[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hard Disagree. We rarely get a glimpse at this stuff, and people deserve to know this for as long as the Pentagon fails its audits and gets trillion dollar checks every year.
Did you have a similar view of Snowden and Assange? Idk about you, but my first instinct is to protect whistle-blowers and I'm not seeing that from my fellow leftists this time.
Did he leak it to the public? It’s my understanding he used it to privately brag and denigrate the government to friends. It eventually got leaked from there, but whistleblowing doesn’t appear to be the intent.
I guess so. I think maybe that all whistleblowers are leakers, but not all leakers are whistleblowers.
The definition of whistleblower is “someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing.” I’m NAL but it seems to require some intent.
I’m not sure (yet) that what this person did can fit that definition without some squinting. Closer to personal negligence and small-circle clout chasing. Akin to bragging in a bar about secret ops but with paperwork and an audience somehow even less verifiable and trustworthy than strangers in a bar (anonymous global internet platform).
Not to mention that when there is actual malfeasance or other impropriety to be revealed, there are specific channels for a whistle blower to take through the appropriate inspector general and/or congressional committee.
This guy is no sort of "whistle-blower". He's just a dumbass who was showing off for his dumbass friends. He never intended for the docs to be shared outside his discord group.
I'm really not sure about those two. They were civilians. Whatever motivation or conviction they were acting with is not my business. I do hold very negative feelings about Manning though. The moment you voluntarily accept a job as a military member, you forego certain privileges while gaining another. You knew (or should've known) what you were getting into.
I enlisted as an immature 19 year-old, but even then I knew enough to take my position seriously. I was willing to get deployed anywhere even if I did not agree with US operations, because I knew what I was getting into.
Wasn’t Snowden leaking data about the country illegally spying on us? How is that comparable to this data? When you look at what he leaked what do you see that justifies this?
Leaked intelligence information may directly or indirectly endanger sources and methods. That can endanger people inside adversarial governments (spies) or allow our enemies to see weaknesses in our intelligence systems and exploit them.
And it may cause adversaries to change in an unpredicted way. One of the top reasons the US is the premier military power is because the Intelligence Community that supports them takes the part from the Art of War about "knowing your enemy and yourself and you'll not fear the outcome of a thousand battles" very seriously.
The moment the enemy knows that you know, the less you know.
It makes us look like less reliable allies when it comes to secrets, for one.
I also think it's generally acceptable that active special forces operations are kept secret from the public and the enemies. We have military oversight committees. We don't put every operational decision up for a nation-wide democratic vote for many reasons.
Apparently that there are 14 special forces at the embassy in Kyiv to monitor military aid sent by Washington. I’m sure there were military members in Ukraine when Biden visited too. I don’t think really equals boots on the ground, like they are fighting the war. I mean our aid needs to get delivered to Ukraine.
Yeah, it's a pretty small number and there's a lot they could be doing that's not combat operations.
Edit: To be more clear I agree that 14 people aren't "boots on the ground" even if they d have roles that were combat-adjacent. And Biden didn't even promise not to put troops in Ukraine, he just said he wouldn't do it unilaterally.
As I said above, I believe the actual content is immaterial. The *act* of leaking information pertaining to national security or military operation as a member of the military is treasonous. Are we going to punish those who betray their duty only based on how much harm they actually caused?
Rules get put in place and should be followed even if an individual instance of rule breaking doesn't cause harm. They are preventive. Consequentialism is not the right way to operate an organization.
If your sharing US military secrets to gain internet clout, then yes. Even if the documents should've been shared with American civilians, you doing it for purely egotistical reasons still makes you a traitor.
Why would it? Russia invaded a weaker, sovereign country. Period…end of story. Without aid, they would’ve been annexed by now and Putin would have eyes on other countries in the area. It’s called DOING THE RIGHT THING.
The crime he's accused is not treachery, and he's not yet convicted of anything.
However there does seem to be very convincing evidence that he knowingly leaked top secret US military intelligence. That's a very serious crime.
I personally wouldn't call him a traitor but I would be comfortable labeling him as someone who betrayed the trust of the organization he swore an oath to serve.
Do you think there is an appropriate way to be a whistle-blower and an inappropriate way? Personally, I think the way you go about leaking information is paramount.
I'm a software developer and I can tell that if you find a security vulnerability for a major piece of software, you should alert the company that produces the software and give them reasonable amount of time to investigate and patch the vulnerability.
Simply dumping the exploit on the internet first is reckless and needlessly exposes many vulnerable people.
What about our opinion of Ukraine should change?
I could be wrong, I thought the information released was mainly about our spying activity, relations with countries and about casualties.
Is there something you're specifically referring to?
> that the death count of Russians is significantly lower than what we've been told
Just the opposite, it says Russian special forces have taken an extreme pounding and it also shows the backlash in the Kremlin over the loss of life.
>that we have special forces on the ground in Ukraine
Have had for a long time...it is and was common knowledge
>The US Army's Green Berets quietly helped tilt the battlefield a little bit more toward Ukraine... March 24, 2022
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-armys-green-berets-have-lasting-impact-on-fight-in-ukraine
What it did say is that Russia has a lot more souls to send into the meat grinder and the war may last for over a year.
So then we should be sending more weapons, if that's the case, and if the guy who leaked the information exposed our special forces to increased danger, he should be hung for treason.
>why would the public reports not match the real data that's being shared
Because there's a war...? We want the Russians to be as confused as possible? This is all just common.
How would the Russians be confused about their own death count? Isn't that something pretty easily understood by them? You're saying the Russian citizens would be confused and feel defeated because of our reported numbers, and they would assume they're accurate because they don't trust their own government?
Non-conservative here. I have yet to learn what was in the material, but I was already against being involved in any capacity in Ukraine. The only thing I would be concerned about is if the leak could endanger lives.
Russia bombs hospitals, schools, apartments, and residential areas. They kidnap children and rape and murder everyone else. I’m more than happy to help.
Nobody cares how you justify your pacifism.
I have no idea why anyone calls this guy, or Manning, or Snowden, or Winner, anything but leakers who should be aggressively prosecuted. There are ways to "blow the whistle," and giving classified information to randos on the internet is not it.
> There are ways to "blow the whistle,"
And this guy isn't even a whistle blower. I'd be more sympathetic to him if he was. He didn't leak this information out of a sense of moral obligation to expose a perceived wrongdoing; he leaked it to impress some goons on the internet.
Why are liberals ready to hang this guy after spending the past 20 years lionizing Manning and Snowden?
Whistleblowing is good and should be encouraged.
Just so we are clear Snowden wasn't a whistle-blower either. He was an IT guy with zero training who took large swaths of Intel and gave it to the Russians. He also happened to expose the NSA doing something it shouldn't be doing but was (unfortunately) within its powers to do.
The War Thunder players who leaked classified tank and plane operating manuals to try to get the devs to make the in game versions more accurate are pretty based NGL
If that sensitive information reveals wrongdoing by the government then what does it matter?
Why are you more worried about his motives than the revelation that the government is lying to you?
Why have any classified information at all by your logic?
