do you put them in the same boat?
What are your thoughts on them and the things they've done in relation to their deserved fate.
What are your thoughts on them and the things they've done in relation to their deserved fate.
Assange and Snowden
- Thread starter shortbus
- Start date
I don't.
IMO, Snowden was truly concerned with the privacy implications of what the government was doing to its own citizens. He is a tranparancy and privacy advocate.
IMO, Assange is primary interested in Assange and becoming famous.
IMO, Snowden was truly concerned with the privacy implications of what the government was doing to its own citizens. He is a tranparancy and privacy advocate.
IMO, Assange is primary interested in Assange and becoming famous.
Snowden also had journalist "curate" his links to redact items that were sensitive and not in the public interest. Assange on the other hand has almost certainly gotten people killed with some of his leaks.
To add to that, Snowden actually took the risk of taking the information to the media first hand, I didn't like how he did it, but I have respect that he had the balls to do it.
Assange just releases data given to him, sure it takes contacts and reputation to get that kind of info, but he's not do any of the discovery.
So do you think Snowden should be prosecuted if he were to end up in the United States or should he be free?
If Obama actually believed in any of his rhetoric from 2008 he would pardon Snowden on the way out the door (or a year ago).
Absent a pardon, he should be prosecuted IMO.
Let a jury decide.
A panel of his peers.
Shouldn't he by definition be subject to protection from his crimes by the Whistleblower act? Or is that another government (doesn't apply to us) rule? There is no argument that what he exposed the government as doing violated our constitution and was therefor illegal (and thus he was justified in his whistleblower status).
Justin
Justin
Also, as for Assange, he's just a publisher, and as a proponent of free speech, he has a right to publish whatever he thinks. Remember, there is only a demand for his service because our government officials have spent their lifetime colluding in secret in how to advantage and enrich themselves at the expense of the populace in which elects them.
1. If a law makes the information in question classified or confidential from disclosure from the public, disclosing that information to the public typically isn't protected by whistleblower statutes.
2. There is substantial argument as to whether what he exposed was violated our constitution and even more question as to whether it was violating any law or was lawful at the time. The proper way to attack an allegedly unconstitutional law or act is via the courts and not via disclosing information or conduct that is presently lawful under the arguably unconstitutional law.
3. Whistleblower statutes typically provide protection from negative job action or retaliation from an employer. It's not an affirmative defense to criminal prosecution for violating a confidentiality statute.
The issue with this is that the government has simply gone to the corner of making everything some level of classified, and thus any exposure becomes illegal. The fact that its considered classified should be irrelevent given the illegality of the hidden information. It can't be a crime to expose a crime.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda, I guess.
1. You haven't established definitively what was done IS a crime.
2. Following an allegedly unconstitutional law isn't a crime.
3. Disclosure of any classified information could be justified by asserting you believe it discloses criminal conduct.
Clearly, you disagree with my thinking he should be prosecuted.
That's cool. Jury could always nullify in rendering a verdict.
Last edited:
