@orathaic
"You realise the state is the ones who make the law? So they will not write any laws which allow people leak things if those things would threaten the power of the government."
how.. libertarian of you ;) but we do have the whistleblower's act fyi.
"Why do you think the first amendment exists? if not to limit the ability of the government to suppress the people. So of course, just following the law will be perfectly fine.
You can't bring things to the attention of the DoJ if you think they have been mis-classified - because the state controls the DoJ, the courts might be an option, if you had a system in place for allowing courts to examine government documents and determine whether they are in the public interest to release...
but you need a law in place to give the courts that power, and the government is not going to pass such a law (if it can get away with it) as it would cripple them."
what? look up the Whistleblower's Protection Act of 1989. she COULD have done this properly
"According to the federal government, yeah, but she's not betraying the people of their interests. She is advocating for protecting the people FROM the law.
Just because something is law does not make it moral. I'm sure you are aware that it is possible for the Federal government to do something which betrays the people. You're smart enough to realise that, right?"
yes i know, but now let's look at specifics: she stole a report that was theorizing about russian attempts of hacking, and released it to the press. what if the NSA were trying to keep how much they knew about Russia undercover, so that they could try to extract information from Russians. this is a MASSIVE breach of protocol, that she ignored. this leak could be causing great problems for our national defense and we don't even know it
furthermore, you're acting VERY libertarian again. i know the law isn't always moral, but in this case her vendetta is clear. her social media account was extremely anti-trump, and she leaked information about Russia and the election, that could stay efforts to prevent Russia from interfering in the future.
"Maybe like the Republican's federal shutdown, which stopped pay to all government employees, except congressmen?? Is that moral somehow? is that in anyone's interest? Legal? probably, i mean they get to make the laws, so it is probably legal..."
*facepalm* how come the Republicans doing it is massively bad, but then when the Democrats threaten it they're doing some sacred duty? i mean honestly, is was JUST LAST MONTH when the Dems threatened that. what's up with that double standard?
"And hopefully the press didn't just publish names of undercover agents, risking their lives... or maybe those undercover agents were actually engaged in undermining democracy, who knows, because the information is kept from the public."
SHE knows. once again, you're being vague, because you're dancing around the specific. she released a report saying that the russians might have tried to hack the election through machines in a certain way. such a report could be used to detect russian operatives, but now since it's PUBLIC they might know we're on to them.
"Seriously, if they have done nothing wrong, the federal government should have nothing to fear, right?"
i know you're trying to be clever, but pause for one second and consider what you just said. you're trying to make a joke about how "the people should have nothing to fear if they did nothing wrong" but apply that to the federal government, but wait. doesn't that mean you're STILL on the wrong side here? i mean were you for Comey coming out and briefing congress EVERY step of the way on Clinton (that btw was what 538 said most likely cost her the election)
or should Comey have stayed quiet? go ahead. contradict yourself.
"Now i am assuming journalists acted responsibly once they got the data, but that presumes some institutional integrity... Maybe she did leak something which could have caused the death of a US soldier. But that's not what she is being charged with. In fact, nobody has been shown to have done so, Snowden and Manning are the most famous cases, and the federal government has never been shown to have caused a single death. So this whole 'it might put someone's life in danger' is a bullshit strawman. Walking down the street puts your life in danger... every single day. But looking at it like that is not healthy."
no it's not a bullshit straw man, the ENTIRE REASON for a classified label, is that public dispersal of the information could cause great harm to national security or people's lives. you say it's "NEVER BEEN SHOWN" to hurt anyone: do you know what the freedom of information act is? we have no idea what kind of damage these things have done. you don't. I don't. none of us do. stop acting so arrogant. i have a brother serving overseas, and i don't like little whiny pricks leaking information for political gain without ANY knowledge of whose life is at stake. there's a proper way to do this, the Whistleblower's Protection Act COULD have been used: BUT SHE DIDN'T
you STILL haven't answered that by the way. why didn't she used the WPA? it's a question you've danced around this entire time.
furthermore, if you're SOOO for free speech why were you against wikileaks leaking the DNC information.
the idea that we're all 100% allowed completely privacy, but the government isn't allowed to keep ANYTHING from us: is idiocy.
and just to keep you honest: why did Reality Winer not use the Whistleblower's Protection act? answer me that before anything else, it's the biggest reason i have no sympathy for her