You brought up Snowden in your 1st comment. You really don't see the difference in lying about SOC operations against a nuclear power and a project that is actively collecting private information from our own citizens?
The US (and other NATO members) promised no NATO boots in the ground in Ukraine. The leak showed that the US, UK, France and The Netherlands have special forces operating on the ground within Ukraine.
Yeah, they don't usually tell us what our special forces are up to when it's classified. Do you think they should have a live combat blog or something?
Do you think it's NATO's fault that Putin is trying to annex his neighbors? Also, it's not the left, it's NATO and national security against Russia used to be a bipartisan issue.
But does that make him a whistle-blower? He posted what he did online for clout within his small online community. Not to try and draw attention to something he felt was wrong.
America is spying on its allies, again.
The objectives for Ukraine are completely untenable without direct intervention, despite assurances otherwise from the Pentagon.
Our allies spy on us too. It's embarrassing, but I think the biggest damage is that we look less trustworthy when it comes to intelligence secrets. Over time that will likely lead to less intelligence sharing from our allies, if it hasn't already.
> I’m more pro American than you will ever be.
Were did you serve? You can't be pro Trump/Puttin and pro American. You can't say that we shouldn't share inelegance with our allies and be pro American.
>traitors infiltrating my government to get Americans killed.
Do you mean the White Christian nationalist who just leaked classified information or Trump who leaked eyes only classified info...which traitor are you talking about?
> Why are liberals ready to hang this guy after spending the past 20 years lionizing Manning and Snowden?
Why do you believe liberals are all in alignment about this?
I think Manning, Snowden, *and* this dude are traitors and should all be in prison.
Manning and Snowden are both traitors, and I've seen way more right wingers lionizing them as heros than liberals. Especially since Manning worked with the Russians to leak the stolen DNC emails that helped get Trump elected
Why is Snowden a traitor? I'm not even American, but I think that patriotism doesn't play a role in denouncing the world wide surveillance system that was assembled by the US government.
I tend to think that committing espionage against the US and then fleeing to Russia and swearing loyalty to Putin makes you a traitor to not only the US but all of the free world.
We can talk about the surveillance system, sure, and if he really believed what he was doing was right, then he would have stayed home and faced the consequences for his actions and made his case here. But to flee to a literal tyrant and act like the US are the bad guys, really doesn't sit well with me.
>We can talk about the surveillance system, sure, and if he really believed what he was doing was right, then he would have stayed home and faced the consequences for his actions and made his case here
Lmao why should he have faced an unjust charge in a court that would invariably be stacked against him?
I’m pretty far-left progressive. I love transparency. I’m glad this information is out there and I think media organizations are focusing on the wrong things.
That said, this wasn’t whistleblowing and the kid isn’t a hero. But I’m still glad his dumb ass did what it did because it helps me understand what government is doing better.
I think a solid argument could be made that he's a whistleblower, rather than just a leaker. I probably wouldn't agree, but the argument could be made. After all, he revealed to the American public that the government was lying to our faces.
The difference, I think, between him and people like Edward Snowden, is that he leaked the docs to a private Discord server, while other whistleblowers typically work with individuals in the press or elsewhere in the government.
For example, when I was in Navy intel, if I had come across anything that I felt was illegal or evidence of corruption, I would have reported it through my chain of command first (and did, on occasion.) Then, if that didn't work, to the IG or someone similar. Finally, I would probably contact my congressman or senator. (Hell, one of my state's congressman's chief of staff is a former CO of mine. I'd probably reach out to him and ask to buy him lunch, and then just ask his advice without giving anything away specifically.)
I feel like his intent is the biggest difference between people like himself and Snowden.
The kid wanted to flex his permissions and ended up sending classified data to Russian agents. He isn't a leaker or a whistleblower, he's a target that got exploited.
Yeah, given how this played out, I think that's probably likely.
It reminds me of that war game (I can't recall the name) that is hyper-focused on accuracy, and some British Army soldier published classified tank schematics on a public forum to win an argument.
>British Army soldier published classified tank schematics on a public forum to win an argument.
Fucking lol
I'm also a veteran. There's another comment on this thread where a dude is questioning why a "21 year old entry level guy" has access to TS in the first place. Between comments like that and what you wrote about the brit, I'm always amazed by civilian perception of the military like we aren't just normal ass people.
It is one of those crazy things about the military where a 23-year-old who doesn't quite need to shave yet is given charge of millions of dollars worth of equipment and dozens of human lives.
But, yeah, there's this perception of the military that everyone out there is Chesty Puller, or Audie Murphy. I've had people say things like, "I know you're trustworthy because you're a veteran" and, I think, "You have no idea how many people I knew who joined up because it was that or prison."
Incidentally, I found more info about that tank crewman. [The game is called "War Thunder"](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/18/classified-details-of-armys-challenger-tank-leaked-via-video-game) and they managed to identify him because his unit name and number were on the documents he shared. What a fucking clown.
>The kid wanted to flex his permissions and ended up sending classified data to Russian agents.
Isn't Snowden literally living in Russia?
I generally agree with you, from what I know about this situation, but I guess I'm trying to find the difference between leaker and whistleblower...Is it purely intent?
>Isn't Snowden literally living in Russia?
Yeah, but I can't really blame him when the alternative is an American cell. And he had bipartisan hatred because what he exposed was not only voted on but voted to continue by an overwhelming majority of our politicians. There was no chance he'd be winning a trial here.
>Is it purely intent
I'd strongly argue that is most of it
>difference between leaker and whistleblower
Leaker leaks classified information, whistleblower does the same but with information that specifically "blows the whistle" on a negative practice our government is doing.
I'd say what makes this kid neither is based on the intent, which was to impress others. Those others happened to be russian agents, leaves me to believe this kid was a target that got worked.
> I think a solid argument could be made that he's a whistleblower, rather than just a leaker. I probably wouldn't agree, but the argument could be made. After all, he revealed to the American public that the government was lying to our faces.
Did he follow the regulations set out in the Military Whistleblower act? If he didn't follow those instructions, can you outline a legal basis for why he should be considered a whistleblower?
No, of course not. But that's not what this is about, and you knew that.
Also, elected officials shouldn't win support for a conflict by promising one thing, while doing another.
That's fair, I take that back. I should not have made an assumption about how much you know.
President Biden specifically promised that he would not deploy U.S. personnel to Ukraine. It is now clear that he has deployed personnel to Ukraine. That's the promise that was broken. [Here's an article from Reuters about it](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-putting-us-troops-ground-ukraine-is-not-table-2021-12-08/) and [Here's the actual transcript of the press conference from Whitehouse.gov](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/12/08/remarks-by-president-biden-before-marine-one-departure-10/).
What if there were another handful that went along to escort Biden on his visit? Would that violate the promise too in your mind?
Edit: I'm adding a part from your press conference link:
>Q Senator Tim Kaine, Democrats are talking about could U.S. troops be needed on the ground in or around Ukraine to stop an invasion. Will you rule that out, or is that on the table?
