When he was getting what he could from Manning, he wasn't showing bias. By publishing private emails from one specific private organizations, he's showing bias.
This isn't analogous to physical injury, it's a matter of behavior. If the cameras get the police to act more responsibly in public, and the public gets used to greater police responsibility, or at worst provide evidence against murder by cop that leads to prosecution, tensions will be down on both sides.
Sometimes the way to attack a behavioral problem is to fake it until you make it.
Back when he published the Manning leaks, I didn't know much about Assange and what he was doing, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Since then, he's been systematically removing the doubt.
Since then, he's been a fugitive from justice, and blamed the big bad US for his own misconduct. He's pulled personal publicity stunts in an effort to stay relevant. The fact that he's trying to leak biased information to influence a US election for personal reasons is absolutely no surprise.
What changed is that Assange did his best to make Wikileaks all about himself, at the expense of credible leaks. He's a fugitive from justice who tries to get noticed every so often.
Pity about that, an organization devoted to leaking things wouldn't be a bad thing to have.
Reagan, on the other hand, deliberately pushed the Soviet Union into a position where they could attack or collapse, their choice. The Soviets chose to collapse, but that's not the automatic choice, and lots of regimes under great pressure have gone to war to try to fix things on the home front (and that does include Russia not too long before the Bolshevik takeover). I think we were in greater danger than we'd been since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
What the heck would we want him for? Unless he worked with Manning to extract the classified information, he's a publisher, and that's perfectly legal (that was established in the 60s). There's plenty of annoying people around the world that the US leaves alone.
The only reason Assange is babbling about what the US will do is that he doesn't want to go back to Sweden and face charges, so he's looking for excuses. He probably also doesn't want to face UK judges about his being a fugitive from justice for all these years.
Do what Clinton did and you're likely to be fired or lose your security clearance or other administrative sanction. You can't name a single person who was similarly negligent and faced any sort of serious criminal prosecution (the closest I've seen is a misdemeanor charge, later dropped).
Yes, the sexual stuff is very illuminating about Bill Clinton's character, but I've seen no evidence that he did anything illegal. He presumably knows the law, and how to be an asshole to female subordinates without violating it.
We've had lots of unpleasant people in the Oval Office, and some have been pretty good Presidents.
That particular Marine intentionally sent classified information through unclassified channels, and the article did not claim he was facing criminal prosecution, despite having roughly as many classified documents on his personal systems as Clinton did. Essentially, he's being fired, which is in line with the usual treatment for negligence, so it seems to me he's getting off light (and, under the circumstances, likely deserves favorable treatment).
Why is it necessary, in your mind, to assume that Clinton did something worse than she actually did, and the only reason she's being treated in line with other people who do similar things is that she has some kind of power over the FBI?
Do you think we've still got any physical evidence relating to the Whiskey Rebellion? Evidence has to be destroyed sometime if we're not to drown in it. Since this evidence can't be used against people who were given immunity, and the FBI presumably can use the evidence otherwise, I don't see that destroying the laptops is a big deal.
Granting immunity to lower-level people is usually done to investigate higher-level people. It isn't a sign of covering anything up.
Indict me and I won't be saying anything that hasn't been approved by my lawyer. Count on it. These are people who know that talking to the authorities can only hurt them.
Give me immunity and suddenly I lose my Fifth Amendment right t remain silent, since I'm not incriminating myself. It sounds like it was also granted so the FBI could go through their laptop file system.
Granting the lower-level people immunity is a fairly common way of getting them to talk. There's nothing particularly unusual about this.
I'm a leftist, in sympathy with most (not all) Democratic policies, and almost always vote Democrat. I voted in the DFL* primary this year. I served as a delegate from my local DFL caucus. I wouldn't consider myself a registered Democrat, since I never actually joined any permanent party organization, and I don't have to register for a party to vote in their primary.
*Democratic-Farmer-Labor. We sometimes do things a bit differently in Minnesota.
The big difference between an "empty protest candidate" and a serious third party is whether they nominate a candidate capable of governing. The Libertarians can select a Presidential candidate without caring about what happens if he or she gets elected, and it shows. It's a lot easier to pick a good-looking and ideologically acceptable candidate if you don't have to worry about winning.
They got immunity and protection against later embarrassment. In exchange, the FBI gets to search their laptops freely, and they no longer have the Fifth Amendment right to withhold testimony (if you can't be prosecuted for X, talking about X isn't actual self-incrimination).
You skipped over the part where it's not a crime to possess classified information, and the part where negligence with classified material is not normally handled with criminal prosecution.
