On 11/1/13 10:55 AM, Patrick Reilly wrote:
I'd have much more respect for him if he'd stayed in the US and
accepted the attendant risks acting on his ideals.
Barring that, I'd have more respect for him if he would be (yet more)
clear that he understood that what he was doing was illegal, not just
something "daddy might spank me for". I think he *is* clear on that but
the nature of his public statements tend to obscure that I think.
He can still offer to return to the US and the control of the US legal
system... but maybe not quite yet? When is a good time?
On the opposite side, I'd respect our intelligence folks and our
administration more if they would say something like:
"What he did was illegal, but we acknowledge that his disclosures do
not appear to substantialy harm national security. There are aspects
of what he disclosed which are important for the public to know
about and despite the unfortunate way these things came to light, we
are ready to accept public and congressional scrutiny that might
have been lacking before these disclosures. We do not condone cowboy
vigilante actions but we do understand that there is a legitimate
role for whistleblowers and we need to take that into account"
I'm not holding my breath, however.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
