5 ms·

>I think the administration badly, badly mishandled [whistleblowers] Yes, but by design. Other than passing lip service towards transparency. The fact is Obama

>I think the administration badly, badly mishandled [whistleblowers] Yes, but by design. Other than passing lip service towards transparency. The fact is Obama admin actively sought to silence them. I know this isn’t popular because HN won’t want to hear anything bad about Obama, but it’s a fact. In the seven years of Obama's presidency, the administration launched a record number of cases against those who revealed what the government wanted kept secret. Under Obama, eight whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the World War I-era Espionage Act, more than under all other presidents combined. Sources abound; pick your favorite.

chiefalchemist 7y ago
Yeah. Never post any facts about the BHO admin on HN or you'll be down-voted. It's amazing how many people have been sucked into the smooth and confident talk (and the complete lack then of media fueled outrage). Too many people's confirmation bais forces them to forget that actions speak louder than words. If DJT did even half of the questionable things BHO did there would be blood in the streets. Point that out? Down vote!!! God bless George Orwell. The guy nailed it.
- rosser 7y ago
  To be clear, I downvoted both your and your parent's comments, not for saying disparaging things about Obama, his record, his hawkishness (many of which criticisms I quite eagree with), or anything otherwise negative about him, but rather for saying that HN is a place where that stuff is wrongthink. Disagreement isn't persecution.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    So you downvoted _my_ experience? -Time and again? On NH? Because my experience is "wrong"? Oh. I see. I wish had a reply for that but I can't even get my head wrapped around the irony and the absurdity.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - rosser 7y ago
      You might be having trouble wrapping your head around the thing, because the thing you're trying to wrap your head around is completely different from what I said. To be clear, then: I did not downvote your experience. (I'm not even sure what that means. Can you explain?) I downvoted the counterfactual conclusion that you've drawn from your experience, and then crowed condemningly at the community.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    > "...disparaging things about Obama..." When we start using the word disparaging to describe facts and truth we are ALL in a lot of trouble. So as well-meaning as you believe you might have been with your downvote, you wording has only confirmed the general problem / bias. Irony that just pointing these things out will get more DVs is Chapelle-funny.
    - rosser 7y ago
      So the part where I actually agree with many of the concerns about the man and his administration is ... what? Noise? Doesn't matter, because I didn't use the "right" word? Real talk: we haven't even begun unpacking the ironies here, dude. EDIT: No, that's not an invitation. This conversation isn't going anywhere useful to anyone, and I have both a meeting, and deadlines. Have a good day.
      - chiefalchemist 7y ago
        There you go again. It was you who used the word disparaging, not me. Plenty of words to pick. You picked that one. I point out that truth. I point out how that further proves the point I and the parent were making. You get all bias'ed and upset (read: subjective) and try to paint me and the facts as the bad guy. Don't you recognize the downward spiral of your "logic"? Thx for taking the time to vindicate the original theory (on NH "inconsistencies").
        rosser 7y ago
        Okay, then. Why is "disparaging" such a terrible word to have picked? Let's start there, and we'll our way 'round to logical "downward spirals"...
treypitt 7y ago
Agreed. one of the most illuminating aspects of the Obama administration was the divergence between great tolerance for corporate whistleblowers on the one hand, and animosity toward government whistleblowers on the other. Also, people cite the "more than any other administration" argument frequently, especially in media, but rarely think to mention the small sample size. nice work!
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Yea, there is a special handling of that whole line. More than any other administration - doesn’t seem like much. And the qualifier that we’re talking about 8 makes it seem less important. However, those 8 people also the qualifier of “combined” where the sum of people charged with espionage until Obama was less than 8 people total, and then he comes in and exceeds that. No one should believe that from 2008-2016 we had some resurgence of traitors to the country. Just people charged as such in most cases for doing the right thing overall.
knightofmars 7y ago
To put my views into this perspective. Am I glad that Snowden and others leaked information on government programs? Yes. That said, I think it's amusing when people need to call out "Under president <whomever>'s administration..." as if it makes a point by itself and implies something directly about the president that was named. Let's not pretend here, that's exactly what you were doing. Using this same logic, I hope you blame George W. Bush's administration entirely for the 2008 recession. I want to be clear, I'm not pretending that the sitting president's policy decisions and other influences don't have an effect. But inherited legacy, context, and the surrounding details play a huge role in how these things play out. First, the people you are talking about (Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Chelsea Manning, Donald Sachtleben, Stephen Kim, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden) all have different circumstances surrounding their cases. Second, they all stepped forward roughly around 2009 and later. Most gathered the information they leaked between 2000 and 2008 working on programs for the CIA and NSA. They all leaked information that wasn't supposed to be leaked. The default in our government is to handle that with punitive measures. If they had stepped forward during any other presidency would the outcome have been the same? Yes. Third, alluding to some sort of hypocrisy with regards to transparency when talking about intelligence programs initiated by the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc is ironic. Just because an administration wanted to embrace transparency doesn't mean it's fine to free-for-all leak information from those agencies.
- areyousure 7y ago
  > They all leaked information that wasn't supposed to be leaked. What did Thomas Drake leak that wasn't supposed to be leaked? > If they had stepped forward during any other presidency would the outcome have been the same? Yes. Kiriakou in fact stepped forward in December 2007. The Justice Department under Bush did not pursue him, and it was explicitly the Justice Department under the Obama administration that did so. Similarly, Jeffrey Alexander Sterling was in contact with a journalist during the period 2002--2004 (for a book published in January 2006), but his prosecution was also led by the Obama administration.
  - knightofmars 7y ago
    > What did Thomas Drake leak that wasn't supposed to be leaked? He leaked information classified as "secret". Additionally he leaked unclassified information of which some of it was classified as "Unclassified—For Official Use Only" which means it is not supposed to be given to the public and is intended for internal or law enforcement use only. > Kiriakou in fact stepped forward in December 2007. The Justice Department under Bush did not pursue him, and it was explicitly the Justice Department under the Obama administration that did so. I'm not going to disagree here. For whatever reason, the CIA brought this case back in 2012 and asked for it to be pursued. >Similarly, Jeffrey Alexander Sterling was in contact with a journalist during the period 2002--2004 (for a book published in January 2006), but his prosecution was also led by the Obama administration. The Bush administration sent (the journalist) James Risen a subpoena on January 24, 2008. The leak investigation surrounding Sterling didn't come to a culmination until 2010. The investigation started in 2003, under Bush.