In other words, the DNC favored who they thought would be the best candidate. Is there some sort of sinister subtext I'm supposed to be picking up on? (I'm not necessarily good with subtleties.) Political parties are not governments, and have no obligation to be neutral.
Nobody devotes their life to evil. There is no more a regime of political oppression in the US than there ever was. Clinton is not guilty of treason (there's a Constitutional definition for that), and there's no good evidence she ever murdered anyone.
No other party produces Presidential candidates that could function in the job. The Democrats since 1972, and the Republicans up until now, have had to consider what their nominees would actually do if they were elected. If you don't have to worry about that, it's easy to find an ideologically acceptable and good-looking candidate.
When Clinton was Secretary of State, she liked what the TPP was turning into. Years later, when she'd been out of the negotiation process, she didn't like what it had turned into.
The FBI did not recommend criminal prosecution for negligence with classified materials, because people who do that sort of thing are not criminally prosecuted. If you disagree, please give me the name of one person who was similarly negligent and faced serious criminal prosecution.
If that's widely known public record type stuff, it should be easy for you to name ONE of these many people in prison for doing less than Clinton did. I'm still waiting, guys.
Or it could be that you're not only spouting baseless accusations, but coming up with empty phrases to support your "arguments".
That's not what the FBI said, guy. The FBI said that there was no precedent for criminal prosecution in Clinton's case, and that those who were negligent in similar ways were disciplined administratively. So far, nobody has given me a single name of someone who negligently exposed a relatively small number of classified documents and faced serious criminal prosecution.
Except that Clinton did not intentionally avoid Federal record keeping laws, deleted a few Federal records by mistake when deleting personal emails (which is legal), and handled classified data in ways that can get people fired and security clearances revoked. (Give me ONE name of a person who did what Clinton did and faced serious criminal prosecution. The most I'm aware of is a misdemeanor charge that was dropped.)
The job of the DNC is not to be a truly neutral arbiter of who gets nominated. The DNC is a partisan organization that has a vested interest in getting the best nominee possible, and in their judgment that wasn't an avowed Socialist who has been running as an independent for years.
Name some of the little federal employees getting prosecuted for doing what Clinton did. So far, nobody's given me a name. Without a name I can check on, you're just mindlessly slinging mud.
Slashdot Mirror
When he was getting what he could from Manning, he wasn't showing bias. By publishing private emails from one specific private organizations, he's showing bias.
This isn't analogous to physical injury, it's a matter of behavior. If the cameras get the police to act more responsibly in public, and the public gets used to greater police responsibility, or at worst provide evidence against murder by cop that leads to prosecution, tensions will be down on both sides.
Sometimes the way to attack a behavioral problem is to fake it until you make it.
Back when he published the Manning leaks, I didn't know much about Assange and what he was doing, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Since then, he's been systematically removing the doubt.
Since then, he's been a fugitive from justice, and blamed the big bad US for his own misconduct. He's pulled personal publicity stunts in an effort to stay relevant. The fact that he's trying to leak biased information to influence a US election for personal reasons is absolutely no surprise.
What changed is that Assange did his best to make Wikileaks all about himself, at the expense of credible leaks. He's a fugitive from justice who tries to get noticed every so often.
Pity about that, an organization devoted to leaking things wouldn't be a bad thing to have.
The Bushes weren't going to start a nuclear war.
Reagan, on the other hand, deliberately pushed the Soviet Union into a position where they could attack or collapse, their choice. The Soviets chose to collapse, but that's not the automatic choice, and lots of regimes under great pressure have gone to war to try to fix things on the home front (and that does include Russia not too long before the Bolshevik takeover). I think we were in greater danger than we'd been since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
What the heck would we want him for? Unless he worked with Manning to extract the classified information, he's a publisher, and that's perfectly legal (that was established in the 60s). There's plenty of annoying people around the world that the US leaves alone.
The only reason Assange is babbling about what the US will do is that he doesn't want to go back to Sweden and face charges, so he's looking for excuses. He probably also doesn't want to face UK judges about his being a fugitive from justice for all these years.
Do what Clinton did and you're likely to be fired or lose your security clearance or other administrative sanction. You can't name a single person who was similarly negligent and faced any sort of serious criminal prosecution (the closest I've seen is a misdemeanor charge, later dropped).
Yes, the sexual stuff is very illuminating about Bill Clinton's character, but I've seen no evidence that he did anything illegal. He presumably knows the law, and how to be an asshole to female subordinates without violating it.
We've had lots of unpleasant people in the Oval Office, and some have been pretty good Presidents.
