Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy (The Difference between a traitor and a whistleblower)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

**Steve steveson**

Sigvatr wrote:

Those people betray their very own country - I can't think of anything less moral or correct one could do besides terrorism.

That... Makes no sense... Releasing information the government has deemed secret because they are doing something illegal (under local or international law) immoral is not immoral. It is the right thing to do.

IMO the US government, and the UK government, has become morally bankrupt and blind in some areas. They treat the UN convention on human rights and the Geneva convention as annoyances to get around or things to beat others with. It fells as if much of the media and the public have fallen for this (see extrodenery rendition and CIA black sites).

Breaching state secrecy laws is not always wrong, neither is it always illigal. It is up to the courts to decide if the actions were illigal. Sometimes laws can be broken without being illigal if the jury decides that the law is wrong (at least in the UK).

**KalashnikovMarine**

My own opinions:

Manning: Is an idiot and a complete tool who deserves the punishment he's getting and certainly shouldn't wear the title of "hero" or whistleblower for that matter. He leaked intelligence because he was having a gakky day, just took everything he had access to and mailed it to some random jackhole to get back at people. That some of the stuff he leaked was actually something worth making a fuss about is just the law of averages at work. Enjoy Kansas Brad.

Snowden: I don't know about his motives, but his leak was well done, he got the word out with just enough data to prove he, and the programs he was blowing the whistle on were for real, he then leaked them to legit sources. Now is it treason legally? Maybe, but I'd still say it's the right thing to do. PRISM and sources on SECRET COURTS in the freaking United States? Goddessdamn I'm glad someone decided to say something. We've been trading our fundamental rights for some bullgak illusion of security and safety and it's starting to bite us right on the donkey. We didn't ask for the federal government to take this kind of power, we demanded it. We demanded the patriot act, we demanded the NDAA, we in the end demanded PRISM. When the collar's finally around our collective necks we'll find we probably demanded that too.

**Fafnir**

"If we end up giving up our fundamental rights and freedoms to fear, the terrorists win!"

"So what do we do?"

"Isn't it obvious, we give up our rights and freedoms!"

"But isn't that letting them win?"

"No! We're not doing it out of fear! We're doing it for security!"

**KalashnikovMarine**

Oh well, here's hoping the whole country gets ticked off about this.

**MrDwhitey**

Franklin's neck isn't very flattering.

**KalashnikovMarine**

He was an old fat white dude who liked booze, french hookers and snuff, what do you expect? A chiseled jawline like Ahnuld?

**Seaward**

It's a cute saying, KM, but I take it you're not advocating against throwing out SCI altogether. Some stuff should still be classified, I take it? Doesn't that infringe on my right to know what my government's doing in my name? If transparency's the goal, why do you set an arbitrary point at which to stop being transparent?

**Ahtman**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
He was an old fat white dude who liked booze, french hookers and snuff, what do you expect? A chiseled jawline like Ahnuld?

That isn't entirely accurate. He like hookers from anywhere, not just France.

**MrDwhitey**

He does sound pretty awesome already.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Seaward wrote:
It's a cute saying, KM, but I take it you're not advocating against throwing out SCI altogether. Some stuff should still be classified, I take it? Doesn't that infringe on my right to know what my government's doing in my name? If transparency's the goal, why do you set an arbitrary point at which to stop being transparent?

Classified materials isn't quite the same as being able to detain U.S. citizens without warrant, warrant-less wire tapping, secret courts that issue edicts with no oversight, massive spy networks, again focused on U.S. citizens, the list goes on here Seaward. That's the problem, not that the government has secrets but that those secrets violate the spirit if not the letter of the law and the constitution. You should be more concerned about your right to privacy. Because that's already well on it's way out the window.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
He was an old fat white dude who liked booze, french hookers and snuff, what do you expect? A chiseled jawline like Ahnuld?

That isn't entirely accurate. He like hookers from anywhere, not just France.

I stand corrected sir, you are correct, Franklin was a global connoisseur and supporter of the oldest profession and limiting him does his legacy a grave disservice.

