WikiLeaks Assange

Remove this Banner Ad

Ned_Flanders said:
No

He gave the info to the enemy of his country, and they let him release what they wanted released

The absolute opposite of courage

We are getting very circular here, we are both pretty much saying the same stuff on repeat now. I'm gunna leave there before one of us says something we regret (we obv both feel passionately about the issue, just from opposite sides)
Click to expand...
I don’t think you know as much about the Snowden case as you think you do. He had provided the information to Greenwald long before he was forced to Russia. You have the details completely turned around.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

JackOutback said:
I don’t think you know as much about the Snowden case as you think you do. He had provided the information to Greenwald long before he was forced to Russia. You have the details completely turned around.
Click to expand...

He wasn't forced to Russia, he chose to go there. FFS it's not like he was kidnapped, he got on the plane, he disembarked, he made a deal with the Russian govt.

Everyone had choices in life, sometimes they are hard but you have choices.

He could have gotten his legal team, gotten arrested, and made sure his info was heard in a public court in the United states. Instead he ran, to an enemy.

Plenty of journos and whistleblowers have gone behind bars to ensure the information got out. He obviously thought he was better than that.

Again, we are repeating ourselves. I say he's a traitor, you call me ignorant. I'm definitely going because a line will be crossed soon
 
Brunswick Trap King said:
Meh, if you're actively involved in making a foreign, sovereign nation worse-off than you probably getting what you deserve.
Click to expand...

And this is what I said before

You don't care about the consequences of a mass data dump because you honestly think spies, diplomats, govt workers overseas probably deserve to get killed if someone decides to kill them.

That's what I'm against. Some of these people are good, doing good work. They deserve our protection, not to be discarded to make a political point
 
Ned_Flanders said:
And this is what I said before

You don't care about the consequences of a mass data dump because you honestly think spies, diplomats, govt workers overseas probably deserve to get killed if someone decides to kill them.

That's what I'm against. Some of these people are good, doing good work. They deserve our protection, not to be discarded to make a political point
Click to expand...
And if they're not good or doing good work? If they're harming the interests of the nation they're involved with, you think they deserve protection just because they come from Western nations?
 
Brunswick Trap King said:
And if they're not good or doing good work? If they're harming the interests of the nation they're involved with, you think they deserve protection just because they come from Western nations?
Click to expand...

I think they deserve to be investigated, tried, and convicted.

You don't outsource the work to your enemies

More importantly, I put a higher price on protecting the good. Their lives shouldn't needlessly and recklessly endangered
 
Ned_Flanders said:
I think they deserve to be investigated, tried, and convicted.

You don't outsource the work to your enemies

More importantly, I put a higher price on protecting the good. Their lives shouldn't needlessly and recklessly endangered
Click to expand...
I suppose I wouldn't lose sleep over anyone involved with, say, innocent Pakistanis getting droned at a wedding, dying or being exposed.
 
Brunswick Trap King said:
I suppose I wouldn't lose sleep over anyone involved with, say, innocent Pakistanis getting droned at a wedding, dying or being exposed.
Click to expand...

what if that happening means the entire US embassy in pakistan is blown up.

sure, you get the half dozen people running that program, but you're also blowing up local workers, aid program people, and on and on.

my view on this is like capital punishment. Lets say 10% of people executed turn out to be innocent. I find killing even 10% innocent people just to execute an evil 90% too high a price. I'd rather pay for their life in jail, risk escapes and so on, than knowingly allow a system that kills innocents by mistake

again, we are circling here (pretty sure we covered this indirectly some time ago), and things have been getting personal, so I'll move on (i like you as a poster, and frankly dont want you in the bucket i have some others)
 
Ned_Flanders said:
And this is what I said before

You don't care about the consequences of a mass data dump because you honestly think spies, diplomats, govt workers overseas probably deserve to get killed if someone decides to kill them.