chiefalchemist 7y ago

Yeah. Never post any facts about the BHO admin on HN or you'll be down-voted. It's amazing how many people have been sucked into the smooth and confident talk (and the complete lack then of media fueled outrage). Too many people's confirmation bais forces them to forget that actions speak louder than words. If DJT did even half of the questionable things BHO did there would be blood in the streets. Point that out? Down vote!!! God bless George Orwell. The guy nailed it.

rosser 7y ago
To be clear, I downvoted both your and your parent's comments, not for saying disparaging things about Obama, his record, his hawkishness (many of which criticisms I quite eagree with), or anything otherwise negative about him, but rather for saying that HN is a place where that stuff is wrongthink. Disagreement isn't persecution.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  So you downvoted _my_ experience? -Time and again? On NH? Because my experience is "wrong"? Oh. I see. I wish had a reply for that but I can't even get my head wrapped around the irony and the absurdity.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rosser 7y ago
    You might be having trouble wrapping your head around the thing, because the thing you're trying to wrap your head around is completely different from what I said. To be clear, then: I did not downvote your experience. (I'm not even sure what that means. Can you explain?) I downvoted the counterfactual conclusion that you've drawn from your experience, and then crowed condemningly at the community.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  > "...disparaging things about Obama..." When we start using the word disparaging to describe facts and truth we are ALL in a lot of trouble. So as well-meaning as you believe you might have been with your downvote, you wording has only confirmed the general problem / bias. Irony that just pointing these things out will get more DVs is Chapelle-funny.
  - rosser 7y ago
    So the part where I actually agree with many of the concerns about the man and his administration is ... what? Noise? Doesn't matter, because I didn't use the "right" word? Real talk: we haven't even begun unpacking the ironies here, dude. EDIT: No, that's not an invitation. This conversation isn't going anywhere useful to anyone, and I have both a meeting, and deadlines. Have a good day.
    - chiefalchemist 7y ago
      There you go again. It was you who used the word disparaging, not me. Plenty of words to pick. You picked that one. I point out that truth. I point out how that further proves the point I and the parent were making. You get all bias'ed and upset (read: subjective) and try to paint me and the facts as the bad guy. Don't you recognize the downward spiral of your "logic"? Thx for taking the time to vindicate the original theory (on NH "inconsistencies").
      - rosser 7y ago
        Okay, then. Why is "disparaging" such a terrible word to have picked? Let's start there, and we'll our way 'round to logical "downward spirals"...

