison for life. And again, I also disagree on the Manning story. None of this stuff needs to be leaked if we aren't doing it in the first place.

Also it is no longer Bradley. It is Chelsea.

I disagree. But rather irrelevant since Snowden defected.

As for Manning, you cannot dump thousands of legitimate military secrets and expect to get off scot-free. Manning knew that going in, and he has to face some consequences. I am sure he will get a pardon, or a commuted sentence eventually. Not sure if Obama is going to budge though.

 

[Schlosser85]

Actually considering her "suicide attempt" and then solitary confinement (which is only likely to exacerbate her suicidal tendencies, if they exist), I think the Army is trying to kill Manning.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Actually considering her "suicide attempt" and then solitary confinement (which is only likely to exacerbate her suicidal tendencies, if they exist), I think the Army is trying to kill Manning.

A distinct possibility. A lot of military personnel unsurprisingly want Manning to hang.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So proving Manning right. Amazing really.

 

[Thundercrack85]

50 years ago, Manning would have been executed for this.

From what I remember reading, Manning, or Bradass87 was seeking attention. I don't see him as a whistleblower in the traditional sense. Though he does seem to have been psychologically compromised, so I think some leniency might be in order.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

50 years ago, Manning would have been executed for this.

From what I remember reading, Manning, or Bradass87 was seeking attention. I don't see him as a whistleblower in the traditional sense. Though he does seem to have been psychologically compromised, so I think some leniency might be in order.

"She".

And 50 years ago it would have been wrong, just like it is wrong now. Doesn't really change anything. Any prosecution for those who actually committed war crimes?

 

[Thundercrack85]

"She".

And 50 years ago it would have been wrong, just like it is wrong now. Doesn't really change anything. Any prosecution for those who actually committed war crimes?

Play this out Darth. Manning releases a whole trove of secrets to a foreign entity, compromises US military assets, including jeopardizing people in the field. Yes, there's some legitimately ****ed up stuff in there, but most of it is uncontroversial, but very sensitive intel. He gets a slap on the wrist. What message does that send?

Now, if Manning had only released let's say that video of that gunship killing those reporters or reports of body counts, or a mix of that, you got yourself a case. But he didn't. He released seven hundred thousand documents.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I just had this weird feeling of deja vu. I think I've had this conversation before.

Found it!

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=30284807&postcount=185

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Play this out Darth. Manning releases a whole trove of secrets to a foreign entity, compromises US military assets, including jeopardizing people in the field. Yes, there's some legitimately ****ed up stuff in there, but most of it is uncontroversial, but very sensitive intel. He gets a slap on the wrist. What message does that send?

Now, if Manning had only released let's say that video of that gunship killing those reporters or reports of body counts, or a mix of that, you got yourself a case. But he didn't. He released seven hundred thousand documents.

What message does it send that we cover up war crimes? Why is the major concern with those that leak as opposed to those who do the actual actions? You act like she was Benedict Arnold, while we have people actually killing innocent human beings.

Also, why must you continue to use male pronouns?