6 ms·

I know, and this is why it would have gained him so much respect in my eyes. I think it's possible to both recognize the importance of intelligence agencies, a

by blhack 8y ago

I know, and this is why it would have gained him so much respect in my eyes. I think it's possible to both recognize the importance of intelligence agencies, and recognize why whistleblowing should be discouraged, but at the same time recognize the patriotism required to do it anyway. Giving these people the Medal of Freedom, to me, would have been an acknowledgment of that. "Yeah, you shouldn't have done that, but you did it anyway, and you deserve to be recognized for that." "I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it" and all that.

res0nat0r 8y ago
If Assange is going to get anything from the USA is extradited to it and charged with trading in knowingly stolen material to undermine the candidate of the 2016 election he didn't like. Based on what was in the last Mueller indictment we'll see what happens between the US and the UK.
- scottmf 8y ago
  Yeah, Assange is no hero. His communications with Trump Jr and the leaked Wikileaks chats make that clear—as well as his meetings with people like Nigel Farage and Dana Rohrabacher. Assange has had a very clear agenda for some time now.
  - resters 8y ago
    If you were Assange and you were trying to convince Trump Jr to hand over documents to you, would you pretend to be indifferent about the outcome of the election? Assange wants to help reveal any secret information that will help fix the many problems stemming from secrecy and corruption of governments and institutions. Every one of his actions have supported that mission. The focus on Assange's alleged political views and his personal life are an attempt to "shoot the messenger". We should really be 99% concerned with the information that was leaked and at most 1% concerned with anything about Assange's personality.
    - kej 8y ago
      WikiLeaks sat on Manafort's group sex and blood money texts, but released Podesta's emails less than an hour after the Access Hollywood tape was published. His agenda was more than an act to get on Don Jr.'s good side.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        Podesta’s emails had proof of the Clinton campaign colluding with the media. You can not compare that with details of Manafort’s private life. It’s clear why one would be in the public’s interest to learn about and the other is just gossip.
        oxide 8y ago
        Wikileaks is no arbiter of what is and what is not relevant to the interest of the public. If they choose to sit on information, they have an agenda, IMO.
        malvosenior 8y ago
        It doesn’t matter if they have an agenda (which has definitely not been proven). It’s good that they get any information to the public. The Podesta emails were extremely valuable to the public, they had a right to know that the DNC was in bed with the media. Whatever else didn’t get leaked doesn’t matter. That info needed to be made public.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        >WikiLeaks sat on... Source for them "sitting on" time sensitive material?
  - mancerayder 8y ago
    Assange has had a very clear agenda for some time now. I thought his agenda was exposing privacy violations and the implications for authoritarian snooping without cause. But it smells like you wanted to say something else and ran out of time while writing that comment?
    - belltaco 8y ago
      >I thought his agenda was exposing privacy violations and the implications for authoritarian snooping without cause. Keyword 'was'. In the run to the election after it, it became all about hating on one political party, colluding with the other, and influencing the election.
GW150914 8y ago
If I were Snowden I’d be really pissed to be in the same breath as Assange. Snowden gave up a good life to tell people about pervasive monitoring, while Asange was always a relentless self-promoter and scumbag who tried to have his cake and eat it too.
- mc32 8y ago
  Snowden isn’t without culpability. Yes it was patritic to illuminate the spying on Americans citizens etc., but he also revealed some things which i think he should not have. Most people were in agreement with Wikipedia leaks until they thought he hrlped a political candidate they disagreed with. If Snowden tomorrow released some information which hurts Dems, I’m convinced hidden pitchforks woul come out from hiding too. Same for Repubs
- slg 8y ago
  I agree, it really is a disservice for people to lump them all together. Whisleblowing is an important act and it needs to be protected. But there is more to whisleblowing then just revealing secrets. Snowden handled things better than Manning by being more focused in what was revealed and filtering things through journalists. Both of them are worlds better than Assange. Lumping them together will only help turn people with legitimate gripes against Assange against people like Snowden and Manning.
  - resters 8y ago
    I'd argue that Snowden's leaks would have been better sent to Wikileaks. We've seen perhaps 5% of the information, and much of the illegal behavior is likely still going on. The only hope that US intel agencies have to redeem themselves as working toward the interests of the people and not against them is to be totally transparent about all illegal behavior and to undergo a full audit to stop all of it.
    - slg 8y ago
      Which is exactly my point. Whistleblowing shouldn't be done with a shotgun approach that reveals all secrets. Every piece of information should be reviewed and judged in a vacuum as to whether there is a benefit to the public for it to be revealed. Wikileaks just releases everything and doesn't care about the public value or any negative results from that release. That isn't whistleblowing. You are free to agree politically with Wikileaks, but don't pretend it is something it is not. That only ends up hurting the real whistleblowers.
intrasight 8y ago
Well spoken. Thanks.
eeeuo 8y ago
Leaking secrets is not a freedom of speech issue. I would agree with you if Snowden narrowly leaked the details of the PRISM program. I think if he did that he would have been a genuine hero. But he didn't. He downloaded as much secret information as he could, and gave them to organizations that were openly hostile to American interests. Consider the level of detail of methods and sources in the information leaked by Snowden. I think one would have to be extremely naive to believe that Russia and China did not get their hands on the Snowden leaks very quickly(and that's the most charitable interpretation). Therefore, the leaks weakened the US's geopolitical position and improved the position of their rivals. For a command-in-chief to reward a person who did that with a Medal of Freedom would be a truly baffling choice.
- bachbach 8y ago
  You may correct me if you know better, but I have not seen any information that was leaked that I didn't imagine Russia or China already being very aware of. Was this information revealed to only Russia/China and kept from journalists? If so how do you know about it?
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    "They probably already know about it" seems like a weird standard to use for answering the question of if making a particular state secret public harms the National interest.
    - bachbach 8y ago
      That is an issue of reputation or PR.
- Buge 8y ago
  Did Snowden give is data to organizations that were hostile to the US? I thought he gave it to journalists, and let them censor as they saw fit.
- na85 8y ago
  >organizations that were openly hostile to American interests. Exactly which organizations are you referring to?
alexandercrohde 8y ago
> and recognize why whistleblowing should be discouraged It drives me nuts that whistle-blower has become a bad word. It is by definition good. The government has made laws to pay people for whistle-blowing, to help reduce corruption. Definition of whistle-blowing: * a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity. So if you catch Nixon breaking into the DNC and you report it, you're whistle-blowing (and the greatest hero possible). If you publish random private information online, that is merely leaking.

