Why do some citizens have such hatred for whistle-blowers?

[rhett o rick]

I think you will find that these are the same people that not only openly hate whistle-blowers also hate protestors like Code Pink and Occupy. They are quick to throw investigative journalists like Michael Hastings under the bus. They side with the corporations against WikiLeaks, Julius Assange and Pfc Manning.

So who are these people? Well we know that the Republicans fall into this category. They clearly have no empathy for the poor, seniors, the sick, our vets, working people, etc. They openly worship authoritarian leadership with leaders like Bush, Cheney, and Gen Clapper.

But Republicans aren’t the only ones that fall for the propaganda put forth by the corporate media and espouse hatred toward those trying to speak truth to power. It appears that some conservative Democrats are siding with the Republicans and the corporate media to try to silence whistle-blowers.

So apparently it’s not just a Republican thing to hate those speaking truth to power, but a conservative thing.

Fortunately we have DU where we are free to discuss these issues among politically liberal posters.

[Warpy]

1. Authoritarians hate boat rockers of any kind

They want their lives to be utterly predictable while they play follow the leader.

That's where the worst of it is coming from.

Others might be part of some of the agencies in question and their paychecks depend on no whistle blowing or boat rocking.

[KoKo]

107. Good Points... eom.

[Puzzledtraveller]

137. and ego precludes them from ever admitting that they could be or have ever been wrong

The gestapo could be knocking at their door and they would still insist that everything is okay.

[Whisp]

2. Snowden is a little skunk ass punk thief

[HangOnKids]

11. Oh fuck did he piss in your bed again?

Damn him!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

34. Snowden doesn't fit the whistleblower definition

And yes he's a jerk.

[bvar22]

41. Daniel Ellsberg says he is,

....and Daniel Ellsberg knows more about Whistle Blowing than FunkyLeprechaun does.

I am Daniel Ellsberg, the former State and Defense Department official who leaked 7,000 pages of Top Secret documents on the Vietnam War to the New York Times and 19 other papers in 1971.

Recently, I co-founded the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Yesterday, we announced Edward Snowden, NSA whistleblower, will be joining our board of directors!

Here’s our website: https://pressfreedomfoundation.org

I believe that Edward Snowden has done more to support and defend the Constitution—in particular, the First and Fourth Amendments—than any member of Congress or any other employee or official of the Executive branch, up to the president: every one of whom took that same oath, which many of them have violated.

I am proud to stand with Danile Ellsberg and the other Whistle Blowers.

You can stand with the conservatives,
and the handful of fundamentalists on DU carrying Water for the NSA and the Surveillance/Security State.

[bvar22]

35. Well, you sure convinced me.

Nothing like a bunch a Name Calling to help establish your Pro-NSA Authoritarian position.

Nanny Nanny Boo Poo to you!

So THERE!

[Whisp]

36. Thankyou, very gratifying to hear that. n/t

[Union Scribe]

121. at least that's a more honest attack

than telling us al qaeda is going to get us because of him.

[quinnox]

3. I think a lot of them are born with it

That is my theory. It is a "sheep gene", I call it. We all have it, but some have it to the degree they always have to side with authority, and they believe it is a safe and proper thing to do, and they get peace of mind from thinking this way. It is disturbing to them when anything challenges authority or official things, and this goes for all aspects in life too, not just politics.

[Populist_Prole]

40. Yeah

I'm constantly butting heads with people just like you describe, and it's not just politics; in fact it's usually non-political stuff. They see me as insolent; I see them as toadies of "the man".

[adirondacker]

124. I think it's acculterated. Not unlike the Valley Girls epidemic of the 80's. nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

4. Because they don't want only a Democratic admin...

...to take any or all of the blame for the crimes of several past admins.

Understandable on some level, but truly no one should get a pass.

[delrem]

82. Yet that's obviously what Obama wants,

else he wouldn't have delivered the "we need to look forward, as opposed to looking backwards" soundbyte.
That statement is all one needs to know, to predict what has happened since, and yes, Pres. Obama took the entire * admin's momentum as given and didn't change a thing, not a thing. Instead he built on it.

So why are some Dems pretending otherwise?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Just FYI not all republicans are that way either

this the other side does it really irks me anymore after covering politics.

Your split is not between progressives and conservatives. It is between authoritarian personalities and non authoritarian personalities.

For the record, like Quinox I believe people are born this way, and for the record research is starting to show this is the case.

[rhett o rick]

6. I totally agree that the split is between authoritarians and non-authoritarians.

I was generalizing when I said conservatives vs. progressives. I would bet that most authoritarians are conservative.

We live in a very authoritarian run society. Very few of our parents, teachers, religious leaders, etc. promote open-minded free thinking. Colleges try but have a lot to over come.

People follow bullies because they are either passive bullies themselves or they want the security they see being the bully's friend.

Bob Altemeyer says it very well in his book, "The Authoritarians", which is free on the internets.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Again we differ

I do not think being conservative means you are more likely to be an authoritarian.

I know plenty of progressives, who are progressive on a whole slew of things, who have a problem with people protesting, (damn dirty hippies), and jesus they hate the living daylights of anybody who uncovers sate secrets, no matter what.

Otherwise, they are all for rising the minimum wage, living wages even, science, a liberal education and things like that. Just do not put at risk any national security or make the country look bad. I mean, that is un-American and shit and will stand in line to beat the traitors with the usual suspects.

[rhett o rick]

12. I have lived a long time and have found very few if any conservatives that were open-minded.

And most were authoritarians.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Perhaps it has to do with covering politics

which changes completely how you view them.