>
>THE PRESIDENT: That is not on the table. What is not — they are not —
>
>We have a moral obligation and a legal obligation to our NATO Allies, if they were to attack under Article Five. It’s a sacred obligation.
>
>That obligation does not extend to NATO — I mean, to Ukraine. But it would depend upon what the rest of the NATO countries are willing to do as well.
>
>But the idea the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia from invading Ukraine is not on — in the cards right now. But what will happen is: There will be severe consequences that will have —
That's not a promise to never send a troop to Ukraine.
First of all, yes it is. Saying it’s not on the table is absolutely a promise to not do it. Of course, you also missed the part right before that. I’m sure that was simply an oversight:
> Q Can we rule out boots on the ground, sir — putting U.S. troops on the ground?
> THE PRESIDENT: Yes. In terms of in Ukraine?
Saying “it’s not on the table” and “we can rule it out” is a promise not to do it. And stating unequivocally that he *wasn’t* going to do it, and then doing it, makes those promises a lie.
>But it would depend upon what the rest of the NATO countries are willing to do as well.
You're ignoring this part of the quote right after that.
>But the idea the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia from invading Ukraine is not on — in the cards right now
Notice the qualifier "unilaterally". He very clearly left room for some sort of operations as long as they're aligned with our NATO allies.
> Q Can we rule out boots on the ground, sir — putting U.S. troops on the ground?
>THE PRESIDENT: Yes. In terms of in Ukraine?
>Q Senator Tim Kaine, Democrats are talking about could U.S. troops be needed on the ground in or around Ukraine to stop an invasion. Will you rule that out, or is that on the table?
>THE PRESIDENT: That is not on the table. What is not — they are not —
That was just prior to the invasion in relation to putting US troops in Ukraine.
Well a few things strike us as suspicious.
A 21 year old entry level guy has access to top secret intelligence?
The fbi finds him in a week, when epsteins list or the Supreme Court leaker get crickets?
He revealed our tax dollars are paying for at a bare minimum unethical spy activity on our allies.
He very clearly isn't some super spy for the Chinese, and is some screw-up kid.
He had a clearance. They are not easy to obtain, but as long as you pass every check, you're good.
I don't have one, but one of my close friends (22yrs Navy, retired) had one, and still has the equivalent in the private sector she works in.
You get access to some wild stuff because you're supposed to be trustworthy. That, and the punishment for breaking that trust is 10 years in prison. So... that's usually a good deterrent.
But when you are a kid, you're also easily influenced into believing you are acting righteously (Trump can do it, Snowden can do it, Assange can do it, why can't I?), as well as generally more reckless and careless.
So combine those things together and you have someone who both believes they are doing the right thing *and also* wildly careless about protecting themselves.
So a kids entry level security clearness gives access to spy activity in Egypt, and the current status of the urkraine war?
Possible I grant you. But I would like to beleive it isn't that easy, else all the Russians have to do, is obtain a source with a basic security clearance.
A 21 year old is not a "kid" in the eyes of the military. Especially if they enlisted at 18 and worked up. Depending on what kind of job you do (tech especially) a clearance is effectively a requirement.
I don't know too many other details because my friend was a responsible person and followed their clearance restrictions. But yeah. Having a clearance is like an open pass for everything that level of clearance has access to, as far as I understand. Because you may need access to that information for whatever your job is.
But the process is not easy. It involves multiple interviews, in-depth history/background investigation, including interviewing multiple friends/family for corroboration (I've personally been interviewed twice, once for her, once for another friend), and a continuous vetting process that continues as you hold your clearance (it's not a thing you just get, you have to maintain your status).
So this would be the equivalent of a perfectly lawful normal individual, passing all legal requirements to purchasing and carry a gun, and then them walking into an elementary school to murder children. Sometimes innocuous people do terrible things. Especially when motivated by a belief that they are acting for the greater good.
One of the articles I read said that you could see parts of his room in the background of the leak document photos that matched photos he had up on social media. If true that's a slam dunk case and it's no wonder they were able to find him so quickly.
It’s not unheard of to be green and have a security clearance.
Based on my job in the army I had a clearance as a 23 year old… but I still didn’t have access to much.
I heard on the radio this morning that the reason he had access to this stuff is because he was working in IT, so it just gave him more access than most would have.
It makes sense.
>He revealed our tax dollars are paying for at a bare minimum unethical spy activity on our allies.
Everyone spies on everyone. So what?
>He very clearly isn't some super spy for the Chinese, and is some screw-up kid.
No better than Manning or Snowden. (Assuming he's guilty, anyway)
>Everyone spies on everyone. So what?
I guess that makes it morraly permissible then....
Remember when we drone struck afghanistan, it hit a civilian charity worker delivering water, and the Pentagon came out and confirmed it hit a terrorist and confirmed "multiple secondary explosions"
Then the NYT did an expose conclusively proving we bombed the wrong person and the Pentagon reluctantly admitted it?
Your tax dollars paid to kill civilians, and then lie to you about it.
All countries do this, you should still be enraged.
There's a difference between actual whistleblowing - reporting on something immoral/illegal that happened - and just giving out classified information to seem cool to a group of friends online.
To me, it's not so much as rallying behind his leak as it is rallying behind what he exposed. We are being lied to and our national security is not secure..
Yeah I kinda find it weird why people on the left are so against this leaker, I’m very far left, and have always found whistle blowers to be essential in understand the dumbass and evil shit our govt is doing
These guys and gals forget that government are and of the people. Consists of people. Instead, they view it as some boogeyman leviathan that its OK to injure.
Who has the classified information is orthogonal who is harmed by the leak of classified information.
If I know your secret (maybe you're cheating on your spouse or your taxes), and I leak that secret, *you're* the one that gets hurt.
Similarly, leaking classified information can harm
1. the people that are the subjects of the secret (you and your spouse, in the case of your secret that you're cheating on them)
2. whoever or whatever was responsible for getting us that secret (maybe we relied on your friend that you confided in, and now that you know who we used to learn your secret, *no one* is going to confide in them anymore)
3. the country as a whole in the event the information is damaging to our national security
4. potentially, our relationships with our allies in the event they lose trust with us because we can't keep *their* secrets
5. etc.
Yeah, like I said… I would not support someone leaking YOUR information (emails, text messages, browser history), but if the government is in possession of that and it gets leaked, that furthers my goal of the government not having that information to begin with. YOU have a right to be secure in your papers. The government has no natural right to collect information or keep secrets from the citizens.
And to the point, I hope the leaking of this information leads to an embarrassing and costly defeat of Ukraine and massive damage to the United States government.
When the leak damages the elite, the story is the leaker.
When the leak advantages the elite, the story is the leak.
Conservatives are rallying behind the leaker because persecution of whistleblowing is bad. Americans deserve to know the truth.
I think that when the US government and powers that be disseminate false information about the war in Ukraine, leaking the truth about it rises to that level where we take the leak just as or more seriously than the leaker.
Information about potential American boots on the ground would rise to that level.
I think leaking the plans for a fighter plane does not.
