Spying on Americans = no prosecutions, whistleblowing programs that spy on Americans = prosecution

[Rothbardian]

Though they are just as silly as a war on terror, its not really the same thing.

I would argue it is the same thing. The War on Drugs & Poverty increased State power just as much as the War on Terror. They also will never be won. Poverty (Wealth inequality/disparity) & Drugs will always be around forever. You can ameliorate the above, but never fully be rid of them, and never should they be rhetoric for the expansion of State power. In fact, in an ironic twist the War on Drugs makes criminals out of those who would never otherwise be criminals, and increases violent crimes just as Prohibition did, and in many cities they now wage Wars on Crime (NYC, LA, etc.), to combat the effects of the War on Drugs, a problem, the Government created. It is insanity!

It is also duly ironic that the War on Poverty has increased poverty, not reduced it...

/sigh

[Kuya]

Bump in order to post Glenn Greenwald's recent post on this issue. He investigated into and interviewed Lamo, the man who Manning (the whistleblower) alleged told about what he did. If you read Glenn's post, it appears that Lamo is a media whore and his accounts of what have happened seem inconsistent. In the interview he claimed that there was nothing he saw that was a threat to national security, but in other venues he claims Manning was a spy that would damage national security. Glenn also posted some parts of the chat discussions Manning and Lamo had:

To see why that's so, just review some of what Manning said about why he chose to leak, as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:

Lamo: what's your endgame plan, then?. . .

Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] - and god knows what happens now - hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms - if not, than [sic] we're doomed - as a species - i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens - the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN's iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded - people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . - i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

And he explained why the thought of selling this classified information he was leaking to a foreign power never entered his mind:

Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

Lamo: why didn’t you?

Manning: because it's public data

Lamo: i mean, the cables

Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free - it belongs in the public domain - because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge - if its out in the open… it should be a public good.

He also posts what lead Manning to allegedly release the video to Wikileaks:

Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. war in Iraq: when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi "insurgents" who had been detained for distributing "insurgent" literature which, when he had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than "a scholarly critique against PM Maliki":

i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…

i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…

There is also the question of whether Manning really revealed 250,000 pages of diplomatic cable, given that the source of this story has connections to Lamo and that it's a bit unlikely that Manning would have this info.

What should be most shocking is how Obama did a complete 180, whereas before he claimed to want to protect whistleblowers, now he is running the most aggresive anti-whistleblower campaign. Note the cognitive disonnance:

"Attorney Obama and Senator Obama and candidate Obama and President-elect Obama have all supported whistleblower rights," said Adam Miles, the legislative representative for the Government Accountability Project, a public interest group that bills itself as the nation's leading whistleblower organization.

As a senator, Obama supported legislation that would increase whistleblower protection. Versions of that measure remain before Congress.

As a presidential candidate, he endorsed whistleblower protection legislation in the House that is stronger than the bill he voted for in the Senate.

President-elect Barack Obama has continued along this track. His transition Web site says:

"We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process."

And now this is what we get:

In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press.

Mr. Drake was charged in April; in May, an F.B.I. translator was sentenced to 20 months in prison for providing classified documents to a blogger; this week, the Pentagon confirmed the arrest of a 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst suspected of passing a classified video of an American military helicopter shooting Baghdad civilians to the Web site Wikileaks.org.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has renewed a subpoena in a case involving an alleged leak of classified information on a bungled attempt to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program that was described in “State of War,” a 2006 book by James Risen. The author is a reporter for The New York Times. And several press disclosures since Mr. Obama took office have been referred to the Justice Department for investigation, officials said, though it is uncertain whether they will result in criminal cases.

How cynical can you get?

Links:

Glenn's post

News article that says Obama supports whistleblowers

Obama's campaign against whistleblowers

[Beckwin]

haha hell yeah man, snitches get stitches. this guy needs some common sense, what kind of fucking moron fucks with the US government? totally deserves it.


also, it's not like there aren't people who were illegally wire tapped that were planning bad stuff. if there weren't people in the world trying to do bad stuff, then the government wouldn't have to illegally wire tap them. there is a problem on both sides here.

[Jimmyus]

Rothbardian, the problem with dismissing the "War on" whatever out of hand is that you are ignoring or dismissing issues which, depending on your definition can very much come under the definition of defense and security, to echo Kuya's Hobbes impression.

From the derogatory way you said it the implication seems to be that these drugs are illicit primarily for arbitrary reasons, which is par for the course in Libertarian ideals. However, the point of these "war on" issues (I'm talking here mostly about the War on Drugs; terror is wholly separate, and in fact conflating the two issues using the same moniker does everyone involved an injustice) is not to use Government as some sort of bludgeon that you have no say in. Quite to the contrary (see: medical marijuana movement, the burgeoning legalization movement primarily in California), these focuses on a particular aspect of enforcement primarily emerge as a response to inadequacies in the system to provide adequate protection for its citizens. I believe the "War on Drugs", for example, was motivated in part by the Crack epidemic in the early 1990s.

Now, I'm not saying that the government doesn't over-reach, but suggesting that these issues are brought to light just for cynical reasons linked to solidifying control for an indefinite period of time is infantile in the extreme. There was a very real drug problem (you can cry about individual liberty all you want, but drug use affects everyone involved with that person and rampant drug usage can destroy whole portions of a population) which required a very real response on the state level. To be honest the term "war" is outmoded, as the primary purpose of said "war" was bringing enforcement agencies up to speed.

Notice, like I said in the first paragraph: effective, legitimate calls for the decriminalization of drugs is still very much possible under our system, and there is no 'big bad' in the government who will crush the individuals right to petition for it. So, I suppose in closing the conclusion is: Be cynical all you'd like about the true nature of State power, but don't assume that things like the "War on Drugs" are rooted in only superficial power grabs, when in fact they stem from very real issues that necessitate State interaction.