My difference actually comes from being provincial and never traveling abroad. I find far more of a direct correlation with having a passport and using it, than not.

And as far as pols, the trend I see, which is a dangerous trend, is that less and less open minded people get involved in it. (or remain such after they find their sugar daddys)

[ReRe]

61. Your "Progressive" friends really aren't, Nadine...

... they like to reap the benefits that everyone else is on the front lines fighting for, but they won't roll up their sleeves and get dirty with the rest of the real Progressives. Let me ask you this: Do they financially support the Pregressive movement? They sound like go-along-to-get-alongers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Yes, yes they are

they just believe that in certain things, like national security, we little people should not ask questions.

It is not a political thing, we are increasingly finding out, but a biology thing.

[ReRe]

70. Uh...

... as in a "survival of the fittest" biological way? (Trying to understand..)

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. No, it is fear, and what it does to the mind

It has to do with the amygdala and the size of it.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1749

You can go look for actual technical research on this, I find this fascinating.

It also might be tied with propensity for PTSD, for example.

It also has real world implications for propaganda, and how to use it to manipulate populations.

[ReRe]

79. Ahhhh...

... kind of like the psychological manipulation of the minds of the masses? And those who fall for the propaganda? Or who have the propensity to be affected by trauma, be it social trauma or war trauma. Any closer now? Don't answer back right away... I'm going to check out your link, so give me time to read it... Thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Oh you welcome

I kind of stumbled upon the subject a while back, and it is one of those that strikes me as both enlightening (explains those progressives who are not fans of Snowden, see Bartcop for a well known example), but it is pregnant with dangers for political campaigning

[jeff47]

7. Because not everyone believes they are whistleblowers.

Let's imagine an Operation Rescue whistleblower publishes a bunch of medical records to show that "medically necessary" abortions aren't strictly necessary in many cases, just the least-dangerous approach.

The anti-abortion people will call them a whistleblower. I think we'd hurl a variety of insults and anger at them.

But Republicans aren’t the only ones that fall for the propaganda put forth by the corporate media

The corporate media isn't the only ones putting forth propaganda.

Manning's "whistleblower" story was applied after-the-fact. She also released a hell of a lot of things that had nothing to do with supposed crimes - what was the crime in the US knowing Castro's favorite brand of cigar?

Assange's self-imposed exile makes him unable to properly run Wikileaks. That's not the fault of some secret cabal, that's the fault of Assange for not letting others take his place - he does not have to be the one running the show.

Discussion of Snowden's leaks always claim there's massive spying on US persons. Except the actual documents Snowden leaked did not show that - all but one program includes a "targeting" step to remove US persons. The phone metadata program does not, but that collection is legal under a 1979 SCOTUS ruling. But his fans insist that he has proven spying on US persons.

The nice thing is those people released documents for all to see.
The bad thing is so many people prefer to read only the stories about those documents, instead of the documents.
That can greatly color the opinion of whistleblower or not-whistleblower.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Flawed analogy. Individuals have a right to privacy.

Governments do not have a right to secrecy.

[jeff47]

13. So they redacted the names and other identifying information first.

Would you prefer James O'Keefe as an example instead?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. Are you serious?

Of course governments should be able to keep certain things secret.

[delrem]

86. Should gov't be allowed secret interpretations of laws judged in secret courts,

with no opposition arguments allowed? How about trials with secret evidence, unavailable even to those convicted on that basis?
Should a gov't with a constitution and rights similar to what the US trumpets as being what makes it "exceptional" be allowed to spy on all citizens, and when the spy chief is brought before the governing bodies to testify, should lies be allowed?

What does it mean when the massive majority of the people of such a country quite simply *doesn't care*, or "cares" for only a fleeting moment or two before totally forgetting about it, their minds now taken up by Justin Beiber's antics, or Miley Cyrus's?

This isn't a small thing that's happening in the US in these opening decades of the 21st century, the homeland security buildup, NSA, WoT, drone assassinations, etc., are defining the future for the western world (not just the USA). Personally, I think it's too late. I think it's too late to stop the top-secret TPP, as well, and I think the top-secrecy of the TPP is part of the same process.

I come to DU to find people who *are* somewhat aware of these changes in an worsening momentum, who want to learn more, and who want to do something to stop it -- who want to build an activist movement in an age when innovation is necessary because all methods of the past have been defanged.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

119. +1

[woo me with science]

8. PROPAGANDA.

We marinate in purchased messages.

Most Americans either are paying attention and thus oppose the crimes of the government and the NSA, or they are so busy trying to keep their families' heads above water in this looted, predatory economy that they consume only the corporate media lies.

When you hear outright viciousness toward whistleblowers, that is propaganda. The Two Minutes Hate is a standard propaganda tool designed to raise emotions to a level that distracts from reason.

[Whisp]

16. funny that one of the biggest Woo things here is about the NSA.

ha.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

57. I guess you're not too worried about the NSA

since they'll never be able to untangle your unusual, strangely childlike diction.

[Whisp]

80. hey, if one is a Stasi-bot, what's to be afraid of, right?

apparently anyone who thinks Snowden and GG are skeevy liars is an authoritarian stasi-bot.