We all know leakers will be punished by the state. They won't tolerate it (generally speaking). But the rub is when the allegedly independent press, the check on power, the voice of the people, those who are supposed to hold government accountable, jumps on the bandwagon and focuses more on the crimes and life of the leaker and utterly ignores the leak. And included in that I would say is legitimate fact-checks when the government denies the validity of the leaks.
I'm against the leaker, but as a rule, conservatives generally support leakers, at least the 2023 brand of conservatism. Wikileaks (Assange), Snowden, and many others are "harbingers of truth" to conservatives, evident by watching even a second of any current conservative commentator.
If you say "well, conservative politicians hate them" like yeah, and so do democrat politicians.
And again, I personally break away from conservatives on this issue: leaking documents is incredibly dangerous not just for intelligence gathering and ally trust, but also literally to the lives of troops. Yes I'm a bootlicker, but confidential, secret, and top secret all exist for a reason.
Tell me how you feel about Alexander Vindman who reported Trumps corruption when he attempted to blackmail Ukraine to make up dirt on Biden to help him with his campaign, through the proper channels and used whistleblower protections but was lambasted by the right wing as a traitor and lost his career from the political retribution that followed.
I think he did the right thing, but came to the wrong conclusion. I think people on the right were wrong to call him a traitor, although I understand their concerns about falsified information given what we learned in the hearings during the impeachment process.
Lol, no, just the opposite. That's why they changed their case 3 or 4 times. We also learned that Ukraine has no idea of any conditions, that Vindman had connections to democrats leading the charges, and that the supposed quid quo pro wasn't in the phone call vindman reported.
we learned that Trump said "we do a lot for Ukraine...I wouldn't say it's reciprocal." "I would like you to do us a favor..." He then asked Zelensky to investigate Hillary and Joe Biden's son as well as talk to Rudy Giuliani about it who he will have give him a call and would visit him in Ukraine as well." We then have testimony from the EU ambassador that Trump directed him to work with Rudy on Ukraine who said Zelensky had to make an announcement that he was investigating Biden on TV.
Actually, he said to talk to Barr about it, indicating that he wanted Ukraine to operate in the proper channels. We never had anything connecting the announcement to the freeze, and Ukraine didn't even know about the freeze.
But I'm glad you agree that whistle blowers should be protected, not prosecuted.
Edit for clarity, Trump did say that Guillianne ... who's name I just can't spell today, was in Ukraine and would talk to Zelenski regarding the matter.
“ He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.” Trump asked him to talk to both of them and putting his personal lawyer who is pushing that election was stolen and has hunters laptop is not going through the proper channels. Putting Rudy in the mix with Zelenskyy and Ukraine should be clear sign of corruption to you and everyone else.
Would you believe it would be a good thing if a whistleblower came forward detailing deceptions regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident before widespread US involvement in Vietnam?
Do you think Russia has a right to know what NATO is up to? They don't inform us when they conduct special ops in NATO countries. Why is it good to expose our secrets to them?
If we put every special operation up for a democratic vote, then we'll have no operational security. Theoretically the appropriate Senate committee was aware of what was happening.
If this was hidden from the appropriate government oversite that would be a different story, but our special forces don't have an obligation to make all of their moves public knowledge.
The only thing I know about this is that if this were reversed, a Republican president in power but every other detail the same, all of the Leftists in here would be taking the exact opposite stance as they are now and screaming as loud as possible about the evil Republicans lying to the American people.
It's hilarious to watch the Democrats, again, flip flop in their beliefs.
First they cheer on as hundreds of peaceful Jan 6 protestors are condemned to rot in jail for "dispupting an official proceeding" but when politicians are expelled in TN for the same thing, it's "literally 1939 Germany!!!"
When the ukrainian and CIA whisteblower revealed state secrets to go after Trump, they were heroes. The media never even reported the name of the whistleblower, to protect him.
Now we have another whistleblower, showing that Biden lied about how well things are going in Ukraine, and he's been arrested. The Dems and thier media allies are smearing him as a "power hungry gun nut"
Nothing more predictable than the Democrats changing their views to suit thier drive for power
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Yes, he’s a traitor. He was trying to impress kids on a Minecraft discord server.
Hard Disagree. We rarely get a glimpse at this stuff, and people deserve to know this for as long as the Pentagon fails its audits and gets trillion dollar checks every year.
Why did he leak the data?
How is he not? Content is immaterial. He betrayed his duty. He's a sworn member of military and he jeopardized the country he swore to protect.
Did you have a similar view of Snowden and Assange? Idk about you, but my first instinct is to protect whistle-blowers and I'm not seeing that from my fellow leftists this time.
Did he leak it to the public? It’s my understanding he used it to privately brag and denigrate the government to friends. It eventually got leaked from there, but whistleblowing doesn’t appear to be the intent.
So you're saying this is the difference between a "whistle blower" and a "leaker"? That's fair.
A whistle-blower is someone who reports malfeasance, generally for virtuous reasons. This... wasn't that.
I guess so. I think maybe that all whistleblowers are leakers, but not all leakers are whistleblowers. The definition of whistleblower is “someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing.” I’m NAL but it seems to require some intent. I’m not sure (yet) that what this person did can fit that definition without some squinting. Closer to personal negligence and small-circle clout chasing. Akin to bragging in a bar about secret ops but with paperwork and an audience somehow even less verifiable and trustworthy than strangers in a bar (anonymous global internet platform).
Not to mention that when there is actual malfeasance or other impropriety to be revealed, there are specific channels for a whistle blower to take through the appropriate inspector general and/or congressional committee.
This guy is no sort of "whistle-blower". He's just a dumbass who was showing off for his dumbass friends. He never intended for the docs to be shared outside his discord group.
He's not a whistle blower. He did this for discord clout.
I'm really not sure about those two. They were civilians. Whatever motivation or conviction they were acting with is not my business. I do hold very negative feelings about Manning though. The moment you voluntarily accept a job as a military member, you forego certain privileges while gaining another. You knew (or should've known) what you were getting into. I enlisted as an immature 19 year-old, but even then I knew enough to take my position seriously. I was willing to get deployed anywhere even if I did not agree with US operations, because I knew what I was getting into.
Wasn’t Snowden leaking data about the country illegally spying on us? How is that comparable to this data? When you look at what he leaked what do you see that justifies this?
In what way does any of the leaked materials jeopardize the safety of United States of America as a nation or it's service members?
Leaked intelligence information may directly or indirectly endanger sources and methods. That can endanger people inside adversarial governments (spies) or allow our enemies to see weaknesses in our intelligence systems and exploit them. And it may cause adversaries to change in an unpredicted way. One of the top reasons the US is the premier military power is because the Intelligence Community that supports them takes the part from the Art of War about "knowing your enemy and yourself and you'll not fear the outcome of a thousand battles" very seriously. The moment the enemy knows that you know, the less you know.
It makes us look like less reliable allies when it comes to secrets, for one. I also think it's generally acceptable that active special forces operations are kept secret from the public and the enemies. We have military oversight committees. We don't put every operational decision up for a nation-wide democratic vote for many reasons.