treypitt 7y ago

Agreed. one of the most illuminating aspects of the Obama administration was the divergence between great tolerance for corporate whistleblowers on the one hand, and animosity toward government whistleblowers on the other. Also, people cite the "more than any other administration" argument frequently, especially in media, but rarely think to mention the small sample size. nice work!

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Yea, there is a special handling of that whole line. More than any other administration - doesn’t seem like much. And the qualifier that we’re talking about 8 makes it seem less important. However, those 8 people also the qualifier of “combined” where the sum of people charged with espionage until Obama was less than 8 people total, and then he comes in and exceeds that. No one should believe that from 2008-2016 we had some resurgence of traitors to the country. Just people charged as such in most cases for doing the right thing overall.

knightofmars 7y ago

To put my views into this perspective. Am I glad that Snowden and others leaked information on government programs? Yes. That said, I think it's amusing when people need to call out "Under president <whomever>'s administration..." as if it makes a point by itself and implies something directly about the president that was named. Let's not pretend here, that's exactly what you were doing. Using this same logic, I hope you blame George W. Bush's administration entirely for the 2008 recession. I want to be clear, I'm not pretending that the sitting president's policy decisions and other influences don't have an effect. But inherited legacy, context, and the surrounding details play a huge role in how these things play out. First, the people you are talking about (Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Chelsea Manning, Donald Sachtleben, Stephen Kim, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden) all have different circumstances surrounding their cases. Second, they all stepped forward roughly around 2009 and later. Most gathered the information they leaked between 2000 and 2008 working on programs for the CIA and NSA. They all leaked information that wasn't supposed to be leaked. The default in our government is to handle that with punitive measures. If they had stepped forward during any other presidency would the outcome have been the same? Yes. Third, alluding to some sort of hypocrisy with regards to transparency when talking about intelligence programs initiated by the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc is ironic. Just because an administration wanted to embrace transparency doesn't mean it's fine to free-for-all leak information from those agencies.

areyousure 7y ago
> They all leaked information that wasn't supposed to be leaked. What did Thomas Drake leak that wasn't supposed to be leaked? > If they had stepped forward during any other presidency would the outcome have been the same? Yes. Kiriakou in fact stepped forward in December 2007. The Justice Department under Bush did not pursue him, and it was explicitly the Justice Department under the Obama administration that did so. Similarly, Jeffrey Alexander Sterling was in contact with a journalist during the period 2002--2004 (for a book published in January 2006), but his prosecution was also led by the Obama administration.
- knightofmars 7y ago
  > What did Thomas Drake leak that wasn't supposed to be leaked? He leaked information classified as "secret". Additionally he leaked unclassified information of which some of it was classified as "Unclassified—For Official Use Only" which means it is not supposed to be given to the public and is intended for internal or law enforcement use only. > Kiriakou in fact stepped forward in December 2007. The Justice Department under Bush did not pursue him, and it was explicitly the Justice Department under the Obama administration that did so. I'm not going to disagree here. For whatever reason, the CIA brought this case back in 2012 and asked for it to be pursued. >Similarly, Jeffrey Alexander Sterling was in contact with a journalist during the period 2002--2004 (for a book published in January 2006), but his prosecution was also led by the Obama administration. The Bush administration sent (the journalist) James Risen a subpoena on January 24, 2008. The leak investigation surrounding Sterling didn't come to a culmination until 2010. The investigation started in 2003, under Bush.