Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why did journalists help the Justice Department identify a leaker?

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: Why did journalists help the Justice Department identify a leaker?

#31

Post by mydogcanpurr »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #25
remarkEon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I object to the new definition of “leaking” that tries to make all cases of it unquestionably good. I don't think this has ever been the case. There's still large contingents of the US that think the Snowden leaks were part of a Russian operation, that the Manning leaks were bad and so on. I wasn't alive during Vietnam, but were those leaks considered unquestionably good?

I don't know if Snowden was a Russian operation, I don't think the facts are there for that. However, I do think Snowden committed treason by doing what he did, and so did this National Guardsman. It doesn't matter the reason or morale justification, breaking the law is still breaking the law. If you're going to call for the prosecution of Trump you can't in the next sentence say yeah but Snowden broke the law for th…

What you're advocating for is blind obedience to authority.

Re: Why did journalists help the Justice Department identify a leaker?

#32

Post by fortissimohn »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #25
remarkEon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I object to the new definition of “leaking” that tries to make all cases of it unquestionably good. I don't think this has ever been the case. There's still large contingents of the US that think the Snowden leaks were part of a Russian operation, that the Manning leaks were bad and so on. I wasn't alive during Vietnam, but were those leaks considered unquestionably good?

I don't know if Snowden was a Russian operation, I don't think the facts are there for that. However, I do think Snowden committed treason by doing what he did, and so did this National Guardsman. It doesn't matter the reason or morale justification, breaking the law is still breaking the law. If you're going to call for the prosecution of Trump you can't in the next sentence say yeah but Snowden broke the law for th…

People decide they break the law for the right reasons all the time. Do you not speed while driving?

Re: Why did journalists help the Justice Department identify a leaker?

#33

Post by theshrike79 »

fortissimohn wrote: post #32
Overtonwindow wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if Snowden was a Russian operation, I don't think the facts are there for that. However, I do think Snowden committed treason by doing what he did, and so did this National Guardsman. It doesn't matter the reason or morale justification, breaking the law is still breaking the law. If you're going to call for the prosecution of Trump you can't in the next sentence say yeah but Snowden broke the law for th…

People decide they break the law for the right reasons all the time. Do you not speed while driving?

No, because in here speeding tickets are based on a percentage of my income.

I can't afford to speed =)

Re: Why did journalists help the Justice Department identify a leaker?

#34

Post by Overtonwindow »

kadoban wrote: post #28
Overtonwindow wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the New York Times opined on the possibilty... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/07/us/politics/classified-do... Canadian Broadcasting Corporation wrote about it https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-military-leaks-... One of the first reactions from the government and Ukraine was that this was all Russian disinformation. Then within a couple of days other media sources weighed in and there was considerabl…

None of that really seems to support this claim: > "Let's not forget both the media and the government have spent the last couple of weeks on a gaslighting tour telling us the leak was Russian propaganda, etc." They all call it a leak and specify that parts of it appear doctored, which is also what I said, right? Has any of that changed or been disproven?

No, it wasn't meant to, it was to refute your claim that no one was talking about it.

Re: Why did journalists help the Justice Department identify a leaker?

#35

Post by kadoban »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #34
kadoban wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that really seems to support this claim: > "Let's not forget both the media and the government have spent the last couple of weeks on a gaslighting tour telling us the leak was Russian propaganda, etc." They all call it a leak and specify that parts of it appear doctored, which is also what I said, right? Has any of that changed or been disproven?

No, it wasn't meant to, it was to refute your claim that no one was talking about it.

I was specifically objecting to the claim that I quoted.

Re: Why did journalists help the Justice Department identify a leaker?

#36

Post by DoItToMe81 »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #4

> Why is the media so eager to help the Justice Department by supplying potentially viable leads? Because journalist-activists are now part of the military-industrial complex and are fully aligned with the intelligence apparatus. > Bellingcat, meanwhile, went further and virtually handed over the potential origin point of the leak by specifying the exact name of the chatroom where the documents appear to have first b…

Grayzone is a shaky and conspiratorial source in many cases, but Bellingcat is staffed by ex-intelligence agents and attempted to disguise the sources of its funding, which turned out to include multiple intelligence related sources, including National Endowment for Democracy. Which, for reference, was used to launder for the Contras.

Re: Why did journalists help the Justice Department identify a leaker?

#37

Post by mint2 »

remarkEon wrote: post #27
mint2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the word “all” mean? Those examples seem to be addressing a statement that no one made. Is that in an effort to make people think a different statement was made, one that’s trivial to disprove rather than addressing the actual statement?

I have no idea, you're the one who used it.

Yeah that’s obvious because the comment replied as if I said “no leaks are good” which is a highly illogical and contrived reading of me saying I object to how the article is acting like “all” leaks are good.
Post reply on HN