The General US Politics Thread

Don't think this is the appropriate thread mate.

That more or less.

edited 15th Jan '18 5:59:07 PM by TroperOnAStickV2

Come to think of it, she could have mentioned that more often in her ad. Campaign on a platform for defending LGBTQ rights.

edited 15th Jan '18 6:01:48 PM by M84

But nobody has even disagreed with you on that. We all agree she shouldn't win, we all know she won't win the primary. So why are we still going on about it two days later?

Lack of other news I suspect, or at least another topic to go on about.

I just find it telling that even people on her side in this thread don't think she can or even should win.

Nope, I support whistle blowers, I don't support them keeping there government positions though, there is a trade off involved here, and needs to be to keep the system working because government secrets are also important.

So what you have is a setup where some one needs to decide if what there going to whistle-blow about is really worth there future livelihood, and that is kinda the way it should be.....

She shouldn't be any where near a government position ever again.

There's what I call a "Legality Paradox" to this sort of thing: People should disobey immoral laws. At the same time, the government has no right to let people get away with breaking laws.

So with whistleblowers: one man's whistleblower is another man's traitor. Loose lips sink ships, and yet the truth does need to be exposed. The government has no right to distinguish between the two.

Think of it this way: "Just doing what I think is right" isn't necessarily a better defense than "Just following orders".

edited 15th Jan '18 7:00:01 PM by Protagonist506

There is a decisive difference between a whistleblower and a common criminal who leaks information; Manning is the latter. We just discussed this in the Assange thread-a whistlerblower has protections under the law, and what they do is legal-they are explicitly protected from any reprisal or threat thereof, including prosecution. In order to qualify, there are procedures to be followed and obligations to be upheld, which is why whistleblowers retain lawyers to make sure it is done right.

The wikipedia page has some good links: [1]. Manning did not follow these procedures, so she is a criminal rather than a whistleblower. If you want more info, you can read the link and the last couple pages in the Assange thread, starting here: [2].

edited 15th Jan '18 7:25:20 PM by ViperMagnum357

I stand corrected, then

Aren't procedures designed in such a way as to make it impossible for a whistleblower to actually reveal anything damning? Besides, I'm sure that if someone with information against the US government tried to follow "procedure" they'd quickly find themselves on the business end of pistol.

And people keep keep talking about the innocents thrown in harm's way, what innocents? The soliders who committed war crimes? The foreign governments lying to their people and kowtowing to US demands? And as far as any soldiers or informants in the Iraq war being killed in retaliation, well, that's what happens when you decide to take part in an imperialist war.

The Jewish residents of Baghdad spring to mind, also did you seriously just say that people deserve to die for fighting against AQ? Informing on terrorists is a bad thing now?

And no the US doesn’t just shoot people that try to whistleblow, it most likely does often (when their concerns aren’t considered reasonable by people higher up) tie them up in red tape, revoke their security clearance for ‘unrelated’ reasons and make sure that they have no evidance to back up their accusations.

The US government isn’t actually a cartoon villain, nor is everyone fighting against it good.

edited 15th Jan '18 7:36:44 PM by Silasw

This, so very much this.

As said, the US government is far more likely to tie whistleblowers up with red tape and discredit them in the courtroom and the press rather than go with bullets. It's not the Kremlin.

Right, forgive me for not trusting the goverment that dosed its own citizens with LSD, and various more lethal drug cocktails, or gave them syphilis, or killed civil rights protesters to not just shoot some one for whistle-blowing.

What was I thinking, there not the Russians, so surely they wouldn't just kill some one.

edited 15th Jan '18 7:43:46 PM by Imca

This. Here is a list of prominent whistleblowers, including many who reported nefarious crap by various branches of the US government; [1]. Lot of people on there making the US government look very bad, and the ones that went to prison are the ones that went from whistleblower to criminal.

edited 15th Jan '18 7:39:29 PM by ViperMagnum357

The US executive couldn’t hide a hotel break in when it tried, I don’t know why people think it would be able to suppress a massive murder campaign against anyone who tried to raise ethics concerns about conduct.