*raises hand

[markpkessinger]

14. I remember an interview I saw with Daniel Ellsberg . . .

. . . in which Ellsberg said that in juror selection for his federal trial, his attorneys determined that the one demographic they wanted to avoid as much as possible having on the jury -- that is, the one demographic they calculated would be most hostile to Ellsberg's case -- was middle-aged men in corporate middle management (there weren't many women in corporate middle management in 1971). The reason: it was thought that men who had been corporate types for any length of time would have been most likely, at least on a few occasions, by that point in their careers, to have found themselves in a position of having to make 'compromises' with respect to law and/or ethics, and thus would be most resentful of a principled whistleblower. I wonder if that dynamic is at work here?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. because Obama is in charge, if Bush were in charge, we'd love these people unconditionally

[neverforget]

30. Pretty much.

The amount of hatred and venom that is thrown at Snowden and Greenwald is remarkable as is shown up thread.

[alarimer]

75. Hammer meet nail.

I think this is it exactly. I've always thought so.

And some people are followers, and have blind loyalty to whomever their party "leader" happens to be.

[840high]

99. ...

[Rex]

18. They love authority, hate critical thinking and are scared of change.

Sad ain't it? Thankfully just like Tea Baggers, they are easy to spot and mock.

[markpkessinger]

21. Yes, but what about the Democrats who have reacted so viscerally to Manning and Snowden?

I mean, we've seen that right here on DU. This phenomenon is not explained merely by laying it at the feet of Obama opponents or Bush Supporters.

[Rex]

28. Yeah seen it from a handful of people that post here.

That is why they have zero credibility with the other 99% of DU imo.

[BelgianMadCow]

73. It really IS a handful

with a couple handfuls extra that just have their patritic cap screwed on a little tight, but boy are they busy.

[reddread]

136. yeah, its really important to them, job description, reviews, raises, stuff like that I guess

Because nobody is really stupid enough to believe the garbage they reiterate ad nauseum.
No matter how many times they claim to know better than Ellsberg or whoever else isnt as informed as they are.
Nobody is dumb enough to believe it.
Except maybe their auditors, and I assume that is just an algorithm.

[riderinthestorm]

19. Not just hatred - its seething rage with some pretty violent rhetoric.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the level of rage directed at whistleblowers.

And the concommitant protection of the authorities and their criminal actions.

Scary.

[11 Bravo]

20. I thought Daniel Ellsberg was a hero. I think Snowden is a self-aggrandizing punk.

I'm not sure you have a pigeonhole to tuck me into.

[markpkessinger]

22. Daniel Ellsberg disagrees with you n/t

[11 Bravo]

24. I'm well aware of that. I have the ability to agree with individuals on some matters ...

while disagreeing with them on others without suffering dyspepsia, a cranial explosion, or the heartbreak of psoriasis..

[delrem]

87. On the other hand, Ellsberg's judgement is after experience of putting his life on the line.

Yours isn't.

[LanternWaste]

126. I'm not quite sure that having a sound or valid opinion on this discussion is predicated on having o

I'm not quite sure that having a sound or valid opinion on this discussion is predicated on having one's life on the line... or that it's even germane to any contextual relevance.

[delrem]

131. Then you haven't thought it through. nt

[11 Bravo]

135. Then by your rules I'm allowed to have an opinion about going to war. Are you?

(And the answer is of course you are, proving that your rule is ridiculous in the extreme.)

[delrem]

139. You deliberately misinterpret.

I said Elsberg's opinion is after a lifetime of experience, first putting his life and liberty on the line and followed by continuing study and so on. Your opinion is stated as nothing more than that of "11 Bravo", with not so much as a footnote as to reason.

That's *all* I'm saying. I'm not saying that any fool can't have an opinion and voice it a web forum or feedback page - that obviously would be counterfactual.

Now I've had enough of this senseless back and forth, so bye.

[11 Bravo]

140. Interesting tactic. First claim that you said something you demonstrably did NOT say ...

then run away after decrying the discussion to be senseless. Sadly for you, your post #87 still stands, wherein you reference Ellsberg "putting his life on the line" but say not one single word about his "lifetime of experience" or his "continuing study". That provides an interesting contrast with the statements you claim to have made in post #139. You are either quite forgetful or patently dishonest.

[delrem]

141. This conversation is now officially crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Later_activism_and_views

But go for it, assert that your totally unsubstantiated opinion is worth more than Daniel Ellsberg's.

I'm finished with this discussion.

[11 Bravo]

142. Let's see, you've gone from claiming to have said things you didn't say to claiming that ...

I said things that I didn't say. Not sure that's an improvement, but at least it's a change of pace. And FYI, posting a Wikipedia link after the fact doesn't retroactively mean that you said it to begin with.
So, now that you are DOUBLE finished with this discussion are you going to go away, or is this another tease?

[delrem]

143. **BANGS HEAD AGAINST WALL**

If I say "2+2=4", I also mean "1+1+1+1=4".

Enough with this idiocy. "ignore" feature on.

[rhett o rick]

62. Could the difference be based on who was president at the time of the whistle-blowing? nm

[11 Bravo]

67. Nope, the difference is that Ellsberg went to US Senators, the US media, and eventually to trial.

Snowden went to China and Vladimir Putin.

[rhett o rick]

68. Shows how times have changed. Ellsberg understands. nm

[LanternWaste]

127. After this, therefore because of this.

After this, therefore because of this.

[alarimer]

76. Given that they treated Manning incredibly inhumanely, I can hardly blame him.

Solitary confinement for anyone should be illegal.

And there is no evidence for your assertion.

[frwrfpos]

23. the people who side with the authoritarians and right wing assholes

are
1) right wing authoritarian assholes or
2)work for them for a tax funded paycheck

neither should be welcome at a Democratic site

[WorseBeforeBetter]

25. Because Obama.

At least for some Democrats.

[blackspade]

26. They are authoritarians.

They have problems with whistle blowers because it upsets their cozy world view.
Or at least their chosen authoritarian figurehead.