That particular Marine intentionally sent classified information through unclassified channels, and the article did not claim he was facing criminal prosecution, despite having roughly as many classified documents on his personal systems as Clinton did. Essentially, he's being fired, which is in line with the usual treatment for negligence, so it seems to me he's getting off light (and, under the circumstances, likely deserves favorable treatment).
Why is it necessary, in your mind, to assume that Clinton did something worse than she actually did, and the only reason she's being treated in line with other people who do similar things is that she has some kind of power over the FBI?
Do you think we've still got any physical evidence relating to the Whiskey Rebellion? Evidence has to be destroyed sometime if we're not to drown in it. Since this evidence can't be used against people who were given immunity, and the FBI presumably can use the evidence otherwise, I don't see that destroying the laptops is a big deal.
Granting immunity to lower-level people is usually done to investigate higher-level people. It isn't a sign of covering anything up.
Indict me and I won't be saying anything that hasn't been approved by my lawyer. Count on it. These are people who know that talking to the authorities can only hurt them.
Give me immunity and suddenly I lose my Fifth Amendment right t remain silent, since I'm not incriminating myself. It sounds like it was also granted so the FBI could go through their laptop file system.
Granting the lower-level people immunity is a fairly common way of getting them to talk. There's nothing particularly unusual about this.
I'm a leftist, in sympathy with most (not all) Democratic policies, and almost always vote Democrat. I voted in the DFL* primary this year. I served as a delegate from my local DFL caucus. I wouldn't consider myself a registered Democrat, since I never actually joined any permanent party organization, and I don't have to register for a party to vote in their primary.
*Democratic-Farmer-Labor. We sometimes do things a bit differently in Minnesota.
To be honest, it reminds me of the fifty-seven US states or the Iraq-Pakistan border from eight years ago. Not particularly significant.
The big difference between an "empty protest candidate" and a serious third party is whether they nominate a candidate capable of governing. The Libertarians can select a Presidential candidate without caring about what happens if he or she gets elected, and it shows. It's a lot easier to pick a good-looking and ideologically acceptable candidate if you don't have to worry about winning.
They got immunity and protection against later embarrassment. In exchange, the FBI gets to search their laptops freely, and they no longer have the Fifth Amendment right to withhold testimony (if you can't be prosecuted for X, talking about X isn't actual self-incrimination).
You skipped over the part where it's not a crime to possess classified information, and the part where negligence with classified material is not normally handled with criminal prosecution.
In other words, the DNC favored who they thought would be the best candidate. Is there some sort of sinister subtext I'm supposed to be picking up on? (I'm not necessarily good with subtleties.) Political parties are not governments, and have no obligation to be neutral.
Nobody devotes their life to evil. There is no more a regime of political oppression in the US than there ever was. Clinton is not guilty of treason (there's a Constitutional definition for that), and there's no good evidence she ever murdered anyone.
No other party produces Presidential candidates that could function in the job. The Democrats since 1972, and the Republicans up until now, have had to consider what their nominees would actually do if they were elected. If you don't have to worry about that, it's easy to find an ideologically acceptable and good-looking candidate.
When Clinton was Secretary of State, she liked what the TPP was turning into. Years later, when she'd been out of the negotiation process, she didn't like what it had turned into.
The FBI did not recommend criminal prosecution for negligence with classified materials, because people who do that sort of thing are not criminally prosecuted. If you disagree, please give me the name of one person who was similarly negligent and faced serious criminal prosecution.
If that's widely known public record type stuff, it should be easy for you to name ONE of these many people in prison for doing less than Clinton did. I'm still waiting, guys.
Or it could be that you're not only spouting baseless accusations, but coming up with empty phrases to support your "arguments".
That's not what the FBI said, guy. The FBI said that there was no precedent for criminal prosecution in Clinton's case, and that those who were negligent in similar ways were disciplined administratively. So far, nobody has given me a single name of someone who negligently exposed a relatively small number of classified documents and faced serious criminal prosecution.
Except that Clinton did not intentionally avoid Federal record keeping laws, deleted a few Federal records by mistake when deleting personal emails (which is legal), and handled classified data in ways that can get people fired and security clearances revoked. (Give me ONE name of a person who did what Clinton did and faced serious criminal prosecution. The most I'm aware of is a misdemeanor charge that was dropped.)
The job of the DNC is not to be a truly neutral arbiter of who gets nominated. The DNC is a partisan organization that has a vested interest in getting the best nominee possible, and in their judgment that wasn't an avowed Socialist who has been running as an independent for years.
Name some of the little federal employees getting prosecuted for doing what Clinton did. So far, nobody's given me a name. Without a name I can check on, you're just mindlessly slinging mud.
Did Obama communicate with classified documents on Clinton's server? There was nothing illegal about having a private server when Clinton had it.