[wagon]

On related news, Wikileak's founder could be killed at any time by the US government since the leak of footage of civilian rampage in afghan.

[Kuya]

I had heard rumours that wikileaks has a video of a US attack where civilians die (the US first denied it, then they kept denying that a stated amount of civilians died, which is why, as i heard, the video would be released to force the government to admit it) in Afghanistan. Did they release it already?

edit: I don't think the US would assassinate Assange, that's going way too far even though they already went far enough to declare that they can assassinate US citizens if they are declared to have connections to Al Qaida (probably not limited to Al Qaida).

[wagon]

I had heard rumours that wikileaks has a video of a US attack where civilians die (the US first denied it, then they kept denying that a stated amount of civilians died, which is why, as i heard, the video would be released to force the government to admit it) in Afghanistan. Did they release it already?

edit: I don't think the US would assassinate Assange, that's going way too far even though they already went far enough to declare that they can assassinate US citizens if they are declared to have connections to Al Qaida (probably not limited to Al Qaida).

Assange can certainly die in traffic accident if you catch my drift. I heard wikileak recently put out a statement that they have more or new clips of another incident of some sort and they are planning to release them

[Kuya]

US announces that they're looking for the Wikileaks founder, and suddenly he ends up dead? No one suspects the CIA!

[wagon]

US announces that they're looking for the Wikileaks founder, and suddenly he ends up dead? No one suspects the CIA!

Well the US government or CIA never really announces this sort of things but if he suddenly disappears or dies, the two will probably be involved. Assange was really smart to show up in the Colbert Report to talk about the recently leaked footage because the closer he is to become a household name, the safer he is.

[Amiricle]

Some people might put on blinders and completely ignore what is going on here.

Note what is going on: People who are part of the government and do illegal things like spy on Americans or torture enemy prisoners are being protected from the system of justice. People who reveal that the governmetn is doing illegal things are getting prosecuted. If the whistleblowers who reveal to you, the average American, that the government whom you are responsible for is doing illegal things notice that they will likely get prosecuted with little or no public support, then they have even less motivation to reveal things the government keeps secret from you, because they are illegal and against your interests.

In other words, the government protects people who do illegal things for it, and attacks people who reveal the illegal things it does, and thus less illegal things will be revealed. In other words, what is being engaged here is a strategy to imunize itself from public scrutiny. It is meant to hide what it does and scare people who fight for your interest. It is not about the justice system trying to prosecute who it can, it is a specific strategy being used by the executive branch of government.

Thats exactly whats going on and its scary as shit and why I despise Big government.

It seems like civil unrest/disobedience is the only answer to this.

I personally would prefer a period of anarchy and scrap the entire system to start with just the bill of rights, and constitution again, but that is probably the better way for now. Democracy is an illusion thats been slowly dying behind the scenes for a long long time now.

[Kuya]

No more libertarian shit, this thread is not for this.

[Rhinox]

Thats exactly whats going on and its scary as shit and why I despise Big government.


I personally would prefer a period of anarchy and scrap the entire system to start with just the bill of rights, and constitution again, but that is probably the better way for now. Democracy is an illusion thats been slowly dying behind the scenes for a long long time now.

Face => palm.

I'll tell you what I tell all the other minarchist/anarchist

You want that? go to Afghanistan/Somalia

[Jimmyus]

I never understood the anti-Statist argument, especially in regards to things like terrorism. Are you saying that no organized protection at all is better in the face of an irrational, organized attack on your *insert arbitrary cultural value here*?

Reading this forum makes me want to take the pro-Statist (using that as a catch-all phrase, and in the same parentheses let me state that I realize I am no personality on the forum and thus my word carries no weight) view, only because of blanket statements like the assumption that the CIA would A) care about the head of wikileaks, being that it is a wikipedia devoted to people other than the founder posting government leaks at such a level that his assassination would even be a logical outcome, and B) such leaks would warrant covert (read: overt because of those ardent defenders of liberty on the bluegartr forums) assassination of people only tangentially related.

I mean, what is the uniting ethic behind this? It's not enough to say that prosecuting people who leak classified information is wrong in and of itself. From what Kuya has posted it's clear that the actual illegality of the actions in question is, well, in question. Are we as citizens to assume something beyond a reasonable doubt of those in power, and thus casually assume they are trying to silence any and all people? If that were the case, how is something like wikileaks even available at all? The whole thing stinks of slippery slope arguments into conspiracy theory.

Maybe I'm reading the whole thing wrong (entirely possible, and please correct me if so), but it reads like a healthy distrust of those in government combined with an intellectual's cynicism. Are we as supposedly informed adults supposed to naturally assume that those appointed by our elected officials, and indeed those elected officials themselves are by definition untrustworthy? If so, what is the point of having said officials at all, elected or not?

I realize this is kind of a pulpit, so I'm sorry to go on and on, but it just seems like the level of total distrust in the government present in the current argument is unhealthy. Yes, government abuses power, but everything I've read about the nature of (democratic/republican, take your pick) government suggests that it is a distrust of a government's specific actions, and not of it's nature as a whole that is most conducive. If 'Spying on Americans = no proescutions, whistleblowing programs that spy on Americans = prosecution' is supposed to be taken as an indictment of the system of governance as a whole, then what possible basis for debate can there be?

Maybe I'm a little drunk and can argue better in the morning, if somebody wants to start punching holes in my platitudes (if you care).

[Churchill]

Clinton would have just had the guy die in a plane crash.

Look how far we've come.