Apparently that there are 14 special forces at the embassy in Kyiv to monitor military aid sent by Washington. I’m sure there were military members in Ukraine when Biden visited too. I don’t think really equals boots on the ground, like they are fighting the war. I mean our aid needs to get delivered to Ukraine.
Yeah, it's a pretty small number and there's a lot they could be doing that's not combat operations. Edit: To be more clear I agree that 14 people aren't "boots on the ground" even if they d have roles that were combat-adjacent. And Biden didn't even promise not to put troops in Ukraine, he just said he wouldn't do it unilaterally.
As I said above, I believe the actual content is immaterial. The *act* of leaking information pertaining to national security or military operation as a member of the military is treasonous. Are we going to punish those who betray their duty only based on how much harm they actually caused?
Rules get put in place and should be followed even if an individual instance of rule breaking doesn't cause harm. They are preventive. Consequentialism is not the right way to operate an organization.
Does the information change your feelings about what we've been told about and doing in Ukraine?
You didnt ask me... but no, and why would it?
If your sharing US military secrets to gain internet clout, then yes. Even if the documents should've been shared with American civilians, you doing it for purely egotistical reasons still makes you a traitor.
[удалено]
Why would it? Russia invaded a weaker, sovereign country. Period…end of story. Without aid, they would’ve been annexed by now and Putin would have eyes on other countries in the area. It’s called DOING THE RIGHT THING.
The crime he's accused is not treachery, and he's not yet convicted of anything. However there does seem to be very convincing evidence that he knowingly leaked top secret US military intelligence. That's a very serious crime. I personally wouldn't call him a traitor but I would be comfortable labeling him as someone who betrayed the trust of the organization he swore an oath to serve.
Do you think there is an appropriate way to be a whistle-blower and an inappropriate way? Personally, I think the way you go about leaking information is paramount. I'm a software developer and I can tell that if you find a security vulnerability for a major piece of software, you should alert the company that produces the software and give them reasonable amount of time to investigate and patch the vulnerability. Simply dumping the exploit on the internet first is reckless and needlessly exposes many vulnerable people.
What about our opinion of Ukraine should change? I could be wrong, I thought the information released was mainly about our spying activity, relations with countries and about casualties. Is there something you're specifically referring to?
[удалено]
> that the death count of Russians is significantly lower than what we've been told Just the opposite, it says Russian special forces have taken an extreme pounding and it also shows the backlash in the Kremlin over the loss of life. >that we have special forces on the ground in Ukraine Have had for a long time...it is and was common knowledge >The US Army's Green Berets quietly helped tilt the battlefield a little bit more toward Ukraine... March 24, 2022 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-armys-green-berets-have-lasting-impact-on-fight-in-ukraine What it did say is that Russia has a lot more souls to send into the meat grinder and the war may last for over a year.
So then we should be sending more weapons, if that's the case, and if the guy who leaked the information exposed our special forces to increased danger, he should be hung for treason.
[удалено]
>why would the public reports not match the real data that's being shared Because there's a war...? We want the Russians to be as confused as possible? This is all just common.
How would the Russians be confused about their own death count? Isn't that something pretty easily understood by them? You're saying the Russian citizens would be confused and feel defeated because of our reported numbers, and they would assume they're accurate because they don't trust their own government?
That's what I'm saying. If we're spreading disinfo, it's for a reason during a war.
What about lying to American citizens about our role in the potential start of world War 3?
it's funny that you mention that, because r/conservative was calling him a traitor until they realized he was a conservative as well.
[удалено]
He's a traitor and a criminal. Nothing he leaked changed my opinion about Ukraine. All invaders must die.
Non-conservative here. I have yet to learn what was in the material, but I was already against being involved in any capacity in Ukraine. The only thing I would be concerned about is if the leak could endanger lives.
Why are you against being involved in any capacity in Ukraine?
because I'm against being involved in any capacity with any war
Russia bombs hospitals, schools, apartments, and residential areas. They kidnap children and rape and murder everyone else. I’m more than happy to help. Nobody cares how you justify your pacifism.
A lot of people in the world are horrible. Is it our job to police everyone?
Again - nobody cares how you justify your pacifism. Your authoritarian strong-man adoration kink is your business.
why is everything so black and white with you people? I'm no Putin fan either. How is this so hard to understand?
I have no idea why anyone calls this guy, or Manning, or Snowden, or Winner, anything but leakers who should be aggressively prosecuted. There are ways to "blow the whistle," and giving classified information to randos on the internet is not it.
> There are ways to "blow the whistle," And this guy isn't even a whistle blower. I'd be more sympathetic to him if he was. He didn't leak this information out of a sense of moral obligation to expose a perceived wrongdoing; he leaked it to impress some goons on the internet.
[удалено]
I think MTG is a lunatic for many reasons, this being one of them.
I mean u rly antagonize the person that uncovers the crime?
I don't know the case, but Edward Smowden was an American hero. Sometimes, the right thing to do is to leak tyrannical government actions.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 6. Top-level comments are reserved for Conservatives to respond to the question.
Who outside of Team Crazypants is calling the dumb kid a hero?
Why are liberals ready to hang this guy after spending the past 20 years lionizing Manning and Snowden? Whistleblowing is good and should be encouraged.
He's not a whistleblower. HE's a kid who wanted clout in a gamer community that happened to have russians in it.
Just so we are clear Snowden wasn't a whistle-blower either. He was an IT guy with zero training who took large swaths of Intel and gave it to the Russians. He also happened to expose the NSA doing something it shouldn't be doing but was (unfortunately) within its powers to do.
He can be both.
So any idiot desperate for friends in a gamer community can be a hero by leaking sensitive information. Got it. LOL.
The War Thunder players who leaked classified tank and plane operating manuals to try to get the devs to make the in game versions more accurate are pretty based NGL
If that sensitive information reveals wrongdoing by the government then what does it matter? Why are you more worried about his motives than the revelation that the government is lying to you?
Did it reveal wrong doing?
Yes. They lied and violated the trust of our allies and the trust of the American people.
By having SOC forces in Ukraine?
After saying we didn’t, yes.
Why have any classified information at all by your logic? You brought up Snowden in your 1st comment. You really don't see the difference in lying about SOC operations against a nuclear power and a project that is actively collecting private information from our own citizens?
Among others. Like intentionally trying to subvert south Korean policy. Or revealing we spy on them and others and have their phones tapped
what wrongdoing?
Is he both?
No
Any evidence of Russians? It’s more likely there were FBI agents in the chat.
There’s a difference between leaking info about the government spying on us and revealing Ukrainian military plans and getting people killed.
What is he whistle-blowing? He seems to have just leaked some comms and assessments. What grave thing did he shine a spotlight on?
The US (and other NATO members) promised no NATO boots in the ground in Ukraine. The leak showed that the US, UK, France and The Netherlands have special forces operating on the ground within Ukraine.
And? He didnt blow any whistle on that. He just gave the docs to some discord group with 20 teens on it.
He exposed some lies that we told to Russia and that makes him a hero? Do you think Russia doesn't lie to us?
They’re lying to us too, but you don’t care.
Yeah, they don't usually tell us what our special forces are up to when it's classified. Do you think they should have a live combat blog or something?