That's what I'm against. Some of these people are good, doing good work. They deserve our protection, not to be discarded to make a political point
Click to expand...
So the good people deserve protection, unless they want to expose wrongdoing through the media ( which you yourself have said is the right thing to do if their superiors won't do anything about it).
In this instance, the good people deserve to be prosecuted, have their lives ruined for an extended period of time and risk being put in jail for most of the rest of their life.
 
Mateyman said:
So the good people deserve protection, unless they want to expose wrongdoing through the media ( which you yourself have said is the right thing to do if their superiors won't do anything about it).
In this instance, the good people deserve to be prosecuted, have their lives ruined for an extended period of time and risk being put in jail for most of the rest of their life.
Click to expand...

they are breaking oaths they made and breaking the law releasing information illegally

it should be legally tested that the public good outweighs that action. otherwise the message to anyone with a security clearance is it doesnt matter and you can do what you want

we have courts for a reason, we should use them
 
Ned_Flanders said:
they are breaking oaths they made and breaking the law releasing information illegally

it should be legally tested that the public good outweighs that action. otherwise the message to anyone with a security clearance is it doesnt matter and you can do what you want

we have courts for a reason, we should use them
Click to expand...
You’re wilfully ignoring the fact that successive governments have made it more and more difficult for that information to be tested in courts. That’s why we have people jailed in Canberra without anyone being allowed to utter a word. Telling the truth is under attack, which is why the measures whistleblowers have to go to are getting more extreme.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JackOutback said:
You’re wilfully ignoring the fact that successive governments have made it more and more difficult for that information to be tested in courts. That’s why we have people jailed in Canberra without anyone being allowed to utter a word. Telling the truth is under attack, which is why the measures whistleblowers have to go to are getting more extreme.
Click to expand...

So the law no longer applies to them?

Do you have a list of which laws I have to obey and which ones we can now ignore?
 
Ned_Flanders said:
im old enough and cranky enough to know sometimes govts need to keep stuff under wraps

we spy on china. zero issue with that. its not in our interests for those people to be named or what they do exposed.

transparency doesnt mean full disclosure. we have (and should continue to improve) appropriate oversight measures to ensure these factors dont go rogue or into areas we as a society dont condone.

(ftr have had family in asio and signals)
Click to expand...

Yeah, fair enough. I get the point you're arguing from and, while we don't entirely agree I can see you are concerned about the very real possibility of negative consequences coming from such large 'name and shame' data dumps for you and yours. As such, I can't say you're wrong to feel that way.
 
Geelong_Sicko said:
Yeah, fair enough. I get the point you're arguing from and, while we don't entirely agree I can see you are concerned about the very real possibility of negative consequences coming from such large 'name and shame' data dumps for you and yours. As such, I can't say you're wrong to feel that way.
Click to expand...

All good and it goes the other way.

Whistleblowers have a purpose, and I'm all for reinforcing whistleblower laws and resourcing in key depts.

BUT we need to be careful that their info is tested and validated

Let's remember Q is supposedly a whistleblower. Just because someone says they have the truth from inside a Dept doesn't mean they are not full of shit
 
Ned_Flanders said:
So the law no longer applies to them?

Do you have a list of which laws I have to obey and which ones we can now ignore?
Click to expand...
At the risk of sounding like a meme, apartheid was legal, the Holocaust was legal. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right and just because something is illegal doesn’t make it wrong. There’s no list. If governments deliberately try to make exposing the truth illegal, then we have to rely on people willing to accept the consequences to expose those truths. Snowden accepted the consequences that he wouldn’t be able to go home, Witness K is wearing the consequences of absolutely doing the right thing, ABC journos has a sword hanging over their necks for doing the right thing regarding the Afghan Files. All brave people.
 
