xeni at August 22nd, 2013 21:54 — #1
kangorufoo at August 22nd, 2013 22:19 — #2
I don't think its going to work. The whistle blowers will get smarter and the leaks will be information tsunamis.
Every journalist needs to be issued a computer security expert just to perform their constitutional protected function. What a sad and pathetic country the US is. This government is no different than China, Iran, or Russia except we have Walmarts.
Big fucking downer.
boundegar at August 22nd, 2013 22:28 — #3
I think it's going to work just fine. People who are aware of government wrongdoing will shut up and keep their heads down. Journalists will report only what they think the government will allow. Torture and the murder of innocent civilians have been protected this week in the strongest way possible.
glitch at August 22nd, 2013 22:49 — #4
Strangest way possible? No, simply the most situationally effective. If they had instead tortured and murdered the people who who talked about the torture and murder, they'd have just been proving their atrociousness.
By dressing things in the garb of criminality and law, by putting Manning into the awful oubliette that is our penal system, they create an example of how they are willing to destroy lives, but give it the veneer of legitimacy and rectitude.
Oubliette - I use that term purposefully. An oubliette is a place of forgetting. The word itself is cognate with oblivion and obliterate. And that is precisely what the government has chosen to do to Manning. Locked away, out of sight, slowly to creep out of mind, to be forgotten, to effectively remove from existence without the outcry that spilled blood receives.
What a strange, terrible, ill world we live in. Much work lies ahead to fix it.
william_holz at August 23rd, 2013 07:32 — #5
What they're not "deterring" is a freakin' revolution.
They're starting to tick us all off enough that we're finally getting our collective acts together, aren't they? I know I've gone from 'woe is me' to 'fuck these guys' over the last three weeks.
They don't want all those neurons pointing their way.
boundegar at August 23rd, 2013 08:21 — #6
No no no, I said strongest way. The strangest way would be to give Manning his own reality TV show with free gender-reassignment surgery, and a pet lobster.
Bonus points for oubilette.
cnlblgrg at August 23rd, 2013 10:17 — #7
Inflated sentences have done a great job reducing drug crimes. How can this not work?
drew_millecchia at August 23rd, 2013 11:30 — #8
I'm not sure that 35 years is frightening or crippling (obviously I wouldn't to go to jail at all) A Life sentence, and I would agree, but 35 years with 3 years time served and parole, not so much. And silenced is far from the truth, he can now write a book, option the movie rights, get a gender-reassignment on the government's dime, and continue to be a 'political prisoner' for EFF without having to be in Guantanamo.
What I'm trying to figure out is why these whistleblowers, Snowden in particular, are just holding on to the information. By not releasing it they are risking death to keep them silenced (although that sound more like a movie scenario than real life). If you are supposedly wanting to tell people the 'truth' about government wrongdoings, just release the whole thing. Saying you have all this damning evidence and holding it back just seems like blackmail, and to what end? Makes the effort somewhat tainted in my opinion. What do they want in exchange? Money? To not go to jail my not releasing the rest?.. They could have done that by not taking it in the first place.
There are plenty of people in our world willing to sacrifice their freedoms and even life to expose wrongdoing, corruption, evil. Look at China and all the hundreds of oppressive countries that good people are rising up against.
Why are we in the Country of "Give me Liberty or give me Death" cowering from our, honestly, democratic and fair government, playing 'whistle-blower', instead of truly standing up for our rights and being a 'traitor'.
Update: I just read the earlier article about Manning's letter to the President requesting a pardon, where he nobly takes his responsibility for the cause of freedom. Salute.
wearysky at August 23rd, 2013 12:37 — #9
Wait, jail sentences are supposed to be a deterrent? Coulda fooled me.
lion at August 23rd, 2013 12:45 — #10
Most these guys, Snowden included, have an insurance file that contains all the dirtiest bits of information seeded out to the web. If Snowden is offed, instructions on how to open this file will go out, and ALL the secrets, even the dark ones that he was never going to release anyway, get out.
If he releases everything now, then there's no value in keeping him alive for anyone anymore. He's in Russia, under Putin's watchful eye. The only currency he has right now are the secrets. The second he spends that currency , he's of no value to Putin and best case scenario, he gets put on a plane to the US. Worst case, he simply vanishes or takes a cup of laced tea. That's kinda what happens to Putin's enemies.
drew_millecchia at August 23rd, 2013 14:20 — #11
No value in keeping him alive? With no secrets held anymore, he's not a threat. It's not like he's a super-spy or real terrorist that will infiltrate the NSA again stealing more secrets. There's no real use killing him, except for retribution, and with all the news organizations on him, that's highly unlikely.
They just want to catch him and bring him back to face charges... And this time, since he's not military, it's going to be a real trial with a jury. What a press field day!
lion at August 23rd, 2013 14:38 — #12
The second he stops spilling the beans, he stops BEING news.
You think glenn Greenwald is going to continue penning articles about Snowden if there are no more secrets to leak? No. He'll vanish off the media radar, and then he'll vanish somewhere else, and Russia will say he's "entered protective hiding under a new name and passport /etc" Nobody will ever see him again because he'd be dead, buried at sea or similar.
wearysky at August 23rd, 2013 14:42 — #13
See the recent BB post where he denies giving information to the Independent, stating specifically that he does not want to release any information that could put somebody in danger (ie leaking the existence of a secret military base in the middle east). That seems like a pretty reasonable reason to not release everything that he has in his possession. I'm not sure if it's one I agree with or not (I think I do, but I can also see reasons to release the information as well), but it's certainly an understandable one.
glitch at August 23rd, 2013 20:08 — #14
Man, don't you hate when you misread something like that? I sure do. Or did you cleverly edit a typo? Either way, kudos, +1 Internet, all that jazz.
boundegar at August 23rd, 2013 23:16 — #15
Yes, I edited your post to insert a typo that I could then mock. It drives the moderators crazy.
william_holz at August 23rd, 2013 23:55 — #16
That's like. . internet god mode. Nice.
felton at August 24th, 2013 10:30 — #17
As of this moment, you're on double secret probation.
xeni at August 27th, 2013 21:54 — #18
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.