The problem with whistleblowers

Julian Assange is dead.

Some idiots protested for his release, without realising the martyr will rot and die in prison, end of story.

But should he? In one hand we have first hand evidence and a face to prove it, and in the other hand he's dead. Why? Because the moment he went public he was 'painted by snipers' as some would say.

Here comes the problem.

Whistleblowers do have rights to anonymity, and certain documents submitted to court , but no face or name is revealed. For instance; you don't know me, I don't know you, so if I uploaded documents stating that the moon landing was faked, are the documents legit or falsified?

Back in the days of deepthroat, it was not so easy to blow the whistle, but since the rise of the PC, it's very easy to fabricate-hell I printed myself a diploma . Assange was a hacker, and was stupid enough to admit it, and now he died for his crimes. But what about those that shall remain nameless? Can they truly be trusted? but if they come forward and testified, they too would be painted by snipers.

My answer to the problem is good ol' fashioned investigative journalism, where the facts are provided without the risk of scrutiny.

We need whistleblowers, but we need definitive proof as well, they are torn between Scylla and Chyribdis.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

TextMy answer to the problem is good ol' fashioned investigative journalism, where the facts are provided without the risk of scrutiny. 

Whistleblowers exist because investigative journalism is essentially dead inside the MSM. We have a media that does the exact opposite of whistleblowers. They enforce a BS narrative and vilify those that speak against it.

Is this blatant propaganda? This post makes no sense. Assange didn't hack anything to obtain the files he released he vet them information and released it as an investigative journalist.

One problem with some whistleblowers is confusing traitors with them. Chelsea Manning, for example, is not a whistleblower; he is a traitor. I would not classify Assange in that category as he is not a US citizen, but that doesn't mean he can't be charged with crimes.

Whistleblowing is all well and good when it fits in your agenda otherwise it's just more "fake news" ...

originally posted by: schuyler
I would not classify Assange in that category as he is not a US citizen, but that doesn't mean he can't be charged with crimes.

How would you classify:

Reality Winner
Daniel Ellsberg

One problem with some whistleblowers is confusing traitors with them. Chelsea Manning, for example, is not a whistleblower; he is a traitor.

Why is Chelsea a traitor?

a reply to: schuyler

but that doesn't mean he can't be charged with crimes.

Yes, it does.

For JA to be charged with anything would require a corrupt legal & judicial system.....oh wait....that's........oh sh!t.....

You'll notice that no MSM outlet has been charged with publishing exactly the same information as Wikileaks did. Sure WL was first, but classifies is classified......right?

a reply to: Liquesence

Why is Chelsea a traitor?

Manning was charged with 22 offenses, including aiding the enemy, which was the most serious charge and could have resulted in a death sentence.

Aiding the enemy under Military law is a treasonous act.

She was acquitted of that charge because of the possibility of it becoming a First Amendment court battle... she released the information to a publisher.

So technically she isn't...

Technically.

a reply to: Lumenari

Charged, but acquitted.

Which means not guilty.

ac·quit·tal
/əˈkwid(ə)l/
noun
noun: acquittal; plural noun: acquittals

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.

So technically she isn't...

Technically.

Legally, she isn't.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Assange is a journalist, not a whistle-blower.

Though he did get his information via whistle-blowers.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

Charged, but acquitted.

Which means not guilty.

ac·quit·tal
/əˈkwid(ə)l/
noun
noun: acquittal; plural noun: acquittals

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.

So technically she isn't...

Technically.

Legally, she isn't.

Which I stated in my post.

So I'm assuming you needed to clarify that for yourself..

a reply to: Liquesence not guilty of treason but he did release sensitive information wich ever way you spin it

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

Charged, but acquitted.

Which means not guilty.

ac·quit·tal
/əˈkwid(ə)l/
noun
noun: acquittal; plural noun: acquittals

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.

So technically she isn't...

Technically.

Legally, she isn't.

In which you have to remember this happened under Barry's traitorous administration .
"Birds of a feather...."and such .

originally posted by: toysforadults
Is this blatant propaganda? This post makes no sense. Assange didn't hack anything to obtain the files he released he vet them information and released it as an investigative journalist.