[WillyT]

27. Because... "GET OFF MY LAWN !!!"

Some prefer to live in a bubble that has informed them all of their lives.

The United States are the good guys.

We fight for truth, justice, and the American Way.

We are the benevolent super-power.

When we find wrong, we right it.

Injustice, we fix it.

Corruption, we prosecute it.

And ANYTHING that threatens to pop that oh so comfortable bubble of denial, is seen as a threat.

And must be crushed with all possible haste.

[rhett o rick]

60. Well said. nm

[delrem]

94. I think for *most* people it's very traumatic when their bubbles are popped.

It's traumatic when a child learns that his/her parents are fallible (supposing a comforting/nurturing childhood).
It's traumatic when a serious student of the liberal arts pulls the veils aside on the comfortable illusions that inform the general population, and it's doubly traumatic when that student learns that having or even pursuing such knowledge makes one an outsider speaking a different language, having different concepts of reference.
It's more traumatic the deeper one digs.

If a person doesn't learn a new equilibrium when faced with that kind of traumatic learning, the person will likely bury it, deliberately forget it.

The trauma is eased when the learning is shared, when people share their coping rituals, when people join hands in political action. But even that easing is fraught with the danger of creating new illusions - if old dependencies are simply transferred to a new object. e.g. to a cult or an extremist authoritarian faction offering some magic.

(just my opinion, from my experience)

[WillyT]

95. Great Points, All !!!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. BartCop has lost his shit over Snowden --

I used to be a daily BartCop reader, but he's all about Snowden being a traitor and Russian spy who gave secrets to the enemies.

It completely mystifies and disturbs me to see, especially from people who I have come to respect.

[xocet]

50. Indeed. n/t

[iandhr]

31. Well I think it is a bit more nuanced then what you are talking about.

Assange is a admirer of Ron and Rand Paul. Either he isn't aware they are anti-women, white supremacists or his doesn't care. I find both troubling.

I wouldn't categorize Code Pink as "whistle-blowers" All they do is shout at dispute public hearings and likely have the effect of turning off people who might otherwise be sympathetic to their cause. (Again they call Rand Paul a hero)

On the subject of occupy I agree with you. However I never really understood what they were about. Once they got the attention of the nation they said "we don't have leaders" and they were not really specific about what their agenda was.

[sabrina 1]

32. Authoritarians also feel threatened by people who are smarter than they are and see what

is going on more clearly. People who don't swear loyalty oaths to anyone especially when they see wrong doing.

I think also they envy those who have the guts to act on what is right and it shows them up for what they are. So they lash out. To protect themselves against such exposure.

A majority of the people now support Snowden thanks to the information people have access to and no longer need to depend on the Corporate media.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. Wow ...

just wow!

Someone disagrees with you and they are stupid (you are smarter); they feel threatened by you; they are envious of your courage?

Wow ... where else have I seem similar self-inflating comments ...?

[rhett o rick]

51. I think she means when they "lash out", kinda like you did in your post. Didnt you

have anything to add to the discussion?

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Noting someone's tone and the content of their post is lashing out? n/t

[Whisp]

88. I know... I had to giggle

at the pomposity of it all.

You, you in the red socks questioning Snowdens & GGs motives - you are an AUTHORITARIAN! you, you over there licking Snowdens feet, you are a genious FREEDUMB FIGHTER.
Because I say so!
...says the anti-authoritarian.

o man, gotta love it.

[sabrina 1]

104. It's pompous to speak about one's experiences with Bush supporters? Are you unaware

of how Authoritarian they are? How they hated the 'Left' because we were RIGHT and had the nerve to question their glorious leader? They taught me the dangers of blind, partisan loyalty and how impenetrable it is no matter how many FACTS you present them with.

Maybe you don't find such people threatening to the welfare of this country. I do.

[sabrina 1]

100. You like Authoritarians? I had the Bush gang in mind. Bush's loyal supporters who

taught me all I know about blind loyalty. And Authoritarianism. I was proud to be on the Left, not blindly partisan, when I saw the damage THEIR loyalty did to this and other countries.

I spent several years arguing with them hoping to penetrate the thick wall of denial. They really hated what they called the 'Left' for not seeing the glory, the patriotism, the heroism and righteousness of their leader.

I often wonder how they feel now, now that he sold the phony ranch, lost the cowboy hat and boots and dropped the charade prepared for him that so fooled them. But that's how blind people can be. They couldn't even see that he was not even a cowboy. Even when you told them, his wife told us, that he was afraid of horses.

Thank the gods we on the Left are different!

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. Not particularly ...

But, then, I don't label folks that disagree with me as weak, cowardly, envious and what not.

[sabrina 1]

105. So how would you describe Freepers then?

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. I don't ...

they are not my concern.

[sabrina 1]

109. Really? We should be cosidering it is THEIR votes that get people like Bush/Cheney and

Cantor and Ryan et al elected. But if you're okay with that, then there's nothing more to say I suppose.

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. No ...

I'm far more concerned with "progressives/liberal" that spend their time being anti-anything Democrats do. They have far more affect on Democratic voters than freeperville, Limbaugh and beck, combined.

[sabrina 1]

111. Well, I don't know any Democrats who are 'anti-anything' Democrats do. Who are these

people? I am always thrilled when Democrats do what they are supposed to do. When they vote for issues that are important to the people. When they vote for policies that are harmful to the people, I am not happy, even less happy than when Republicans do so. Because I expect Republicans to do what they do. I expect way more of MY PARTY. It's sort of like being a parent. You are far more upset when YOUR child behaves badly than when someone else's does.

