Originally posted by Surtur
Well if you want to say Hilary should be in jail for it and the guy did the same thing then they both should be in prison right?My own personal feelings would be..no jail time for either, but kicked out of marines for the guy and for Hilary no longer allowed to hold any kind of public office or whatever.
Your feeling isn't that there should be an investigation completed first?
Originally posted by Surtur
Well if you want to say Hilary should be in jail for it and the guy did the same thing then they both should be in prison right?My own personal feelings would be..no jail time for either, but kicked out of marines for the guy and for Hilary no longer allowed to hold any kind of public office or whatever.
I agree
Everyone here was wrong as usual, Including King D.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2015/08/19/completely-betrayed/
He was under fear of being killed for trying to expose a child sex ring and informing the commandant that a terrorist was running this base.
He sent no emails that were not cleared by his Major.
Originally posted by Robtard
Ok fine, how about they both get heavy fines?
And disbarred from working in government positions for life?
Yeah, sounds good. No jail time.
Originally posted by Robtard
So your stance is: Clinton = bad, Brezler = good?
My stance is both are bad but Clinton may be worse.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Stance is if he was kicked out and brought up on charges. So shall she be.
That seems very simple. Of course, Clinton's offenses are worse. But Clinton is not as culpable because she was doing what others in her office have done before.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Your feeling isn't that there should be an investigation completed first?
Yeaaaah, not gonna happen. Likely, she had her servers wiped...wiped very very cleanly. Nothing to recover.
This is part of why she had it on a personal server: no data over government servers where it is required that they keep that data for 18 months. 👆
Hillary Clinton had at least 305 classified emails on her private server, mostly for the purposes of covering her own posterior.
Mostly because people sent them to her unlabeled-as-classified. There still seems to be a lack of evidence of any leaks there or even purposefully doing it.
That said, I think this Marine should not be charged. Whistle blowing important things is something that should be protected, and the current culture of punishing people who speak out is a bad one.
Originally posted by Surtur
If you think whistle blowing for important things should be protected I would advise you to stay out of the Ashley Madison thread.
That's ridiculous. There's a reasonable argument to be made that leaking private data due to perceived transgressions in the private lives of people is completely different than whistleblowing on the government.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's ridiculous. There's a reasonable argument to be made that leaking private data due to perceived transgressions in the private lives of people is completely different than whistleblowing on the government.
But people were saying that no matter what privacy should be protected in that thread though. So you don't get to say privacy should be protected no matter what, and then list some exceptions.
Originally posted by SurturExcept you can. It's called clarifying one's stance. Either because you didn't think of a previous scenario before, or perhaps you just view the two events as not the same topic, and etc. We are human beings and we can have varying degrees of opinions on similar topics based on a few slight variations in the context of events.
But people were saying that no matter what privacy should be protected in that thread though. So you don't get to say privacy should be protected no matter what, and then list some exceptions.
So instead of crucifying someone for it let's move back to productive conversation.
Originally posted by Surtur
But people were saying that no matter what privacy should be protected in that thread though. So you don't get to say privacy should be protected no matter what, and then list some exceptions.
The government has no privacy, it's not a person.
At any rate, I don't think anyone is arguing for an absolute right to privacy, we still want murderers, etc. to be caught, so of course there's exceptions.
Originally posted by Surtur
You say that, but people were flat out saying there should be no exceptions. If people want to clarify, then clarify, but don't come at me for merely repeating what others said.
You really need to work better on understanding people's arguments.
The claim in that thread was you not liking something is not enough to override people's right to privacy privacy related to their legal activities.
THIS, on the other hand, is (purportedly) about exposing an illegal cover up (covering up something even more illegal), and is nothing to do with people's everyday privacy. It's not remotely the same. Whistleblowing on illegality is an established practice.
No-one ever said "No exceptions under any circumstances". It is bad faith of you to claim that this is what others said. The only claim is that privacy has to be applied universally regardless of disapproval, not that privacy overrides everything else universally, no matter what. Everyone has the same right to privacy, and likewise everyone has the same point at where that right ends- at illegality.