**thenoobbomb**

Why the hell would they be only a little bit less worse then terrorists?

They inform YOU that your government is spying on YOU, or that your goverment's army (for wich you pay tax, wich we obviously should all shove to those who don't have that much money, since it's their own fault) is torturing, maiming and humiliating people that 'might be terrorists'.

Really, is that betraying your own country? Giving people information?
And humiliating others under the flag of your country isn't betraying your country?

Gah, I'm probably to left-ist to understand. I'm left by Dutch standards, and one of our most right political parties equals the Democrats more or less.

No, I'm not a damn commie or hippie.

**AlexHolker**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So there's been a lot of talks about whistle blowing recently, with Bradley Manning's trial beginning and the manhunt for former NSA contract Edward Snowden. Depending on who you are one of these men or both are traitors, or heroic whisleblowers. What's the dividing line? What makes a man who leaks intell a traitor or a whistleblower doing the right thing?

Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor. Since neither Manning nor Snowden are waging war against the United States, nor have they joined Al-Qaida, they cannot be traitors. Then again, the US Constitution doesn't exactly hold much weight with anyone who supports Obama these days.

**Ahtman**

AlexHolker wrote:
Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor.

One can be a traitor without being tried for treason, and the definition of traitor exists beyond just the legal definition. This was already mentioned a few times.

**thenoobbomb**

I'll just leave it here that I wouldn't want to be a whistleblower of any kind in the US.

**Ahtman**

thenoobbomb wrote:
I'll just leave it here that I wouldn't want to be a whistleblower of any kind in the US.

Almost by definiton being a whistleblower is a difficult task. I'm not sure why the US is getting singled out, as these kinds of things have happened elsewhere with similar reactions, or worse (ie China). I could understand if every post was condemning them in some horrible way, but that isn't what has happened. "All whistleblowers are saints" is just as silly as "All whistleblowers are traitors". Each scenario has to be examined on it's own merits, and frankly I find your 'you Americans' attitude wholly unwarranted and just as bad as the thing you claim to be disgusted by.

**Dreadclaw69**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
My own opinions:

Manning: Is an idiot and a complete tool who deserves the punishment he's getting and certainly shouldn't wear the title of "hero" or whistleblower for that matter. He leaked intelligence because he was having a gakky day, just took everything he had access to and mailed it to some random jackhole to get back at people. That some of the stuff he leaked was actually something worth making a fuss about is just the law of averages at work. Enjoy Kansas Brad.

Snowden: I don't know about his motives, but his leak was well done, he got the word out with just enough data to prove he, and the programs he was blowing the whistle on were for real, he then leaked them to legit sources. Now is it treason legally? Maybe, but I'd still say it's the right thing to do. PRISM and sources on SECRET COURTS in the freaking United States? Goddessdamn I'm glad someone decided to say something. We've been trading our fundamental rights for some bullgak illusion of security and safety and it's starting to bite us right on the donkey. We didn't ask for the federal government to take this kind of power, we demanded it. We demanded the patriot act, we demanded the NDAA, we in the end demanded PRISM. When the collar's finally around our collective necks we'll find we probably demanded that too.

Pretty much sums up my feelings on them both

**Jihadin**

Before we all forget. PRISM program is word activated. As your conversation gets filter through the program it looks for keywords. One key word sends the entire conversation to another window and get filtered again. If more then one keyword is activated its "Flagged" for human review. I've no idea where I read that, nor remember it was a briefing, possible internship flyer...I can't remember nor do I care to remember. I was on a lot of psycho and pain meds

forgot to mention when my GF/current wife would let me drive...I would drive like I was back in the "Box"

Manning no damn Hero. He was a screw up. Little SoB took out his revenge on the US Gov't by dropping a platinum mine on Assauge lap all because

After four weeks at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) in Fort Polk, Louisiana, he was deployed to Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad, arriving in October 2009. From his workstation there, he had access to SIPRNet (the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network) and JWICS (the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System). Two of his superiors had discussed not taking him to Iraq – it was felt he was "a risk to himself and possibly others," according to a statement later issued by the army – but again the shortage of intelligence analysts held sway.[22]