I hope you are not equating Democrats letting their Representatives know when they are unhappy with, eg, cuts to Social Security with being anti-everything Dems do? That isn't what you mean is it? Because that would make no sense at all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

114. You. for one ...

unless you are now declaring that you are not a Democrat.

hope you are not equating Democrats letting their Representatives know when they are unhappy with, eg, cuts to Social Security? That isn't what you mean is it?

First ... there have been no cuts to SS. And secondly, please post a link to a single positive thing you have written about this administration. Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

115. Ah, the purity test. I wondered how long it would take. You could not answer my question, so you go

for the personal attack. I worked to get this administration elected and some of my right wing adversaries who were doing everything they could to derail and smear and destroy this president would laugh out loud if I were to show them your comment.

I know I am on the right track when both extremes accuse me of either being an 'Obama fan-girl' yes, that was one of their childish taunts, while the other accuses me of me of not being loyal enough.

I was far too busy working to get this president elected in 2008 to even be online frankly, except to slap down the lies and the insults on forums where right wingers, I know you seem to have a soft spot for them, invaded with their nasty, bought and paid for attacks on Democrats. I owe you nothing. The people I respect, Democrats in this party know my views and having THEIR respect, yes people whose names you know, even when I don't agree with them, is all that matters to me.

Keep your crystal ball that you think tells you what is in the minds and hearts of people you don't know, to yourself. It isn't working very well.

Note to those reading. A relatively civil discussion was taking place until ONE party decided to attack the other personally. Once that happens, the discussion is over and one of them has demonstrated that they are unable to accept any disagreement whatsoever on policies. I've seen this so many times but for a long time believed it didn't happen on our side of the aisle.

Too bad you don't save your anger for Freepers. I've noticed that some on the 'left' are indifferent to the real enemy, the ones who actually do hate Democrats but seem to have an irrational hatred for those in their own party who actually do the work of getting Democrats elected. This is something that has driven many people away from the party and IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. Okay...

ETA You have some serious projection issues ... I comment on your calling those that disagree with you cowards and envious ... and then you spend the next few posts playing the victim.

Let's just agree to disagree.

(I know ... it's my fault because I responded to your posts first. Won't make that mistake again)

[delrem]

144. Yes, it's your fault.

I suggest that the reason why it's your fault is found at the beginning of this thread, with your identification with authoritarian shitheads and your opposition to whistleblowers who shine a light on their methods. Why else did you interject as you did?

[1StrongBlackMan]

147. I don't "Identify" ...

with "authoritarian", sh!theaded or otherwise; but I do recognize that members of our government have a duty to protect this nation (and the people, thereof) against very real threats.

I don't oppose "whistle-blowers"; but I refuse to applaud anyone that circumvents legitimate channels to expose "methods", but rather opts to release documents that they stole to the press ... and runs away.

Why else did you interject as you did?

????

[rhett o rick]

52. I think it's more likely that they lash out because they are afraid. They believe the propaganda

put out by the authoritarian leaders that if you dont blindly follow them, then your life will be in danger. Remember the color codes? I am surprised that Clapper hasnt adopted it.

One person told me that they believed Pres Obama. I had to ask whether they believed him when he said the NSA wasnt spying or when he said he wants to reform the NSA spying.

[LeftOfWest]

122. Great post

I am gonna use some of it against the tea draggers who post on local Seattle forums.

"People who don't swear loyalty oaths to anyone especially when they see wrong doing."

Nailed it there.

Thank you!

[Waiting For Everyman]

125. Couldn't agree more, and will add one more thing.

It's often people who are doing corrupt things themselves, so they don't like to see corruption being exposed.

[etherealtruth]

33. I watched a very interesting film regarding this (in a general way)

Big Boys Gone Bananas! is a 2011 documentary film, directed by Fredrik Gertten.

The film lays out how major corporations (and governments) expertly discredit "whistlblowers" ... their campaign is relentless and very underhanded ... it is also very effective.

http://www.bigboysgonebananas.com/welcome?splash=1 ... I watched it on Netflix. I think I was aware of every tactic but was a little naive regarding how well orchestrated and 'below the radar" these actions are.

[rhett o rick]

37. Sounds interesting. Thanks. nm

[randome]

38. You will need to dig deeper to find those who truly 'hate' Snowden or other thieves.

They exist on DU and everywhere else but are a minority.

What you seem to be unable to understand, however, is that there are many people who can parse the information provided and come to different conclusions than you.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. As someone I am certain you would term as a whistle-blower hater ...

I will say (for myself and myself only):

I do not hate whistle-blowers or Manning or Snowden (though I, nor the law, would consider either of them "whistle-blowers) ... in fact, I do feel anything, in particular, about them.

What I am concerned with is the reality that from the beginning of this nation, our elected officials (and those charged with the responsible to them) have struggled with the very real challenge of balancing our individual right to privacy with the need to protect the security of those same individuals.

The arguments that I have seen in support of "whistle-blowers" seem to completely ignore that responsibility.

I will also note: No one here will pay, anywhere near, the price should those ignoring the need for balance, get it wrong. IOW ... I don't need a right to privacy, if I'm dead ... and I would gladly trade my telephone data ... hell, a transcript of my every call ... if it would prevent my love one from being killed.

This is the honest reality that I live in ... and it has nothing to do with authoritarianism-lover, fascist-enabler, or any other term you (the generic, "you&quot may wish to apply.

