Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
Well, yes, "it's bad when our guys do it but great when our enemies have it done to them" is rather fundamental to international conflicts and I don't see that changing any time soon. If we anticipate ever growing beyond national rivalries, we'll need to create a world government with the power to set standards for behavior and some mechanism to be accountable in and of itself.
But, as a United States citizen, the fact that Russian government-sponsored hackers and propaganda agencies are trying to undermine our elections is a direct threat to our sovereignty and akin to an act of war, and it cannot be allowed to stand. Neither are Assange and Wikileaks even pretending to be neutral parties in this; their bias is blatant, and it doesn't matter whether it's due to Assange's own convictions or the convenient fact that he's being protected by the Russian government.
Let's just say that we can create some arbitrary definition of "good behavior" in a global sense — a nation that respects democracy and personal rights, is as free with information as is reasonable for a government with security interests, does not engage in blatant human rights abuses, does not engage in military imperialism, etc., etc. If we are to compare the United States and Russia in this regard, neither is covered in glory but the stink from Putin's side eclipses any possible claim he might have to be doing these things out of respect for freedom of information.
Vladimir Putin wants Donald Trump to be President because he knows that the Trumpster will greenlight any act of imperialism that Russia might commit on the world stage. So, if you envision a world in which all of those nice things I mentioned above exist, you should not support the current actions of Wikileaks. It's that simple.
Edited to add: Whether one respects the special rights of whistleblowers to escape prosecution for illegal actions they may have committed depends largely on whether one believes global freedom of information to trump the rule of law within any particular nation.
edited 11th Oct '16 6:50:25 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I think you are conflating "believing in the need to sometimes violate secrecy laws to call out governments on illegal or unethical shit" with "support for what Wikileaks is currently doing" which is contributing to a deliberate misinformation campaign. The two beliefs do not go hand in hand.
Secrecy is useful and important when used judiciously but it can and has been abused.
edited 11th Oct '16 6:52:26 AM by Elle
So, a person who commits a crime in the course of whistleblowing should not be held accountable for that crime? Interesting.
edited 11th Oct '16 6:52:28 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"People like to talk about freedom of speech as if it's applied universally to all speech everywhere. It's not. It's a sharply limited concept that has very clear boundaries. Threats are not covered. Fraud is not covered. Libel is not covered. And revealing other people's secrets is not covered.
There's no hypocrisy involved in championing freedom of speech but still keeping secrets, or prosecuting people who leak classified information.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
It depends on both the crime and the justification. The main reason Snowden claims he won't cooperate is that he was charged under the Espionage Act which would deny him a public trial. I would say a judge and jury should be the ones to weigh in on whether what they did was defensible and I would certainly advocate for clemency if the public good was furthered.
(I keep hovering over the edit button because I'm not sure this is actually the best summation of what I actually think but I'll let it stand for now.)
edited 11th Oct '16 7:00:09 AM by Elle
In an ideal world, it would be nice to say, whistleblow all you want, but them have the guts to face the consequences of that instead of running from them.
The thing is, we don't live in that ideal world, and expecting high-level whistleblowers to effectively throw away their lives for the act of whistleblowing (even more than fleeing to a foreign nation is already throwing away your life) will most likely simply mean that we will get no more whistleblowers. It's an unrealistic thing to demand of someone in that position, just like it's unrealistic to, for comparison, expect all black people to be polite, meek, and submissive towards police officers.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.You'd be surprised, extradition treaties aren't blanket things, the US-Sweden one doesn't allow for extradition for political crimes and I belvie many other treaties are similar. Under EU law if the death penalty is threatened then no EU country can extradite to the US.
Snowden would have been safe in a lot of countries, Assange not so much, it's a lot easier to get extradited to Sweden for rape than it is to the US for espionage.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAssange's crimes don't even carry the death penalty, he hasn't committed murder and can't be charged with treason by the US. Snowden doesn't meet the definition of treason either, as Russian isn't considered an outright enemy of the US.