A month later, in November 2009, he was promoted from Private First Class to Specialist. That same month, according to his chats with Lamo, he made his first contact with WikiLeaks, shortly after it posted 570,000 pager messages from the 9/11 attacks, which it released on November 25.[23] Also in November, Manning wrote to a gender counselor in the United States, said he felt female, and discussed having sex reassignment surgery. The counselor told Steve Fishman of New York Magazine that it was clear Manning was in crisis, partly because of his gender concerns, but also because he was opposed to the kind of war in which he found himself involved.[24]

He was by all accounts unhappy and isolated. Because of the army's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy (known as DADT, which was repealed in September 2011), he was not allowed to be openly gay, though he apparently made no secret of it; his friends said he kept a fairy wand on his desk. When he told his roommate he was gay, the roommate responded by suggesting they not speak to each other. His working conditions – 14–15 hour night shifts in a dimly lit secure room – did not help his emotional well being.[25] On December 20, 2009, after being told he would lose his one day off a week for being persistently late, he overturned a table in a conference room, damaging a computer that was sitting on it, and in the view of one soldier looked as though he was about to grab a rifle from a gun rack, before his arms were pinned behind his back. Several witnesses to the incident believed his access to sensitive material ought to have been withdrawn at that point. The following month, he began posting on Facebook that he felt alone and hopeless.[26]

Army investigators told a pre-trial hearing (see below) that they believed Manning downloaded the Iraq and Afghan war logs around this time, in January 2010. WikiLeaks tweeted on January 8 that year that they had obtained "encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians," and linked to a story about the May 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan. Manning put the files on a digital storage card for his camera and took it home with him on a leave in early 2010.[27] During the same month, Manning traveled to the United States via Germany for a two-week holiday, arriving on January 24, and attended a party at Boston University's hacker space. It was during this visit that Manning first lived for a few days as a woman, dressing in women's clothes, wearing a wig and going out. After his arrest, his former partner, Tyler Watkins, told Kevin Poulsen of Wired that Manning had said during the January visit that he had found some sensitive information and was considering leaking it.[28]

to early to get riled up...and first mug of coffee not done yet....but

M

ay 21, 2010: (1:41:12 PM) bradass87: hi

(1:44:04 PM) bradass87: how are you?

(1:47:01 PM) bradass87: im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for "adjustment disorder" in lieu of "gender identity disorder"

(1:56:24 PM) bradass87: im sure you're pretty busy ...

(1:58:31 PM) bradass87: if you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?[48]

May 22, 2010:

(11:49:02 AM) bradass87: im in the desert, with a bunch of hyper-masculine trigger happy ignorant rednecks as neighbors... and the only safe place i seem to have is this satellite internet connection

(11:49:51 AM) bradass87: and i already got myself into minor trouble, revealing my uncertainty over my gender identity ... which is causing me to lose this job ... and putting me in an awkward limbo [...]

(11:52:23 AM) bradass87: at the very least, i managed to keep my security clearance [so far] [...]

(11:58:33 AM) bradass87: and little does anyone know, but among this "visible" mess, theres the mess i created that no-one knows about yet [...]

(12:15:11 PM) bradass87: hypothetical question: if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time ... say, 8–9 months ... and you saw incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC ... what would you do? [...]

(12:21:24 PM) bradass87: say ... a database of half a million events during the iraq war ... from 2004 to 2009 ... with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures ...? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective? [...]

(12:26:09 PM) bradass87: lets just say *someone* i know intimately well, has been penetrating US classified networks, mining data like the ones described ... and been transferring that data from the classified networks over the “air gap” onto a commercial network computer ... sorting the data, compressing it, encrypting it, and uploading it to a crazy white haired aussie who can't seem to stay in one country very long =L [...]