[rhett o rick]

54. I appreciate your decent argument. But the choice isnt between the NSA having your personal

data vs. your security. You should be able to enjoy security without having to give up your privacy. I worry that a power crazy leader, like Cheney, for example, might use all the information available (probably not yours) to influence political and/or business decisions. We dont know what the NSA does. We have a right to know that they at least are doing no more than absolute necessary to keep us safe. When private corporations get their hands in the security till, I am not at all comfortable that they are looking out for our best interest.

I want honest oversight. How can that be unreasonable?

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. No ...

But the choice isnt between the NSA having your personal data vs. your security. You should be able to enjoy security without having to give up your privacy.

That is exactly the choice/balance that the administration and our elected officials are charged with striking ... with real world consequences. Now granted, we clearly differ as to how that balance is being struck; but given the current state of technology, how do we obtain the information that might advert another attack without sacrificing a measure of our privacy?

I, too, worry that someone might abuse the information collected; but with all law enforcement matters ... that is a bridge to be crossed, when we get there and punish it harshly.

I agree we should feel confident that the NSA/Government is acting prudently; but that ... like all matters of governance ... is really an article of faith, as we really have no way of knowing. However, in striking the security/privacy balance, a strong component is a willingness and ability to punish imprudent conduct, when discovered ... and I believe that we, the American people, and the vast majority of our elected officials have that willingness and the laws (whether current or yet to be written, give them the ability.

I am far more concerned with private industry's intrusion into my privacy, than I am with the government in that private industry, by definition and demonstration, does not have my interests at heart, or in mind.

Finally, we agree ... honest oversight is not only ABSOLUTELY reasonable ... it is essential ... and I believe we are headed in that direction.

But to be clear, oversight does not mean complete transparency to the American public, nor does it include, individuals deciding on their own, without accessing legitimate, lawful disclosure channels, to be free to disclose what they swore to hold confidential.

Further, should anyone, opt to step outside of those strictures and expect to avoid culpability, they are not to be applauded.

[alarimer]

78. There is no evidence that the NSA program has saved even one life, or prevented anything.

The authoritarians trot out that bullshit to keep you afraid.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The NSA and the US government are not the good guys here. There are as likely to kill your loved ones as any "bad guy" out there.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. As with most national security matters ...

the measure is not evidence that something was stopped, but rather, the fact that nothing (from outside ... the target of these programs) has happened.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"Horse is a horse of course of course ..." That is an empty, feel good platitude afforded to those with the luxury to pontificate.

[delrem]

145. So if the NSA added an extreme-McAssassination program

to what they're already doing, that'd be perfectly fine, "because the measure is not evidence that something was stopped, but rather, the fact that nothing (from outside... the target of these programs) has happened."

Cool. With reasoning like that the future is safe for Democracy, Freedom, and The American Way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

146. "extreme-McAssassination program"? ...

What are you talking about?

You've taken only a snippet of my response ...therefore that segment has no context and you question makes no sense. If you have not read my full response, initial, response ... I suggest you do so; it'll provide the relevant context, and likely would have prevented you from asking me about "extreme-McAssassination programs." There's a name for that.

If, on the other hand, you had read my initial response and chose to ignore my national security/privacy consideration, in order to build that strawman ... well ... there's a name for that, too.

[delrem]

148. No, I didn't just take a "snippet" of your response,

I took the whole of the response that I replied to. Which is:
"As with most national security matters ...
the measure is not evidence that something was stopped, but rather, the fact that nothing (from outside ... the target of these programs) has happened."

That statement isn't something you proved in earlier discussion - it is a simple unsubstantiated assertion, and in fact it's a variant of the *identical* assertion made by the NSA when it claims that the NSA program has stopped multiple attacks. By that I mean the *identical* assertion made by "truth telling" authorities like James Clapper, who rely on secrecy to defend their "truths", and whose "truths" were totally refuted by proof delivered by Edward Snowden's revelations, as has been demonstrated by numerous reporters who've studied those revelations.

But then you're an authoritarian who relies 100% on the assertions of "authority" that whisteblowing systems and protections exist and work -- and as such you put from your mind all the evidence provided by folk like Edward Snowden that those "authorities" are flat out liars. You put from your mind all the research and reportage provided by those who show that your simple-minded belief is false.

You don't like it that Edward Snowden's revelations were leaked. You figure that Snowden ought to have gone through the tried and true system for whistleblowing developed by folk like James Clapper. Notwithstanding the fact that folk like James Clapper have at hand the tools to totally ruin any potential whistleblower, as Edward Snowden revealed.

It's a wretched thing to examine the catch-22 world of NSA, CIA, Homeland Security, authoritarian thinkers.
It's a wretched thing to have to explain this.

[1StrongBlackMan]

149. Okay n/t

[treestar]

43. they don't

you've constructed your house of conclusions and expect everyone to agree with each one of your judgments. Then you ascribe to others emotions that you've assigned as a result of your judgments based on your world.

[rhett o rick]

59. Those that denied that the NSA was spying have had to change their stance

a number of times. I have lost track. Maybe you can enlighten us as to where you stand. Yes the NSA spys but it's worth the security? Or they only collect data but never peek at it. How about "we should never question our authoritarian daddies."

I think the attacks on Snowden are poor attempts at distraction. While the NSA picks our pockets, their authoritarian followers scream "Look at Snowden, his girlfriend is a pole dancer."

[Smarmie Doofus]

44. They lack courage and they're reminded of this deficiency by Snowden, Manning, Ellsberg, etc.

The only way to reconcile the psychological dissonance is to discredit... usually by RAGING against... the whistleblowers.

The rage is the tip-off.