You know what probably happens most of the time? The person either has things explained to them and agrees that it’s actually okay, the person gets ignored and shunned and just goes along with it, the person gets listened to and the system changes or the person gets discredited and loses their ability to be a threat by being cut of from any evidence that they’d use to make accusations publicly.

Ahh the good old “the CIA has done (and probably still does) shady shit so every conspiracy theory is true and the US is actually the real great evil in the world, not international terrorists, aggressive authoritarian regimes or fascists” response.

edited 15th Jan '18 7:41:55 PM by Silasw

Because they have done so in the past, and it is now in the declasified documents they have to make avaliable, seriously check the links in the post. ._.;

And no, that is not me saying the "US is worse then terrorists" it is me saying they would just shoot a whistleblower, because they have already done worse then that., and its not just the CIA in that bundle.

It is posible to think there fully capable of murdering some one to keep them quite without thinking there is bad as the taliban.

edited 15th Jan '18 7:44:40 PM by Imca

Russia, the last time a major world power was helmed by an insane German should have been enough - do not put crazy Germans into power and think you can control him. The conservatives last time thought that. You have only yourselves to blame for this fracas, Russia - if you hadn't meddled we wouldn't have this insane fool running around threatening everyone.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that you edited the links in after I started replying, so?

Here’s the thing, even if the US government would be willing to just shoot whistleblowers (which I’ll admit elements might) it’s realy fucking stupid, you’re not claiming that the US would do evil things, you’re claiming that it’s so cartoonishly evil that it would be evil things for the sake of doing evil even when less even and more practical means exist of obtaining the desire outcome.

This isn’t imperial japan we’re talking about or Nazi germany, evil for the sake of evil isn’t how the US government operates.

edited 15th Jan '18 7:47:08 PM by Silasw

Its not though, red tape takes time and money, and continued effort.....

Honestly just making sure some one has an "accident" is by far the more practical option for a government, sure it gets suspicious but then just call those people conspiracy theorists and your done.

It is much easier to disappear some one at a governmental level then it is to constantly fight them at every single legal turn.

Its not Evil for Evil, its Evil because evil is cheaper.

edited 15th Jan '18 7:49:29 PM by Imca

Well, I wouldn't put Stupid Evil above the US, but it will most likely wngage in Pragmatic Villainy.

Do you have any idea how much red tape goes into secret assassinations? It’s not something you do on a laugh, you’ve got to have the actual murder happen, then cover it up with a fake explanation, then you’ve got to cover up both the murder and the fake explanations creations, everyone involved has to be sworn to secrecy, any leaks have to be plugged. Anyone the victims told about anything has to be considered as a secondary risk, anyone concerned about them has to be considered as a possible risk if they dig to deep, any risks that do turn up have to themselves be dealt with.

You don’t murder your way out of a security leak, this isn’t a video game, you deal with security leaks by promoting an intuitional culture that prevents leaks and shitcans people either internally or from the system completely if they start making noise.

edited 15th Jan '18 7:53:24 PM by Silasw

Imca, if the U.S. government is willing to cause "accidents" to whistleblowers, then why didn't they do so with all the whistleblowers that...well, didn't die?

Including Manning, for that matter.

Really, can you tell us how arranging secret assassinations is less costly and time-consuming than less violent methods?

edited 15th Jan '18 7:53:05 PM by KarkatTheDalek

I don't think they kill whistleblowers anymore, but that'snot even the original point? The point is that the US Government has an interest in not letting their dirty laundry get to the public. So, when people try to release that stuff through the legal channels, they're more likely to see that evidence vanish, and then get fired, than to see it become public.

There is a reason people choose to whistleblow rather than go through the legal channels. They want the info to actually get to the public.