(12:31:43 PM) bradass87: crazy white haired dude = Julian Assange

(12:33:05 PM) bradass87: in other words ... ive made a huge mess :’([48]

May 22, 2010:

(1:11:54 PM) bradass87: and ... its important that it gets out ... i feel, for some bizarre reason

(1:12:02 PM) bradass87: it might actually change something

(1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just ... dont wish to be a part of it ... at least not now ... im not ready ... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ...

(1:14:11 PM) bradass87: i've totally lost my mind ... i make no sense ... the CPU is not made for this motherboard ... [...]

(1:39:03 PM) bradass87: i cant believe what im confessing to you :’([48]

May 25, 2010:

(02:12:23 PM) bradass87: so ... it was a massive data spillage ... facilitated by numerous factors ... both physically, technically, and culturally

(02:13:02 PM) bradass87: perfect example of how not to do INFOSEC

(02:14:21 PM) bradass87: listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltratrating [sic] possibly the largest data spillage in american history [...]

(02:17:56 PM) bradass87: weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis ... a perfect storm [...]

(02:22:47 PM) bradass87: i mean what if i were someone more malicious

(02:23:25 PM) bradass87: i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?

(02:23:36 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: why didn't you?

(02:23:58 PM) bradass87: because it's public data [...]

(02:24:46 PM) bradass87: it belongs in the public domain

(02:25:15 PM) bradass87: Information should be free[48

**Ahtman**

Jihadin wrote:
Before we all forget. PRISM program is word activated. As your conversation gets filter through the program it looks for keywords. One key word sends the entire conversation to another window and get filtered again. If more then one keyword is activated its "Flagged" for human review.

Words like 'the', 'and', 'call', and 'hello'.

I think Colbert summed it up well when he described it as the government collecting hay in the hopes of finding a needle. Either way, they still have to get all your texts and phone calls to be able to search for those keywords. It is a permanent wiretap on everyone, essentially, and a pretty egregious violation.

**AlexHolker**

Ahtman wrote:
AlexHolker wrote:
Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor.

One can be a traitor without being tried for treason, and the definition of traitor exists beyond just the legal definition. This was already mentioned a few times.

Even by that standard, Obama is more of a traitor than any of these whistleblowers. Unlike Manning, there is actual evidence that Obama's actions have aided the enemy - just look at how many terrorists cite the innocent civilians killed by drones as the reason they took up arms against America.

**Easy E**

Ahtman wrote:

This. In that sense, neither Manning or Snowden are traitors. If they are traitors, I want more "Traitors"!

Also, it seems like the "structure" of your leak is the most important thing to people? If you "leak" correctly you are safe, if you "leak" incorrectly you are a scoundrel. The material leaked almost feels like a secondary concern.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlexHolker wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So there's been a lot of talks about whistle blowing recently, with Bradley Manning's trial beginning and the manhunt for former NSA contract Edward Snowden. Depending on who you are one of these men or both are traitors, or heroic whisleblowers. What's the dividing line? What makes a man who leaks intell a traitor or a whistleblower doing the right thing?

Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor. Since neither Manning nor Snowden are waging war against the United States, nor have they joined Al-Qaida, they cannot be traitors. Then again, the US Constitution doesn't exactly hold much weight with anyone who supports Obama these days.

You had me until that last part sentence.

This really isn't a R or D issue. It is an American (or insert country of your choice) issue and the core values each citizen values.

**KalashnikovMarine**

AlexHolker wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
AlexHolker wrote:
Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor.

One can be a traitor without being tried for treason, and the definition of traitor exists beyond just the legal definition. This was already mentioned a few times.

Even by that standard, Obama is more of a traitor than any of these whistleblowers. Unlike Manning, there is actual evidence that Obama's actions have aided the enemy - just look at how many terrorists cite the innocent civilians killed by drones as the reason they took up arms against America.

I'd certainly be pleased to see him brought up on charges for that mess.

**Ahtman**

AlexHolker wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
AlexHolker wrote:
Conveniently, the United States Constitution defines two necessary prerequisites for a person to be a traitor.