[rhett o rick]

64. I agree. They were raised to follow an authoritarian figure and not think for themselves.

They get scared when someone dares to criticize the parent, the teacher, the priest, or the president. They are afraid that whistle-blowers will bring down the wrath of the authoritarian and they might get hurt in the fury.

[LittleBlue]

46. Programming. It starts with the Pledge of Allegiance

The programming ingrains into every citizen an initial knee-jerk defense of the state when other countries are involved.

Some won't admit they're wrong. The ones who claimed "we already knew this" were clearly wrong but won't admit it, so they go further and further into absurdity to avoid admitting that they're wrong. Others are clearly brainwashed by military training, not understanding that the first rule of any military is to obey. They unfortunately obey outside their job, especially when it comes to politics.

[MyNameGoesHere]

47. Taking the blinders off what the government is actually willing and capable of doing

is too much for some people to handle. It is much easier to make a villain out of the messenger. To believe in what a whistleblower says would shatter some peoples idea of America.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Fear of scary bogeymen, fear of the people, and fear of rocking the establishment boat.

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Thomas Paine

[struggle4progress]

49. Has there been some rash of attacks on Michael Hastings?

Last I looked, a while back, he had driven into a tree and died

Much of the discussion here afterwards, unfortunately, seemed to focus on whether or not we should believe the US government remotely seized control of his car and caused the crash

[rhett o rick]

58. You bring up exactly what I am talking about. Immediately after his crash

there was speculation as to what might have really happened. Some among us immediately lashed out at anyone that dared to think that his death was not an accident. They didnt know anymore than anyone else, but it was crucial that they shout down any discussion of murder. They started to disparage Hastings just to justify that his accident was caused by his drinking, drug taking, and/or fast driving. These people did not keep their minds open, just looked to the corporate media for comfort.

IMO these people didnt want the truth. They were worried that the truth might reveal that their government wasnt as nice and fatherly as they believed. And they were willing to throw Michael Hastings under the bus to keep their comfortable denial bubble intact.

[Whisp]

90. hahahahahaha!

I would say nice try,

but it wasn't.

[rhett o rick]

101. I notice that you guys really have no come back. You think that ridicule and mocking is

the way to carry on a discussion. I realize that you are at a tremendous disadvantage when your only principle is blindly following your idol. How can you defend the TPP for example. Or how do you explain Penny Pritzker, the Mit Romney of the Democratic Party.

[zappaman]

93. Bwhahahahahahaha!

Yes, DU is soooo authoritarian(your favorite word to insult and belittle DUers).
Why do you post at an authoritarian website?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592796#post1

[rhett o rick]

102. No DU isnt authoritarian. Again you must lower yourself to lies. You dont support positions just

ridicule other posters. But I understand. You have nothing to argue with so you resort to ridicule. And then you try to justify your ridicule. There is no justification for ridicule in a politically liberal message board.

[zappaman]

112. Lol!

[Whisp]

117. oh myyy, I didn't see that till now.

!!!!!!

Bwahahahaha!

[Whisp]

89. There is no woo like NSA woo here.

and it's accepted so easily.

reminds me of those puppies with the wobbly heads you put on your parcel tray in the back seat.

wobble wobble yes yes, wobble yes Woo Woo

[Bobbie Jo]

133. .

lol'd, scared the cat.

That struck me funny, you're on a roll.

[Whisp]

134. ... heh

[iamthebandfanman]

53. i love whistle blowers

who expose wrongdoings to the American people...

not so much traitors who give information to foreign nations out of some self righteous naivety about the world.

[Adrahil]

91. +1 nt

[Maedhros]

55. A big factor is also widespread acceptance of The Big Lie that "We Are At War"

We are, of course, not at war. There is no battlefield. There are no free-fire zones, no fronts, no ground to take or lose. There is no enemy army arrayed against us in the field. Congress has not declared war, there is no draft.

There is no war. Yet these people that defend abuses by the NSA, that defend indefinite detention and Gitmo, that defend drone murder need a state of war to justify the things they defend.

For example, when they claim civilian casualties from drone strikes are necessary they assume war conditions are in effect. In a real war, there are two armed groups in close proximity engaged in a firefight, possibly with civilians present. Of course firing a missile into that situation can be expected to result in civilian casualties - perhaps an enemy machine gun emplacement needs to be taken out, and there are civilians hiding in the cellar. But that isn't what is happening in the areas in which our drones are operating. We're firing missiles at farmers trying to farm, villagers shopping at the market, and wedding and funeral congregations, all the while pretending to ourselves that the "fog of war" is responsible for those civilian deaths.

The same goes for the NSA. People have bought into the propaganda that We Are at War and The Enemy is Everywhere, and thus mistakenly believe that grossly abusive security measures are Necessary To Keep Us Safe.

Why do they hate whistleblowers? Because they are afraid, and they think the whistleblowers are putting them in danger, despite there being no actual evidence for that notion.

[rhett o rick]

56. Well said.nm

[RC]

69. You have laid out the basic problem quite clearly

Some people need an adversary to function. Someone or something to demonize, to blame for their or other's problems. Less thinking is required of them that way.
There is no war, except of our own making. What we need to do is to stop killing people and use those resourced to help people instead.
How often does our "humanitarian aid" include guns and ammunition? That should provide a clue for where we are really coming from.

[bemildred]

77. +1. nt

[alphafemale]

63. Something to do with equating them with tattletales and snitches.

Even though it is not close to the same thing.

[whatchamacallit]

71. Mushrooms hate the light

It shows them what they'd rather not know; that they're living in dirt and shit.

