Is it ever for a domestic party engaging in whistleblowing to determine that? If not, why make this distinction out of curiosity?
Was it stolen or did someone give him these files? I understand why the Left in particular is made at this guy, but wasn't the DNC's computer password to their "classified files," :password:? Or was that John Podesda's personal computer... or someone else in the DNC? I forgot much about this whole episode, forgot how that all went down.
Whistleblowing doesn't mean dumping classified in the public domain. There is a process for whistleblowing.
This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue at the heart of the matter. It's a national security issue.
No there isnt? I mean there may be an ethics about it, but there isn't a formal process. Its an act of civil disobedience. I believe the Wikileaks ethic is information should be free. There is a principle to what they do, not chaos. They are following their own stated ideals.
The 2016 files were a result of a hack, and Wikileaks probably coordinated with the perpetrators of the hack against the DNC. Not sure why you think “the left” would have an issue with this guy. He first came to prominence trying to show how the Iraq war was based on lies. I think most of “the left” agreed wholeheartedly and found some of that highly interesting if not reinforcing of their views on the Iraq war. However, over time, it became clear his agenda was not so much exposing truths as it was undermining the U.S. on all fronts. He didn’t just reveal atrocities or lies, which - while still “illegal” if he knew he was obtaining classified files - could be morally supportable as “hacktivist” activity, instead he dumped troves of data which put soldiers/intelligence officers lives at risk… and as far as I know he pretty much always targeted the U.S. Inevitably, this anti-U.S. bent led to him ultimately coordinating with Russian criminals to help them meddle in a U.S. election.
Many of today's Republicans used to be mad at Wikileaks, too, so it's easy to forget the timeline of statements and events. Trump was asked about Wikileaks in 2010, and he called them disgraceful and said they should get "the death penalty or something." Also, worth noting that despite Trump proclaiming on numerous occasions years later how much he loved Wikileaks, Assange was subsequently indicted under the Trump administration. At that point, Trump could have given him a complete pardon while in office but did not. Some speculation about that, but in any event, Trump is now floating a potential pardon in the event Trump is able to get back into office. https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/kfile-trump-wikileaks/index.html
I don't think you understand this whole whistleblowing thing. It's not an act of civil disobedience. It's reporting wrongdoing, and is encouraged by the government, whether you believe it or not. Now, you can make the case that sometimes whistleblowing attempts get swept under the rug or that whistleblowers get treated with retribution. I'm sure that these cases exist, as I am not naive. But, there is a process and it's not disobedience, it's technically your duty to report illegal or unethical activity.
From Wikipedia WikiLeaks has, for instance, revealed Social Security numbers, medical information, credit card numbers and details of suicide attempts. Also the names of interpreters and other Iraqis that lost their lives as a result. It wasn't just whistleblowing. The guy is evil
Since the Obama admin, the government has been using the Espionage Act against people simply communicating with the press or just withholding information. You can play semantics over how leaking info isnt whistleblowing but that's essentially just the governments view. Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia
It’s factual, that whistleblowing does not mean leaking classified. Whistleblowing is simply the act of alerting authorities to the problem. It doesn’t involve stealing or soliciting theft of classified information and leaking it. Those would be crimes. Whistleblowing is 100% legal.
So he broke into an intel computer system and pulled out some very unflattering facts about PEOPLE in our nation's intel community. I wonder what Assange found out? Maybe we should know what he found out.
Actually one clarification although we are largely in agreement on this issue. He actually encouraged and gave some technical guidance on how to download the documents, making him a co-conspirator and distinguishing him from a journalist
I would also add that exposing the names of foreign nationals who are assisting US intelligence agencies goes far beyond "whistleblowing". It potentially exposes the individuals whose identities have been exposed to retribution possibly including execution if their own government is hostile to the US and the exposure would also have a serious chilling effect on the recruitment of foreign human assets in the future.
If you want to be precious about the term, lets try it this way. When Reality Winner leaked classified information she thought the public should know to a journalist about Russian interference, was that an act of "espionage" against the government or something different?
