Obama administration has secured 526 months of jail time for leakers

Leaking is usually a crime, but leakers know the risk. What they can hope for, but not expect, is that what they leak is sufficiently compelling, and in the public’s interest to know, that they will be pardoned or otherwise receive leniency. That’s the gamble they take. Do you disagree?

What Manning leaked didn’t meet that standard. You might think it should have, but it obviously didn’t.

Now if the President chooses to leak, or authorizes someone else to leak, nothing can be done - the President is fully authorized to classify/declassify anything he wants. That’s simply a benefit of the office. Yes the power can be used for petty ends, but it’s perfectly legal.

I cede the point. Your interpretation is the correct one, mine is not. I appreciate you explaining it rationally, rather than dismiss me as un-American, a troll, or worse.

1 Like

There is an interview somewhere with Obama where he says something like “I need to avoid the temptation to believe my own bullshit” and I think that’s what happened to his presidency.

He seems to have believed, based upon his prior career experiences, that he could enact substantive change by the sheer force of his rhetoric and personal magnetism. Obviously, this turned out to be pure-D wrong.

But that’s the point: many times there really isn’t, is there? Despite all the rhetoric, what we see play out time and time again:

  • Government does something illegal
  • Someone points it out
  • That someone is ignored
  • That someone goes public, perhaps hoping the rhetoric of “protecting whistle blowers” is true.
  • Government is found to be breaking the law
  • Whistleblower gets in trouble, perhaps spending much time in jail

Yes, there are rhetoric and promises, but in reality that’s often all they are.

And one of the real ironies is, for example, if you do read Obama’s campaign promises, he encourages people to point out waste, corruption, and illegality, promising to protect them if they come forward.

Guess those promises were just a honeypot…


While I agree that some whistleblowers have been unfairly treated (not all, definitely not all), I cannot agree with the notion that Obama encouraged people to point out corruption specifically so that he could arrest and detain whistleblowers. No politician is that sadistic.

The internet is often a terrible way to disagree with people. I prefer to do it over drinks and food!

Okay, got it.

It sucks to be a leaker, especially under the Obama administration.

And, as always…

But this is all perfectly legal, so that makes it perfectly good.


Yeah, that way at least you’re armed with a knife, and there’s things you can throw.


They could have called you a “Gamer” !!!



Of course you’re not. And you probably knew that when you started collecting the straw for your strawman.

1 Like

I can only imagine what or worse might mean. My best guesses are

Top Of Cupcake Eater
Sandwich Crust Leaver
Elevator Farter
LARPer (which I am)

btw, kudos for actually reversing onesself in a thread. It would take me days to do the same.

1 Like

Which straw man is that?

This one?

But the first clip, from the Holy Grail, addresses exactly the point. The leader tells a peasant to shut up and uses the coercive power of the state to enforce it.

Or did you mean this one?

But the second clip, from History Of The World, addresses exactly that point. “It’s simply a benefit of the office” are your words, not mine. I don’t think “It’s good to be the king!” is far enough from your notion to be a straw man.

Your position on this matter is legalistic, authoritarian, and inflexible.

You’ve proven completely unwilling to acknowledge any of the many compelling reasons to recognize the wrongness of the situation described by the linked article, so I’m going to stop trying to debate you and just use the fertile ground for satire that your thinking affords.


Which strawman? The one where you implied that I think legal = good.

I never said anything about “good”. That’s all you. It’s your straw and you can clean it up yourself.

Since I’m wrong about that, please tell me which of the lawful behaviors engaged in by the Obama administration are not good, in your estimation.

And please remember, the topic of the thread is the fact that the Obama administration has secured 526 months of jail time for leakers, compared to 24 months for all previous administrations combined.


but we’re talking about leakers, aren’t we? Where people cross the legal-line to do good?

So we are, by definition, talking about where “legal” ends and “good” begins.

If you want to argue absolutes – be they “legal” or “good” – that is a different thread.

1 Like

Different axes. Good is orthogonal to legal.

Good/Bad goes on the Real, Legal/Illegal on the Imaginary.


Well conceived and well said!

So the actions of the leakers can be mapped into quadrant IV (good, illegal), and the actions of the current administration can be mapped into quadrant II (bad, legal).

Until the Dept of Justice comes up with a set of conformal mapping functions that makes everything just okey dokey.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.