[Adrahil]

74. LOL this wins for most passive aggressive post evah!

Last edited Tue Jan 28, 2014, 10:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes, clearly anyone who doesn't like Assange, Manning, or Snowden have just fallen for for corporate lies. We couldn't possibly think that other issues are at stake. And clearly anyone who disagrees with you must be conservative, despite their position on other issues. There must be a purity test! We couldn't possibly disagree on some issues and still all be progressives.

[bobduca]

96. "other issues"

Yeah you know, you'd think that these same 10-15 posters and their felt-covered thread recc'ers would be able to bring up some of those "other issues" cogently but instead I see the 15 minutes of hate from Pro-Smear spinning the same tired lies, smears by association etc day after day.

Oh and how could we forget all those funny gifs with homophobic overtones about Putin and Snowden! SO FUNNY!!111

I think you may have been inadvertently right about those "other issues" that whistle-blower-haters have.

[Adrahil]

97. I can see you to are playing the same game.

"Whistle-blower hater." Yeah, you're interested in an actual discussion.

[bobduca]

98. It was the premise of the OP

i used it and now im the villain of the peice. Counterfactual narrative in place, check.

I recognize dishonest rhetoric when i see it, the loyalists pretend Rhetoric and the rules of discourse do not exist.

[Adrahil]

108. I had assumed you agreed with that characterization...

... If you didn't, I apologize, sincerely.

[ecstatic]

83. I think Bill Maher said it best

Bill Maher acknowledged his respect for former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden during Real Time‘s return episode on Friday, while comparing him to former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) during an interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald.

“I agree with what he says, I nod along,” Maher said. “And then he says something totally batsh*t.”

"...every time he opens his mouth, he always says something f*cking nuts. When he says, ‘They know every friend you’ve ever discussed something with,’ we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what’s f*cking nuts.”

Video: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/17/bill-maher-and-glenn-greenwald-clash-over-totally-batsht-edward-snowden/

[baldguy]

92. Why do some supposed "liberal Democrats" have such hatred for a sitting Democratic president?

So much so that they'll hold up racist, radical RW Republicans as exemplars of heroism?

[reddread]

113. the truth is SO much worse than we can guess or expect, with secrecy we have no bearings

anyone with access to sophisticated programmers, can find out just how much is at stake and accessed.
what little spills out and the lies circulated to deal with those leaks, leaves us light years from democracy.
which is where the Democratic Party and their voting members should be interested in being.
The National Security State was a failure and an abomination LONG before 9-11-01, and they DAMN SURE
aint gonna be the salvation of us now.
wake the fuck up.
use what little honest history you can get your hands on
and figure it out.

[Whisp]

118. The only thing Snowden blows is chunks. He is no whistleblower.

but thanks anyway! come again!

[B Calm]

150. I couldn't agree more! What did he reveal that we didn't already know?

[JoeyT]

120. Best I can tell there are three types.

The authoritarians that are enraged by anyone questioning any authority anywhere. Recognizable by the bullshit "There are channels! They didn't HAVE to leak!" argument.

The party loyalists that would've been utterly thrilled had it come out under Bush, but are pissed because it embarrassed Obama. Recognizable largely by the "WHY DID HE WAIT UNTIL A BLACK MAN WAS PRESIDENT?! HUH?!" type arguments.

And then those that are utterly terrified of the terrorists hiding under their beds and think the most critical role of the federal government is to keep them, personally, safe at all costs. Recognizable by actually thinking spying on everyone in America is perfectly cool as long as it keeps the bad men at bay.

Of course people rarely fit entirely into one specific group. There's considerable overlap between them.

I'm sure there are those that oppose the whistleblowers you mentioned that don't fit into any of the three, I just haven't seen any arguments that didn't fit into at least one of them.

[rhett o rick]

123. I think you covered it pretty well. nm

[KoKo]

132. well said...Recommend!

[riqster]

128. Not all whistle-blowers are created equal.

I agree with 90+ percent of your OP. I would only add that if someone makes an exception for a particular individual, that does not make them an authoritarian fill-in-the-blank.

Example: Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame; Deep Throat during Watergate, and Chelsea Manning all strike me as well-intentioned whistleblowers who put their country's well-being above their own.

Edward Snowden, I have mixed feelings about. He did a good deed in a not-very-smart way.

Julian Assange, well, until he acts within the law and stops hiding from a judicial enquiry for sexual assault allegations, fuck that guy.

And then there are out-and-out liars like Issa who claim to be revealing important information but in fact are not.

I support whistleblowers (given my personal history, it would be hypocritical not to), but I don't necessarily see every person who is called one as being a true servant of the public good.

[rhett o rick]

129. While I may disagree with some specifics, I do agree with your overall point.

I think it's difficult for the common person to determine if Snowden acted in a foolish way or not. But that isnt the point of my OP. We dont know how he would have been treated had he gone to the authorities. I cant think of a scenario that would have turned out good for him. I think it would have been entirely possible that he would have been treated similar to Pfc Manning and not Ellsberg.

Our government works for the citizens and we deserve transparency. Not to the degree that we truly would be endangered but in that case our representatives should be watching out for us. It appears that this is not happening to the point that the spy agencies may have enough power to control our government. Some people would rather not know, but to live in ignorance. I dont think they recognize that there really isnt any bliss in ignorance.

[riqster]

130. I think to some degree that ignorance is a manifestation of misplaced trust.

The only way authoritarian regimes can prosper is through fear or bamboozlement.

The willfully ignorant have been gulled into trusting when they shouldn't.

[Puzzledtraveller]

138. Depends on if said whistleblower(s) makes their idol look bad.