by blhack 8y ago

res0nat0r 8y ago

If Assange is going to get anything from the USA is extradited to it and charged with trading in knowingly stolen material to undermine the candidate of the 2016 election he didn't like. Based on what was in the last Mueller indictment we'll see what happens between the US and the UK.

scottmf 8y ago
Yeah, Assange is no hero. His communications with Trump Jr and the leaked Wikileaks chats make that clear—as well as his meetings with people like Nigel Farage and Dana Rohrabacher. Assange has had a very clear agenda for some time now.
- resters 8y ago
  If you were Assange and you were trying to convince Trump Jr to hand over documents to you, would you pretend to be indifferent about the outcome of the election? Assange wants to help reveal any secret information that will help fix the many problems stemming from secrecy and corruption of governments and institutions. Every one of his actions have supported that mission. The focus on Assange's alleged political views and his personal life are an attempt to "shoot the messenger". We should really be 99% concerned with the information that was leaked and at most 1% concerned with anything about Assange's personality.
  - kej 8y ago
    WikiLeaks sat on Manafort's group sex and blood money texts, but released Podesta's emails less than an hour after the Access Hollywood tape was published. His agenda was more than an act to get on Don Jr.'s good side.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      Podesta’s emails had proof of the Clinton campaign colluding with the media. You can not compare that with details of Manafort’s private life. It’s clear why one would be in the public’s interest to learn about and the other is just gossip.
      - oxide 8y ago
        Wikileaks is no arbiter of what is and what is not relevant to the interest of the public. If they choose to sit on information, they have an agenda, IMO.
        malvosenior 8y ago
        It doesn’t matter if they have an agenda (which has definitely not been proven). It’s good that they get any information to the public. The Podesta emails were extremely valuable to the public, they had a right to know that the DNC was in bed with the media. Whatever else didn’t get leaked doesn’t matter. That info needed to be made public.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      >WikiLeaks sat on... Source for them "sitting on" time sensitive material?
- mancerayder 8y ago
  Assange has had a very clear agenda for some time now. I thought his agenda was exposing privacy violations and the implications for authoritarian snooping without cause. But it smells like you wanted to say something else and ran out of time while writing that comment?
  - belltaco 8y ago
    >I thought his agenda was exposing privacy violations and the implications for authoritarian snooping without cause. Keyword 'was'. In the run to the election after it, it became all about hating on one political party, colluding with the other, and influencing the election.

