I think Obama and Bush really badly mishandled both Snowden and Assange. Heavy handed responses to both of them drove them into the arms of Russia. I don’t think either of them were Russian assets when they started.
> How should it have been "handled" in your opinion? 'Protect the whistleblower' or take out the 'threat to national interests'?
Congratulating them for their great work towards human rights and publicly expelling and denouncing the perpetrators of atrocities. You know, leading by example.
Long term consequences as 'preventing other secrets from being leaked' or 'maintaining an image as a trustworthy and ethical actor' on the world stage?
Leakers are insiders, they know what's happening regardless of the image perceived by the public.
I am skeptical of this consequentiality, but I recognize that it's an argument someone in the government could believe in.
Isn't that what we did in Iraq, blindly listen to the IC? Ha, that was an A++ operation. All those lives lost - for absolutely nothing. I mean sure there was "Iraqi democracy" but where did the WMD's go? The solution being proposed is to literally kill the messenger. It's a two-party induced cognitive dissonance where you would rather be lied to than have your political affiliation be embarrassed.
Julia Gillard [then PM of Australia, 0]. The Australian governments mild condemnation of Assange as the situation unfolded was as disappointing as it was predictable. US lap-dogs and all that.
