Free assange

@vitklim- there are some key points. What is “no one is hurt?” If I pick the locks to your home without damaging anything and walk around your house- you have not been hurt physically or financially. So what is the harm? If I read through your texts or emails I haven’t hurt you have I? Well... Maybe not. I doubt you’d be very happy about it. So- let me provide some scenarios. What if I suspect you of doing wrong? So I search your home and your emails without telling you and without any permission from you or any agency appointed by and recognized by you? And what if I find nothing after all that? And let’s say this sort of thing is normal- then what stops me from going through your documents because I’m mosey or because I have ulterior motives and CLAIMING I was trying to catch you in a crime? The nuances exist. They exist in the law.

We have laws specifically about what burden of proof must be met before a judge will grant a warrant to search or do surveillance. Nuances exist- but the system isn’t perfect. It’s designed by people in power and the people passing laws are the ones hiding secrets, so of course there is bias and red tape. So.... let’s look at the nuances of vigilantism. If you expose corruption through strictly legal means- pretend you are wearing a badge and will be held to a chain of evidence and other matters of jurisprudence- you are a hero in my book. Period. If your actions as a vigilante would stand up to the tests of peer oversight and the limitations set by law to protect the rights and freedoms of people and the integrity of your investigation and to mitigate corrupt investigation or abuse of power.

We start getting real shakey when we get to a place where individuals decide either not to bother with the law at all, or to take what they see as a failing of the law and correct it. The system of law is create by votes and actions of the collective citizenry, through generations of law makers and subject matter experts and trial and error. For one person to determine they “know better..” is a level of arrogance that hints at a type of megalomania that probably shouldn’t be trusted.

@vitklim- if you skipped the rest at least please read this part. To oppose a law we see as unjust is a duty of a citizen and a human. In this country we have an imperfect system but a functional system that will allow you to oppose the law many ways. Sometimes a law is so wrong and the harm so immediate that a hero breaks it. we have to remember some laws aren’t “bad.” They can be used by bad people to do bad things but serve a legitimate purpose in actually protecting the innocent. We must weight the actual harm and harm to the fabric of society against the actual good- not any intention of good. Let’s say you illegally get evidence the president murdered a single mom for fun and covered it up. Great. Now we all know the truth. But that evidence is tainted and can’t be used in a court now so the prosecution may not have enough evidence for a case and the bad guy gets away- there are hidden costs to such actions.

A government is not a person and does not have the legal protections of such. A government has the purpose of serving its people, and if they are not doing so, their power loses legitimacy. Which means that breaking a law that they instate to protect themselves to the detriment of their own people is completely justified.
Let me ask you something, do you know anything about the political landscape in Russia? It is an oligarchy, with a tight knit group of people at the top owning all of the biggest private companies, all friends with the people in power. One of the only opposition leaders was murdered years ago, and the other spends a huge chunk of his work exposing how the people in power steal money through government projects on every turn. So what do they do? They have attempted to ban his investigations from the internet, fabricated a fake embezzlement scheme to get him imprisoned, and just recently pushed through a law to make "disrespecting the government" illegal.

There is not a shred of legitimacy in that power, they have been exposed countless times for draining tax money into their own pockets, they have connections to criminal groups and one of them is directly responsible for the assassination of an opposition leader. Does your argument still apply then? When police is ordered to raid opposition headquarters, when people are charged for up to 30 days for organising a rally, when you can point towards any person and power and expect there to be an investigation online proving just how much money they stole?
When they make it illegal to expose them, I tell em to get bent. The least they deserve is a life sentence.

If we were to truly reach the point where there wasn’t a shred of legitimacy, nor any hope to salvage our government- we would t need to expose corruption. The logic is self defeating. Why bother to bring it to the people if the people have no power? The fact that there isn’t sufficient transparency or oversight to inform people’s choices is a matter of law- to find the gaps and figure out solutions and demand change as a majority. When these avenues are taken from the people and when they stop having the power to change things without violence- that is when you know you are dealing with a totally illegitimate government.

The fact that there is corruption in the government is sadly not a surprise. Russia, America, China, Australia- show me a country that has a government free of sin- one where no one or even a good number of those in power don’t use that power to benefit themselves and those they consider “their people.” Unless you rule via computer... and even then you must ask who programmed it or who might be manipulating it- that’s a reality. The people who make the laws policing business tend to be people who own those businesses or suckle from their teats. A society will have something- from brute force to sex to money- which gives power. Those who have the power to compel others will be in control. Those in control set the rules. Those who make the rules seldom make rules that are against their interests. Those who do seldom keep power, and those most likely to seek power are those most likely to want it for their own agendas. So we tend to end up with the old saying “shot floats to the top.”