GW150914 8y ago

If I were Snowden I’d be really pissed to be in the same breath as Assange. Snowden gave up a good life to tell people about pervasive monitoring, while Asange was always a relentless self-promoter and scumbag who tried to have his cake and eat it too.

mc32 8y ago
Snowden isn’t without culpability. Yes it was patritic to illuminate the spying on Americans citizens etc., but he also revealed some things which i think he should not have. Most people were in agreement with Wikipedia leaks until they thought he hrlped a political candidate they disagreed with. If Snowden tomorrow released some information which hurts Dems, I’m convinced hidden pitchforks woul come out from hiding too. Same for Repubs
slg 8y ago
I agree, it really is a disservice for people to lump them all together. Whisleblowing is an important act and it needs to be protected. But there is more to whisleblowing then just revealing secrets. Snowden handled things better than Manning by being more focused in what was revealed and filtering things through journalists. Both of them are worlds better than Assange. Lumping them together will only help turn people with legitimate gripes against Assange against people like Snowden and Manning.
- resters 8y ago
  I'd argue that Snowden's leaks would have been better sent to Wikileaks. We've seen perhaps 5% of the information, and much of the illegal behavior is likely still going on. The only hope that US intel agencies have to redeem themselves as working toward the interests of the people and not against them is to be totally transparent about all illegal behavior and to undergo a full audit to stop all of it.
  - slg 8y ago
    Which is exactly my point. Whistleblowing shouldn't be done with a shotgun approach that reveals all secrets. Every piece of information should be reviewed and judged in a vacuum as to whether there is a benefit to the public for it to be revealed. Wikileaks just releases everything and doesn't care about the public value or any negative results from that release. That isn't whistleblowing. You are free to agree politically with Wikileaks, but don't pretend it is something it is not. That only ends up hurting the real whistleblowers.

intrasight 8y ago

Well spoken. Thanks.

eeeuo 8y ago

Leaking secrets is not a freedom of speech issue. I would agree with you if Snowden narrowly leaked the details of the PRISM program. I think if he did that he would have been a genuine hero. But he didn't. He downloaded as much secret information as he could, and gave them to organizations that were openly hostile to American interests. Consider the level of detail of methods and sources in the information leaked by Snowden. I think one would have to be extremely naive to believe that Russia and China did not get their hands on the Snowden leaks very quickly(and that's the most charitable interpretation). Therefore, the leaks weakened the US's geopolitical position and improved the position of their rivals. For a command-in-chief to reward a person who did that with a Medal of Freedom would be a truly baffling choice.

bachbach 8y ago
You may correct me if you know better, but I have not seen any information that was leaked that I didn't imagine Russia or China already being very aware of. Was this information revealed to only Russia/China and kept from journalists? If so how do you know about it?
- remarkEon 8y ago
  "They probably already know about it" seems like a weird standard to use for answering the question of if making a particular state secret public harms the National interest.
  - bachbach 8y ago
    That is an issue of reputation or PR.
Buge 8y ago
Did Snowden give is data to organizations that were hostile to the US? I thought he gave it to journalists, and let them censor as they saw fit.
na85 8y ago
>organizations that were openly hostile to American interests. Exactly which organizations are you referring to?

alexandercrohde 8y ago

> and recognize why whistleblowing should be discouraged It drives me nuts that whistle-blower has become a bad word. It is by definition good. The government has made laws to pay people for whistle-blowing, to help reduce corruption. Definition of whistle-blowing: * a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity. So if you catch Nixon breaking into the DNC and you report it, you're whistle-blowing (and the greatest hero possible). If you publish random private information online, that is merely leaking.