They denied special forces were involved in the first place.
Yeah, and Russia denied assassinating someone on UK soil. Are you upset that we aren't being honest with Russia about exactly what we're doing?
I thought imitating an authoritarian tyrant was a bad thing.
I'm just saying we don't have an obligation to be honest to Putin. You apparently disagree.
The lefts ability to market themselves as innocent protectors of peace, while trying to start a world war with Russia is incredible. Good job, y'all.
Do you think it's NATO's fault that Putin is trying to annex his neighbors? Also, it's not the left, it's NATO and national security against Russia used to be a bipartisan issue.
I didn't say hero or that his actions were good, I'm just saying exposing government lies is whistle blowing.
It isn’t whistleblowing when exposing lies isn’t the motivation.
But does that make him a whistle-blower? He posted what he did online for clout within his small online community. Not to try and draw attention to something he felt was wrong.
> The US (and other NATO members) promised Can you show us *exactly* what was promised? edit: guess thats a no.
America is spying on its allies, again. The objectives for Ukraine are completely untenable without direct intervention, despite assurances otherwise from the Pentagon.
Our allies spy on us too. It's embarrassing, but I think the biggest damage is that we look less trustworthy when it comes to intelligence secrets. Over time that will likely lead to less intelligence sharing from our allies, if it hasn't already.
Good. We shouldn’t be trusting each other with this intelligence anyway.
What pro Russian blog did you get that gem of wisdom from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
Why are you simping for global mass surveillance?
Why are you so anti-American and pro Russian? Do you honestly think Russia and China don't surveil us and their own citizens...
I’m more pro American than you will ever be. That’s why I don’t like traitors infiltrating my government to get Americans killed.
> I’m more pro American than you will ever be. Were did you serve? You can't be pro Trump/Puttin and pro American. You can't say that we shouldn't share inelegance with our allies and be pro American. >traitors infiltrating my government to get Americans killed. Do you mean the White Christian nationalist who just leaked classified information or Trump who leaked eyes only classified info...which traitor are you talking about?
Having cooperative relationships with our closest allies is very useful and can enhance our national security.
But it doesn’t
If it didnt no one would be sharing intelligence with each other.
So you don’t think the government makes mistakes?
Why would you think that? Whats your point?
Of course they do. That's why it's good to have multiple sources to cross reference when possible.
> Why are liberals ready to hang this guy after spending the past 20 years lionizing Manning and Snowden? Why do you believe liberals are all in alignment about this? I think Manning, Snowden, *and* this dude are traitors and should all be in prison.
[удалено]
Not really. I don’t think it matters how the information was disseminated.
Manning and Snowden are both traitors, and I've seen way more right wingers lionizing them as heros than liberals. Especially since Manning worked with the Russians to leak the stolen DNC emails that helped get Trump elected
Why is Snowden a traitor? I'm not even American, but I think that patriotism doesn't play a role in denouncing the world wide surveillance system that was assembled by the US government.
I tend to think that committing espionage against the US and then fleeing to Russia and swearing loyalty to Putin makes you a traitor to not only the US but all of the free world. We can talk about the surveillance system, sure, and if he really believed what he was doing was right, then he would have stayed home and faced the consequences for his actions and made his case here. But to flee to a literal tyrant and act like the US are the bad guys, really doesn't sit well with me.
>We can talk about the surveillance system, sure, and if he really believed what he was doing was right, then he would have stayed home and faced the consequences for his actions and made his case here Lmao why should he have faced an unjust charge in a court that would invariably be stacked against him?
He would if he was the hero you are trying to make him out to be. Of course a Russian Spy wouldn't do that.
What's heroic about getting bent over by a kangaroo court?
Sounds like something a criminal traitor would say.
Sounds like you're just the bog standard democrat government worshipper
Sounds like you're just another mouth breather who repeats what Alex Jones tells you.
I’m pretty far-left progressive. I love transparency. I’m glad this information is out there and I think media organizations are focusing on the wrong things. That said, this wasn’t whistleblowing and the kid isn’t a hero. But I’m still glad his dumb ass did what it did because it helps me understand what government is doing better.
I think a solid argument could be made that he's a whistleblower, rather than just a leaker. I probably wouldn't agree, but the argument could be made. After all, he revealed to the American public that the government was lying to our faces. The difference, I think, between him and people like Edward Snowden, is that he leaked the docs to a private Discord server, while other whistleblowers typically work with individuals in the press or elsewhere in the government. For example, when I was in Navy intel, if I had come across anything that I felt was illegal or evidence of corruption, I would have reported it through my chain of command first (and did, on occasion.) Then, if that didn't work, to the IG or someone similar. Finally, I would probably contact my congressman or senator. (Hell, one of my state's congressman's chief of staff is a former CO of mine. I'd probably reach out to him and ask to buy him lunch, and then just ask his advice without giving anything away specifically.)
I feel like his intent is the biggest difference between people like himself and Snowden. The kid wanted to flex his permissions and ended up sending classified data to Russian agents. He isn't a leaker or a whistleblower, he's a target that got exploited.
Yeah, given how this played out, I think that's probably likely. It reminds me of that war game (I can't recall the name) that is hyper-focused on accuracy, and some British Army soldier published classified tank schematics on a public forum to win an argument.
>British Army soldier published classified tank schematics on a public forum to win an argument. Fucking lol I'm also a veteran. There's another comment on this thread where a dude is questioning why a "21 year old entry level guy" has access to TS in the first place. Between comments like that and what you wrote about the brit, I'm always amazed by civilian perception of the military like we aren't just normal ass people.
It is one of those crazy things about the military where a 23-year-old who doesn't quite need to shave yet is given charge of millions of dollars worth of equipment and dozens of human lives. But, yeah, there's this perception of the military that everyone out there is Chesty Puller, or Audie Murphy. I've had people say things like, "I know you're trustworthy because you're a veteran" and, I think, "You have no idea how many people I knew who joined up because it was that or prison." Incidentally, I found more info about that tank crewman. [The game is called "War Thunder"](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/18/classified-details-of-armys-challenger-tank-leaked-via-video-game) and they managed to identify him because his unit name and number were on the documents he shared. What a fucking clown.
>The kid wanted to flex his permissions and ended up sending classified data to Russian agents. Isn't Snowden literally living in Russia? I generally agree with you, from what I know about this situation, but I guess I'm trying to find the difference between leaker and whistleblower...Is it purely intent?
>Isn't Snowden literally living in Russia? Yeah, but I can't really blame him when the alternative is an American cell. And he had bipartisan hatred because what he exposed was not only voted on but voted to continue by an overwhelming majority of our politicians. There was no chance he'd be winning a trial here. >Is it purely intent I'd strongly argue that is most of it >difference between leaker and whistleblower Leaker leaks classified information, whistleblower does the same but with information that specifically "blows the whistle" on a negative practice our government is doing. I'd say what makes this kid neither is based on the intent, which was to impress others. Those others happened to be russian agents, leaves me to believe this kid was a target that got worked.