JackOutback said:
At the risk of sounding like a meme, apartheid was legal, the Holocaust was legal. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right and just because something is illegal doesn’t make it wrong. There’s no list. If governments deliberately try to make exposing the truth illegal, then we have to rely on people willing to accept the consequences to expose those truths. Snowden accepted the consequences that he wouldn’t be able to go home, Witness K is wearing the consequences of absolutely doing the right thing, ABC journos has a sword hanging over their necks for doing the right thing regarding the Afghan Files. All brave people.
Click to expand...

So anyone can release anything, as long as it complies with their personal moral compass?

Sorry, but if that's your world view (I'm talking whistleblower you, not you you) you shouldn't be working in defence, DFAT, or any other role with sensitive data
 
Ned_Flanders said:
So anyone can release anything, as long as it complies with their personal moral compass?

Sorry, but if that's your world view (I'm talking whistleblower you, not you you) you shouldn't be working in defence, DFAT, or any other role with sensitive data
Click to expand...
Nope, they also have to be prepared to live with the consequences and be judged by history. You’ve judged Snowden, I think you’re wrong, I think you are in the minority (albeit not substantially) but will be even further in the minority as time goes on.

Unless, as governments hope, they become more draconian, more secretive and get to control the narrative that truth is only a good thing when it’s their truth.
 
JackOutback said:
Nope, they also have to be prepared to live with the consequences and be judged by history. You’ve judged Snowden, I think you’re wrong, I think you are in the minority (albeit not substantially) but will be even further in the minority as time goes on.

Unless, as governments hope, they become more draconian, more secretive and get to control the narrative that truth is only a good thing when it’s their truth.
Click to expand...

Again, we disagree and again we are going in circles

I don't know if you're trying to provoke me to break site rules, but please stop tagging me or I'll put you on ignore (I really don't want either of us to cop a ban on this)
 
Ned_Flanders said:
Again, we disagree and again we are going in circles

I don't know if you're trying to provoke me to break site rules, but please stop tagging me or I'll put you on ignore (I really don't want either of us to cop a ban on this)
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to provoke you into anything, I’m interested in discussion, maybe neither of us is going to change their minds, but neither has either of us resorted to personal insults or attacks. Not sure why that would encourage you to break any rules, but fine.
 
JackOutback said:
At the risk of sounding like a meme, apartheid was legal, the Holocaust was legal. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right and just because something is illegal doesn’t make it wrong. There’s no list. If governments deliberately try to make exposing the truth illegal, then we have to rely on people willing to accept the consequences to expose those truths. Snowden accepted the consequences that he wouldn’t be able to go home, Witness K is wearing the consequences of absolutely doing the right thing, ABC journos has a sword hanging over their necks for doing the right thing regarding the Afghan Files. All brave people.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything you’ve identified J O. Having worked in the public sector, I’ve witnessed the promotion of whistleblower policies targeting the rank and file. It seems the higher you go up the food chain the more it becomes an exercise in paying lip service.

Removing the public interest test and having the trials of the whistleblowers held behind closed doors in the absence of media scrutiny are just two examples of a disturbing trend towards less transparency. The by-product of which is a preservation of existing behaviours and an attack on democratic principles.
 
parsons nose said:
Agree with everything you’ve identified J O. Having worked in the public sector, I’ve witnessed the promotion of whistleblower policies targeting the rank and file. It seems the higher you go up the food chain the more it becomes an exercise in paying lip service.

Removing the public interest test and having the trials of the whistleblowers held behind closed doors in the absence of media scrutiny are just two examples of a disturbing trend towards less transparency. The by-product of which is a preservation of existing behaviours and an attack on democratic principles.
Click to expand...
The rule should be simple; if the government has acted illegally, then it should not be a crime to reveal this, damn whatever contracts you signed. Covering up a crime is immoral, even if it's your government that committed the crime. The Afghan Files revealed crimes, neither the whistleblower nor ABC should have been targeted, likewise Witness K.

The situation gets more murky if the government says it's not a crime, just 'overreach' (Snowden) or involves a data dump that threatens people that didn't commit a crime (Assange). But the principle should be enshrined in every case.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

WikiLeaks Assange

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top