5 ms·
Sure that could be the person "at risk". Could also be the guy behind having US troops guard the opium fields of pedophiles during a opioid epidemic
by willcipriano 3y ago
Sure that could be the person "at risk".
Could also be the guy behind having US troops guard the opium fields of pedophiles during a opioid epidemic
- hylaride 3y agoThat's my original point. Assange/Wikileaks made little, if any, distinction between an American mid-level diplomat that's stationed at an embassy sending intel on the mistresses, corruption, or misdeeds of the local leadership and the genuine terrible things that were covered up and arguably should have been leaked. Leaking government misdeeds is whistle-blowing and has legal and moral justifications (and when wikileaks first arrived on the scene I was 100% supportive of it). Leaking troves of generic government data that's unrelated to any misdeeds, is a crime. Assange, for a host of reasons, decided to do the latter and is now in a FAFO situation.
- willcipriano 3y agoThe leaks Assange provided proved a great deal of willing and intentional illegal activity by the government. It exposed several instances of officials lying to congress, it exposed a spying program that is not only unconstitutional but wiretapping in that manner is itself illegal. Nobody went to jail. The only people who go to jail for government malfeasance are the people who expose it (Manning, Snowden). That is nonsense, We can all just ignore the "rule of law" if that's how its going to be.