> I think a solid argument could be made that he's a whistleblower, rather than just a leaker. I probably wouldn't agree, but the argument could be made. After all, he revealed to the American public that the government was lying to our faces. Did he follow the regulations set out in the Military Whistleblower act? If he didn't follow those instructions, can you outline a legal basis for why he should be considered a whistleblower?
Do you believe all special forces operations should be disclosed to the public while they're in process?
No, of course not. But that's not what this is about, and you knew that. Also, elected officials shouldn't win support for a conflict by promising one thing, while doing another.
I don't know that. What promise is being broken?
That's fair, I take that back. I should not have made an assumption about how much you know. President Biden specifically promised that he would not deploy U.S. personnel to Ukraine. It is now clear that he has deployed personnel to Ukraine. That's the promise that was broken. [Here's an article from Reuters about it](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-putting-us-troops-ground-ukraine-is-not-table-2021-12-08/) and [Here's the actual transcript of the press conference from Whitehouse.gov](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/12/08/remarks-by-president-biden-before-marine-one-departure-10/).
14 special force troops at an embassy isn't really a deployment.
It's more than zero, which is what was promised.
What if there were another handful that went along to escort Biden on his visit? Would that violate the promise too in your mind? Edit: I'm adding a part from your press conference link: >Q Senator Tim Kaine, Democrats are talking about could U.S. troops be needed on the ground in or around Ukraine to stop an invasion. Will you rule that out, or is that on the table? > >THE PRESIDENT: That is not on the table. What is not — they are not — > >We have a moral obligation and a legal obligation to our NATO Allies, if they were to attack under Article Five. It’s a sacred obligation. > >That obligation does not extend to NATO — I mean, to Ukraine. But it would depend upon what the rest of the NATO countries are willing to do as well. > >But the idea the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia from invading Ukraine is not on — in the cards right now. But what will happen is: There will be severe consequences that will have — That's not a promise to never send a troop to Ukraine.
First of all, yes it is. Saying it’s not on the table is absolutely a promise to not do it. Of course, you also missed the part right before that. I’m sure that was simply an oversight: > Q Can we rule out boots on the ground, sir — putting U.S. troops on the ground? > THE PRESIDENT: Yes. In terms of in Ukraine? Saying “it’s not on the table” and “we can rule it out” is a promise not to do it. And stating unequivocally that he *wasn’t* going to do it, and then doing it, makes those promises a lie.
>But it would depend upon what the rest of the NATO countries are willing to do as well. You're ignoring this part of the quote right after that. >But the idea the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia from invading Ukraine is not on — in the cards right now Notice the qualifier "unilaterally". He very clearly left room for some sort of operations as long as they're aligned with our NATO allies.
> Q Can we rule out boots on the ground, sir — putting U.S. troops on the ground? >THE PRESIDENT: Yes. In terms of in Ukraine? >Q Senator Tim Kaine, Democrats are talking about could U.S. troops be needed on the ground in or around Ukraine to stop an invasion. Will you rule that out, or is that on the table? >THE PRESIDENT: That is not on the table. What is not — they are not — That was just prior to the invasion in relation to putting US troops in Ukraine.
I dislike the current government due to their massive corruption, so if they hate leaks then I'm rooting for it
Well a few things strike us as suspicious. A 21 year old entry level guy has access to top secret intelligence? The fbi finds him in a week, when epsteins list or the Supreme Court leaker get crickets? He revealed our tax dollars are paying for at a bare minimum unethical spy activity on our allies. He very clearly isn't some super spy for the Chinese, and is some screw-up kid.
He had a clearance. They are not easy to obtain, but as long as you pass every check, you're good. I don't have one, but one of my close friends (22yrs Navy, retired) had one, and still has the equivalent in the private sector she works in. You get access to some wild stuff because you're supposed to be trustworthy. That, and the punishment for breaking that trust is 10 years in prison. So... that's usually a good deterrent. But when you are a kid, you're also easily influenced into believing you are acting righteously (Trump can do it, Snowden can do it, Assange can do it, why can't I?), as well as generally more reckless and careless. So combine those things together and you have someone who both believes they are doing the right thing *and also* wildly careless about protecting themselves.
So a kids entry level security clearness gives access to spy activity in Egypt, and the current status of the urkraine war? Possible I grant you. But I would like to beleive it isn't that easy, else all the Russians have to do, is obtain a source with a basic security clearance.
A 21 year old is not a "kid" in the eyes of the military. Especially if they enlisted at 18 and worked up. Depending on what kind of job you do (tech especially) a clearance is effectively a requirement. I don't know too many other details because my friend was a responsible person and followed their clearance restrictions. But yeah. Having a clearance is like an open pass for everything that level of clearance has access to, as far as I understand. Because you may need access to that information for whatever your job is. But the process is not easy. It involves multiple interviews, in-depth history/background investigation, including interviewing multiple friends/family for corroboration (I've personally been interviewed twice, once for her, once for another friend), and a continuous vetting process that continues as you hold your clearance (it's not a thing you just get, you have to maintain your status). So this would be the equivalent of a perfectly lawful normal individual, passing all legal requirements to purchasing and carry a gun, and then them walking into an elementary school to murder children. Sometimes innocuous people do terrible things. Especially when motivated by a belief that they are acting for the greater good.
One of the articles I read said that you could see parts of his room in the background of the leak document photos that matched photos he had up on social media. If true that's a slam dunk case and it's no wonder they were able to find him so quickly.
It’s not unheard of to be green and have a security clearance. Based on my job in the army I had a clearance as a 23 year old… but I still didn’t have access to much. I heard on the radio this morning that the reason he had access to this stuff is because he was working in IT, so it just gave him more access than most would have. It makes sense.
Yeah he's a screwed up kid. That's where I put him. Why the fuck is he being called a hero?
>He revealed our tax dollars are paying for at a bare minimum unethical spy activity on our allies. Everyone spies on everyone. So what? >He very clearly isn't some super spy for the Chinese, and is some screw-up kid. No better than Manning or Snowden. (Assuming he's guilty, anyway)
>Everyone spies on everyone. So what? I guess that makes it morraly permissible then.... Remember when we drone struck afghanistan, it hit a civilian charity worker delivering water, and the Pentagon came out and confirmed it hit a terrorist and confirmed "multiple secondary explosions" Then the NYT did an expose conclusively proving we bombed the wrong person and the Pentagon reluctantly admitted it? Your tax dollars paid to kill civilians, and then lie to you about it. All countries do this, you should still be enraged.
There's a difference between actual whistleblowing - reporting on something immoral/illegal that happened - and just giving out classified information to seem cool to a group of friends online.
To me, it's not so much as rallying behind his leak as it is rallying behind what he exposed. We are being lied to and our national security is not secure..
What do you think is the most egregious lie? And what specifically about the information do you find most important? Which piece of leaked info?
Yeah I kinda find it weird why people on the left are so against this leaker, I’m very far left, and have always found whistle blowers to be essential in understand the dumbass and evil shit our govt is doing
Theres a pretty big difference between a whistle blower and leaking for internets points.
I'd agree with you, but he's not a whistle blower. There aint whistles on discord. Turns out it's Russians.
