And no, letting USA or any other nation for that matter commit war crimes quietly does not support democracy.
So let’s just check your bias. Assuming an American journalist living in England exposes video of Russia gunning down civilians and shows they are covering it up. Would you say the right cause of action would be for that American to be procedures in Russia because “ States have secrets it’s just the nature of the world.” and apparently hiding war crimes and prosecuting journalists who expose them is also just states rights?
But russia is a democracy...
> States have secrets its just the nature of the world.
That's an anti-democratic worldview...
The whataboutism surrounding this feels completely disingenuous to me considering much of what was leaked by Wikileaks was war crimes, media collusion with Clinton's campaign and embarrassing mistakes the government tried to cover up, that they had no business trying to cover up.
States have secrets, but that is a privilege granted to them by the people to protect national security, their abuse of this privilege has been completely unacceptable even if the reveal made your preferred candidate look bad for actions they were personally responsible for.
If Wikileaks accomplished anything, it was revealing the hypocrites and those who lack even an inch of integrity.
However as I said there is real utility to publishing information which shouldn't be kept from the public. Which is why I think Assange is a hard case.
It revealed some hypocrites who lack integrity. The main effect, if any, of their exposure was to pave the way for other hypocrites who lack integrity to take over the positions of power and influence of the former.
There are also a lot of people in the Republican Party who go the exact opposite way: They support Israel's actions and Russia's actions, and they were also in favor of the US's invasion of Iraq (though they shut up about that now). They have a very hawkish political philosophy.
Then there is a third group of people I've identified, who confuse me: they oppose Russia's actions in Ukraine, but they support Israel's actions in Palestine. (I do not know what their opinions were in Iraq because this is a group of people I have only encountered online, not in person.) I do not understand their political philosophy at all because it is seemingly self-contradictory; most of my attempts to understand it suggest that it is not really a philosophy so much, but more about nationalism or racism — they like Ukraine more than they like Russia, and they like Israel more than they like Palestine, and that's all the thought they put into it.
They're not, of course.
But labeling them as such is one of the myriad ways by which criticism of Israel gets automatically branded as you-know-what.
There’s nothing simple when it comes to international politics. But foreign meddling by an adversary is a pretty bright line.
The United States is responsible for sowing the good, not Russia for not hiding the bad.
"Being better at targeted propaganda" isn't really how I'd like our leaders to be chosen. Obviously that's where we are, but I wish we could do better.
How does any of that constitute a 'war crime'?
Please, name the war crimes that Chelsea Manning exposed.
Your statement doesn't add any nuance to said concerns.
That however does not mean you are the good guy for playing into the hands of an adversary that wanted to rig a democratic election.
But then if we care about truthful facts then why didn't Assange release rnc documents?
And then I have to ask yet again, why did not Wikileaks release the RNC leaks?