But a government- even one not “for the people by the people” is made of people. It’s reductionist propaganda to say a government isn’t people. If you remove the people from every branch of government- who signs the bills or polices the streets? Who makes laws or rules on cases? It’s people. Individual people each with faults and strengths, each with their own agendas and opinions and ideas of morality and duty. Many who would do harm do so seeking a “greater good.” They say “yes- it’s wrong to hold this man without trial and torture him- but this could save thousands.” “It’s wrong to grant this contract to this company- but if I show them favoritism here they will finance and back my bill to feed the hungry.” “Yes it’s wrong to lie in this election- but if I don’t get re elected my opponent will tear apart all the projects I’ve spent decades working on to help people...”

A “little” “bad,” “wrong,” breaking the law here and there- often with self benefit but usually with some good intention behind it. That’s what most corrupt politicians do. Few real people are cartoon villains. Joe Stalin et al. killed millions but- they thought they were doing it for the good of many more- a “lesser” wrong for a “greater good.” So why- if you don’t trust these people in government- would you condone someone else doing a “little wrong” for what they saw as a “greater good?” And why- if the elected government with the flawed but existent checks and balances and oversight we have- be LESS legitimate than a random guy acting on his own compass, whom no one elected or empowered beyond himself, be more legitimate?

In closing- yes. There are many in the government who are rotten. From “well meaning” people who do bad to get good done- to I’m sure a few cartoon villains who either only care about money and power or causing people harm, and yes- the government is flawed. Yes- we shouldn’t tolerate corruption and we should demand better checks and balances to help prevent and monitor it. But- should we instead of taking personal responsibility as citizens for that, just pawn it off on anyone who says they have noble intentions and knows how to hack or break in? That sounds like the one system that would be worse, and more illegitimate and rife for corruption than the one we have. You just trade one set of people refusing to follow the rules set for them to achieve their goals for another set who will do the same thing. Does it really matter which 500lb gorilla is violating you- or is it more that you’d rather not have any 500lb gorilla havinits way with you?

First off, people can do things to challenge the government. At it's most extreme, just another goddamn revolution. However, Russia specifically has failed so many times with its revolutions, that people don't believe that any radical change will succeed, and it will take something ridiculous to cause the meltdown.
And on the overall point. Tell me, is there a single high-profile person in the US government who you can point to as an example of an honest and transparent politician? Don't think so. So, yes, the government is made of people. Of shitty people, because they are the only ones who are dishonorable enough to use anything to get to the top. That's what the current political landscape is looking like to me. And if there's dirt on them, then the people deserve to know. And not just "oh this person said something offensive on twitter 6 years ago", because that doesn't mean shit, but any actual crimes or wrongdoing.

@guest_ strikes again with the utilitarianism.
@vitklim what's with the obsession with Russia? There are many governments out there that are FAR more corrupt than even Russia's.

Short answer is because that's what I know most about. I've been following the political landscape there for two years now, even though I don't live there anymore. And I woudln't say there are many more corrupt governments, only more repressive ones.

@vitklim- Washington is outside my social circle, I don’t know anyone well enough to say if they’re honest or how transparent they are. Can we walk down the street and point out who is honest and transparent? Or even truly say with our neighbors? How many wives and husbands cheat or lie or hide things? Our own families and best friends can surprise or betray us. More over- “honest and transparent” are good to have but not my primary concern. A surprise birthday party or many good things are often lies or deceptions, and you’ll find plenty of honest and transparent murderers and rapists who know what they are and feel no shame for it. Show me a high profile person that is a “good person...” that’s more elusive. Gandhi was a racist and classist who by most accounts was unfaithful. MLK was a cheater and as a political strategist wasn’t transparent as he made moves to influence society. Assange doesn’t tell all his sources by name and announce before hand that he’s taking data.

@vitklim- No one is completely honest- least of all tacticians and strategists playing poker with lives and the future. That’s sort of an example most people can relate: Poker- are you completely honest and you place all your cards face up on the table and hide nothing? How besides luck would you win? So comparing transparency and honesty of Washington to defend a man who also would hide things or lie to protect people working with him and to achieve their goals is bunk. Show me someone who doesn’t do that at all. Show me a prominent figure without dirt in the closet.

So if you’re looking for perfect you aren’t going to find it. Power always has a price. That is why you will usually find those with intelligence and experience and no desire to abuse power tend to shy away- they understand there is a terrible cost to it. What proof do you need that politics is corrupt? Presidential candidates spend millions of dollars to land a job that pays $100k a year and only lasts 4 years. It’s usually not their money- but whoever is paying is expecting a return on the investment greater than the cost.