One can be a traitor without being tried for treason, and the definition of traitor exists beyond just the legal definition. This was already mentioned a few times.

Even by that standard, Obama is more of a traitor than any of these whistleblowers. Unlike Manning, there is actual evidence that Obama's actions have aided the enemy - just look at how many terrorists cite the innocent civilians killed by drones as the reason they took up arms against America.

I didn't give a standard, i just said there is more to the word traitor then just was is laid out in the Constitution. I certainly never said that the standard is simply giving the enemy cause. By your definition every soldier is a traitor, which is ridiculous.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Easy E wrote:

You had me until that last part sentence.

This really isn't a R or D issue. It is an American (or insert country of your choice) issue and the core values each citizen values.

Except of course, he was talking against the President who is fully supporting and defending these programs. It's not anti-D it's anti-O.

Ahtman wrote:

I'm right behind ya, Cap!

**Seaward**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Classified materials isn't quite the same as being able to detain U.S. citizens without warrant, warrant-less wire tapping, secret courts that issue edicts with no oversight, massive spy networks, again focused on U.S. citizens, the list goes on here Seaward. That's the problem, not that the government has secrets but that those secrets violate the spirit if not the letter of the law and the constitution. You should be more concerned about your right to privacy. Because that's already well on it's way out the window.

None of which has anything to do with PRISM. Nobody's listening in my calls or yours without obtaining a warrant. Do you truly believe that a list of call durations and the number called - without any personal identifying information attached - is unconstitutional? I really don't.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Didn't you read? The "classified" FISA courts have ensured they have all the warrants they need to do whatever they want.

**Seaward**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Didn't you read? The "classified" FISA courts have ensured they have all the warrants they need to do whatever they want.

Well, the FISA courts exist purely for foreign targets. You'd need to go through another court to get a warrant against an American.

And they have to be "classified." We can't hold public hearings going, "This is our information, this is how we got it." Like it or not, we do actually try to prevent the networks we're spying on from figuring out how we're spying on them.

**rubiksnoob**

I don't understand the mindset of people who place loyalty to country above all else.

**Some_Call_Me_Tim?**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
My own opinions:

Manning: Is an idiot and a complete tool who deserves the punishment he's getting and certainly shouldn't wear the title of "hero" or whistleblower for that matter. He leaked intelligence because he was having a gakky day, just took everything he had access to and mailed it to some random jackhole to get back at people. That some of the stuff he leaked was actually something worth making a fuss about is just the law of averages at work. Enjoy Kansas Brad.

Snowden: I don't know about his motives, but his leak was well done, he got the word out with just enough data to prove he, and the programs he was blowing the whistle on were for real, he then leaked them to legit sources. Now is it treason legally? Maybe, but I'd still say it's the right thing to do. PRISM and sources on SECRET COURTS in the freaking United States? Goddessdamn I'm glad someone decided to say something. We've been trading our fundamental rights for some bullgak illusion of security and safety and it's starting to bite us right on the donkey. We didn't ask for the federal government to take this kind of power, we demanded it. We demanded the patriot act, we demanded the NDAA, we in the end demanded PRISM. When the collar's finally around our collective necks we'll find we probably demanded that too.

Good post, KM! You summed up my thoughts exactly. I honestly don't care how many papers you have to sign or how many agreements to secrecy you make. If the organization you're working for is doing something immoral, you have a moral obligation to tell the world about it and do fix it, especially when it's being done by the government and in secret.

One thing that politicians seem to have forgotten is this: just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

rubiksnoob wrote:
I don't understand the mindset of people who place loyalty to country above all else.

Be glad you don't understand that mindset. Love of country is a good thing, but rabid devotion only leads to xenophobia and other nasty things.

Also, to all those that want Snowden treated as a traitor: what's your opinion of the Pentagon Papers scandal? Was the man that leaked those papers ALSO a traitor?

~Tim?

**azazel the cat**

Sigvatr wrote:Those people betray their very own country - I can't think of anything less moral or correct one could do besides terrorism.

Just like that damned Oskar Schindler, who also betrayed his country?