You got me, that was German propaganda *Mein duetschland du svinehunt*

Was Assange did was brave no doubt, but he is now a martyr because of it. The question is why should he die for what he did? the judicial is corrupt, some people serve more time for embezzlement than murderers.

He should have stayed silent and found another way online, however if he posted it online, how would we know it's legit?

Heroes and martyrs are strange bedfellows, and Assange will be both.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

He should have stayed silent and found another way online, however if he posted it online, how would we know it's legit?

We wouldn't... And Wikileaks has last time I checked had 100% accuracy on the validity of published material. They also haven't published everything for self declared responsibility reasons (who knows).

Do they have what strongly appears to be an agenda? If say so. Does that mean we should prosecute journalists for publishing embarrassing stories about the US? I don't think so. Maybe the government should hold itself to a higher standard rather than using its weight to crush people for exposing things they aren't proud of.

Unfortunately there is not much it anything you or I can do about this. My nation's people have let fear supercede rights.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

Charged, but acquitted.

Which means not guilty.

ac·quit·tal
/əˈkwid(ə)l/
noun
noun: acquittal; plural noun: acquittals

a judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged.

So technically she isn't...

Technically.

Legally, she isn't.

In which you have to remember this happened under Barry's traitorous administration .
"Birds of a feather...."and such .

Obama... who commuted Manning's sentence on the other charges.

originally posted by: toysforadults
Is this blatant propaganda? This post makes no sense. Assange didn't hack anything to obtain the files he released he vet them information and released it as an investigative journalist.

I'm thinking that there is a testing of the waters of public opinion going on.
There were charges filed against Assange in America under, 'Espionage' but not much word of since, but you can see where I'm going...efforts to make a Whistleblower status moot in all but name..if there is any way to make them a spy, no matter how contrived that may be.
That's dangerous, more than that, it could be used as political exploitation against other political parties by whomever may be in power.
Assange too, was foolish to end up in the position he is in now, perhaps he should have gone back to Sweden just to answer the charges he was accused of, both of them now obsolete in the passage of time..and he was arrogant in his public comments as to the charges, albeit in a retort.
So in the case of Assange, it should be the British police that should act, and charge him on bail hopping.
Allowing an extradition to the US on a charge of espionage for instance..now, would be a travesty.
Since someone mentioned Manning as a traitor, that can't be so, she wasn't convicted on aiding the enemy, and I think she was charged with that.

At this time while released by Obama, she is in and out of jail by not/refusing to testify to a grand jury set up for an Assange investigation that wasn't public knowledge at one stage, and it seems, still refuses to 'comply' even though locked up in isolation most of the day. Pretty brave really, considering that it is blatantly obvious that laws covering, shall we say, 'keyboard hero's, are just not there really...like throwing a bucket of various sized nails at someone in malice.

Oh! and I just discovered, That Manning is in jail, also with fines imposed of $500 for everyday still incarcerated over 30 days, and $1000 over 60 days.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I'm so confused - at least a couple of posts, including the OP state that Julian Assange is dead. I see that he's looking like a torture victim these days, but still alive. Are we speaking metaphorically?

ETA: ok, I guess its metaphorical. OP stated he's dead, and another post referred to him as a martyr, which no longer means "literally" having sacrificed oneself for a cause. Need caffeine I guess.

When the state is running a criminal enterprise being a whistleblower is dangerous. Why do we have the term Arkinicide? How many people have died and have their lives destroyed for trying to expose criminal behavior? lots.

Daniel Ellsberg risked a lot exposing the pentagon papers. Now he is seen as a hero. In a post 9/11 world we do not have the civility as a society we had back then. Obama took away a lot of whistleblower protections to protect his criminal operations.

What happened to John Podesta after wikileaks exposed his child trafficking network? Julian is treated like a criminal with death threats from Hillary Clinton. What kind of world are we making with this kind of message from the establishment - shut up and take your money. Don't think about the truth, don't think about reality, turn a blind eye and let those people do whatever the hell they want.

Just what kind of road is this world on? Who is going to be left to save you once all the good people are gone?

a reply to: smurfy

Could be the CIA recovering an asset