In practice, the US only uses/threatens capital punishment for homicide cases, or cases of terrorism (a handful involving treason charges) that inevitably include homicide. Any talk of Snowden and/or Assange getting executed by the US is nothing more than hyperbole.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
The situation I'm suggesting for Snowden is a worst case scenario in which Russia does the actual disappearing with a President Trump's tacit permission (or at least non-invervention). He probably remains in some danger if he stays in Russia in any case but more as a bargaining chip than someone disposable.
edited 11th Oct '16 7:39:00 AM by Elle
Wait, I thought we were scared he'd be "disappeared" by the United States after being returned. Which is it?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Maybe Trump can earn more PR goodwill if he appears as a contestant on Dancing With The Stars.
edited 11th Oct '16 7:49:01 AM by nervmeister
Americans are in love with the concept of the noble crook. Our entire culture basically revolves around Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right!. We love the idea of the lone man taking on the crooked system - and we insist that it must be a crooked system because if it weren't, then why would lone men be rebelling against it, huh?
Problem is, more often than not, these men are not the droids you're looking for. Despite the religious fervor with which some worship a certain obnoxious Jefferson quote, crime is not a weapon for the heroic souls among us to wield against a tyrannical dictatorship. It's just crime. People don't commit it out of a noble purpose bestowed upon them by the Abstract Force of Good itself. They do it because they want something.
And then we make messiahs out of them because we're so in love with the narrative of sacrificing for the Greater Good. We did it to our founding fathers, weaving the narrative that they were heroic souls who risked everything because those wicked Brits were trying to keep us from Justice and Liberty. We did it to Snowden and Assange. We're doing it to Trump, whose popularity is predicated entirely on the idea that he's the lone man who'll stick it to the system.
We're never going to stop being disappointed by our heroes until we stop making heroes out of dangerous criminals.
edited 11th Oct '16 7:50:45 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
'''The only heroes I know are either dead or in prison.'''
edited 11th Oct '16 7:55:01 AM by nervmeister
@Fighter: I personally have never endorsed that opinion. By "denied a public trial" I mean that the proceedings of Snowden's trial would be classified.
![]()
We also do it to Ghandi and Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks.
Cases of "screw the rules, I'm doing what's right" have to be looked at in context of the rules and the actual rightness or wrongness of the acts being committed. Morality does not always follow from legality, as much as we may try to make the rules moral.
edited 11th Oct '16 8:03:42 AM by Elle
I agree with all of this. This is a special case, in the sense that a foreign power is so heavily involved. In principle, though, I maintain what I said about whistleblowers in general.
Of course Russia is worse. That doesn't make what the US does right, though. (Since I did accuse the US of hypocrisy, I will, of course, also levy that accusation at Russia, as well - they are even more guilty, except in the sense that they make less noise about freedom and justice than the US does.)
This is very true. The fundamental purpose of freedom of speech, though, is to ensure that those without power can still discuss, investigate, and condemn those with power when the latter break the law. The revelations that got the likes of Snowden in trouble are very much along these lines, and if you will attack them you will also attack those who exposed Watergate. The spirit of the US Constitution, and that of the founding laws and principles of other Western countries, is that the press must hold the government accountable. Attacking whistleblowers, in these cases, is akin to attacks by foreign powers against your country.
When someone reveals secrets that have direct implications for national security, that's different. The freedom of the press should not apply there. If it's crimes by the government, though, you should absolutely have the right to reveal them.
edited 11th Oct '16 8:01:08 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Seriously, I hear that quite a few people in real life with the capacity to unflinchingly act in a way that would be viewed as classically heroic may technically be psychopaths or at least have some psychopathic traits.
EDIT: Though, I may just be projecting and there in fact may be people out there with no desire whatsoever to do that, even when they do find themselves in a position of authority.
edited 11th Oct '16 8:18:50 AM by nervmeister

Western countries like to talk about freedom of speech. They like to pretend that they're the defenders of justice in the world. The fact that they have embarrassing secrets - including war crimes such as torture - is, in itself, an indictment of the West. The way we present ourselves you'd think we'd want to protect and celebrate people who expose these truths, instead of prosecuting them.
Of course I know that Western countries usually aren't genuinely interested in promoting democracy around the world, or protecting people from things like torture and genocide. When we do commit those crimes, though, the way we should react to it, to be consistent with our own public message, would be to protect the people who reveal them. Instead, we seek to silence them.
The curious thing I was referring to is this hypocricy. If someone in Iran leaked a document that revealed crimes by the government there we'd be offering that person asylum.
The duplicity we exhibit about this is one of the fundamental truths that we have to live with, unless our governments actually start taking responsibility and stop committing crimes against humanity. At the moment this doesn't seem likely, so I think it's at least fair to mention it every now and again.
edited 11th Oct '16 6:00:42 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.