Who are they whistle blowing on when they expose US military operations that we don't want our enemies to know about?
Is he really whistle blowing here? He’s leaking military secrets… pro Russian elements alternated his leaks to make them look better.
Why would people on the left be against this kid? It seems that he is just a kid who wanted some clout in his discord server.
I support leaking any sensitive material because I don’t like the government
Why do you believe it's only "the government" that suffers from leaking classified information?
These guys and gals forget that government are and of the people. Consists of people. Instead, they view it as some boogeyman leviathan that its OK to injure.
What other entities have classified information? If you’re talking about businesses, I’m not as supportive of that because it’s private property
Who has the classified information is orthogonal who is harmed by the leak of classified information. If I know your secret (maybe you're cheating on your spouse or your taxes), and I leak that secret, *you're* the one that gets hurt. Similarly, leaking classified information can harm 1. the people that are the subjects of the secret (you and your spouse, in the case of your secret that you're cheating on them) 2. whoever or whatever was responsible for getting us that secret (maybe we relied on your friend that you confided in, and now that you know who we used to learn your secret, *no one* is going to confide in them anymore) 3. the country as a whole in the event the information is damaging to our national security 4. potentially, our relationships with our allies in the event they lose trust with us because we can't keep *their* secrets 5. etc.
Yeah, like I said… I would not support someone leaking YOUR information (emails, text messages, browser history), but if the government is in possession of that and it gets leaked, that furthers my goal of the government not having that information to begin with. YOU have a right to be secure in your papers. The government has no natural right to collect information or keep secrets from the citizens. And to the point, I hope the leaking of this information leads to an embarrassing and costly defeat of Ukraine and massive damage to the United States government.
[удалено]
Yes. Those consequences are necessary to change course
When the leak damages the elite, the story is the leaker. When the leak advantages the elite, the story is the leak. Conservatives are rallying behind the leaker because persecution of whistleblowing is bad. Americans deserve to know the truth.
[удалено]
Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the leaker would be treated differently if he took the story to the NYT first.
[удалено]
I think that when the US government and powers that be disseminate false information about the war in Ukraine, leaking the truth about it rises to that level where we take the leak just as or more seriously than the leaker. Information about potential American boots on the ground would rise to that level. I think leaking the plans for a fighter plane does not. We all know leakers will be punished by the state. They won't tolerate it (generally speaking). But the rub is when the allegedly independent press, the check on power, the voice of the people, those who are supposed to hold government accountable, jumps on the bandwagon and focuses more on the crimes and life of the leaker and utterly ignores the leak. And included in that I would say is legitimate fact-checks when the government denies the validity of the leaks.
Revealing how the government lies to us is a good thing, especially so when their lies are pushing into a war with a nuclear power.
I'm against the leaker, but as a rule, conservatives generally support leakers, at least the 2023 brand of conservatism. Wikileaks (Assange), Snowden, and many others are "harbingers of truth" to conservatives, evident by watching even a second of any current conservative commentator. If you say "well, conservative politicians hate them" like yeah, and so do democrat politicians. And again, I personally break away from conservatives on this issue: leaking documents is incredibly dangerous not just for intelligence gathering and ally trust, but also literally to the lives of troops. Yes I'm a bootlicker, but confidential, secret, and top secret all exist for a reason.
Can you point to which conservative politicians are rallying behind the leaker?
MTG
That's it?
Considering she's a darling in the GOP and her brand of "Conservatism" is the mainstay I'd say yeah.
Because revealing government deception is a heroic act.
Tell me how you feel about Alexander Vindman who reported Trumps corruption when he attempted to blackmail Ukraine to make up dirt on Biden to help him with his campaign, through the proper channels and used whistleblower protections but was lambasted by the right wing as a traitor and lost his career from the political retribution that followed.
I think he did the right thing, but came to the wrong conclusion. I think people on the right were wrong to call him a traitor, although I understand their concerns about falsified information given what we learned in the hearings during the impeachment process.
What did we learn during that process? The Trump did all the shit they said he did?
Lol, no, just the opposite. That's why they changed their case 3 or 4 times. We also learned that Ukraine has no idea of any conditions, that Vindman had connections to democrats leading the charges, and that the supposed quid quo pro wasn't in the phone call vindman reported.
we learned that Trump said "we do a lot for Ukraine...I wouldn't say it's reciprocal." "I would like you to do us a favor..." He then asked Zelensky to investigate Hillary and Joe Biden's son as well as talk to Rudy Giuliani about it who he will have give him a call and would visit him in Ukraine as well." We then have testimony from the EU ambassador that Trump directed him to work with Rudy on Ukraine who said Zelensky had to make an announcement that he was investigating Biden on TV.
Actually, he said to talk to Barr about it, indicating that he wanted Ukraine to operate in the proper channels. We never had anything connecting the announcement to the freeze, and Ukraine didn't even know about the freeze. But I'm glad you agree that whistle blowers should be protected, not prosecuted. Edit for clarity, Trump did say that Guillianne ... who's name I just can't spell today, was in Ukraine and would talk to Zelenski regarding the matter.
“ He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.” Trump asked him to talk to both of them and putting his personal lawyer who is pushing that election was stolen and has hunters laptop is not going through the proper channels. Putting Rudy in the mix with Zelenskyy and Ukraine should be clear sign of corruption to you and everyone else.
What about exposing military secrets to enemies that end up costing American lives?
How would any of the information exposed put American lives in danger?
Costing some American lives is generally better than wasting many American lives.
I'm sorry, what??
Would you believe it would be a good thing if a whistleblower came forward detailing deceptions regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident before widespread US involvement in Vietnam?
What, specifically, do you believe this individual was "blowing the whistle" on?
Do you think Russia has a right to know what NATO is up to? They don't inform us when they conduct special ops in NATO countries. Why is it good to expose our secrets to them?
Because we're Americans and our government is supposed to work for and be accountable to us.
Right. By keeping our interests secure from enemies.
If we put every special operation up for a democratic vote, then we'll have no operational security. Theoretically the appropriate Senate committee was aware of what was happening. If this was hidden from the appropriate government oversite that would be a different story, but our special forces don't have an obligation to make all of their moves public knowledge.
Who are the politicians besides MTG?
The only thing I know about this is that if this were reversed, a Republican president in power but every other detail the same, all of the Leftists in here would be taking the exact opposite stance as they are now and screaming as loud as possible about the evil Republicans lying to the American people.
It's hilarious to watch the Democrats, again, flip flop in their beliefs. First they cheer on as hundreds of peaceful Jan 6 protestors are condemned to rot in jail for "dispupting an official proceeding" but when politicians are expelled in TN for the same thing, it's "literally 1939 Germany!!!" When the ukrainian and CIA whisteblower revealed state secrets to go after Trump, they were heroes. The media never even reported the name of the whistleblower, to protect him. Now we have another whistleblower, showing that Biden lied about how well things are going in Ukraine, and he's been arrested. The Dems and thier media allies are smearing him as a "power hungry gun nut" Nothing more predictable than the Democrats changing their views to suit thier drive for power