Guardian article on the leaks.

Relevant section:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"

Having said that, keep in mind attribution is not an exact science, and it's possible the IC could be wrong.

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 08:40:56 AM

inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"

Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.

>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election

nice ethical bankruptcy

Quote from: MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE on December 11, 2016, 12:48:40 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 12:32:32 PM

Quote from: باب عيد الميلاد on December 11, 2016, 10:50:10 AM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 08:40:56 AM

inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"

Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.

>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election

nice ethical bankruptcy

No, there isn't. There's a problem with subverting one.

You could make a solid case that this is Russia's motivation, of course, but there's a difference between interference and subversion.

Subversion is a form of interference. You're truly delusional if you can't see that.

. . .

Yeah, I know. My point is that subversion is a specific form of interference. The space of actions that can be defined as interference is bigger than the space that can be defined as subversive.

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 04:00:48 PM

Quote from: باب عيد الميلاد on December 11, 2016, 03:58:47 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 03:06:18 PM

Quote from: MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE on December 11, 2016, 12:48:40 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 12:32:32 PM

Quote from: باب عيد الميلاد on December 11, 2016, 10:50:10 AM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 08:40:56 AM

inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"

Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.

>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election

nice ethical bankruptcy

No, there isn't. There's a problem with subverting one.

You could make a solid case that this is Russia's motivation, of course, but there's a difference between interference and subversion.

Subversion is a form of interference. You're truly delusional if you can't see that.

If subversion is a form of interference, US officials really have no ground to stand on by calling out Russia.

It's not like the USG hasn't done the same, but I don't think that's an excuse.

the US has done far worse than what Russia is accused of doing in this case.

And while I don't really believe the Russians have done shit, even if they did, this is kind of a "get what's coming to you" moment. If the United States wants to continue pursuing foreign policy that violates international law and the integrity and inner workings of sovereign nations, its leaders have no business crying when the same things befall them. I think it's a fine excuse.

I don't give a fuck if the Russians did interfere in our election because I don't support our government trying to make decisions for the rest of the world. Iraq was a fucking crime, Libya was a fucking crime, Syria is a botched crime still in progress.

I believe in the sovereignty of independent states, and I'd like my own to be sovereign, but I can't really advocate for that when the officials that are supposed to represent me are trying to establish a global hegemony, with their fingers in everyone else's pies.

Hypocrisy on behalf of the US is not a justification for another country doing the same. (I am not defending the US' meddling in other countries' elections.)

A side-effect of your position is the normalization of this kind of behavior and letting it going unpunished. The US shouldn't do it, nor should any other country. If Russia did interfere in the election, it should be punished regardless of whatever the US is guilty of itself. Violation of sovereignty is one of the highest crimes a country can commit against another.

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 05:55:33 PM

Quote from: باب عيد الميلاد on December 11, 2016, 04:11:39 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 04:00:48 PM

Quote from: باب عيد الميلاد on December 11, 2016, 03:58:47 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 03:06:18 PM

Quote from: MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE on December 11, 2016, 12:48:40 PM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 12:32:32 PM

Quote from: باب عيد الميلاد on December 11, 2016, 10:50:10 AM

Quote from: Kupo & the Two G-strings on December 11, 2016, 08:40:56 AM

inb4 "this proves Russia dindu nuffin"

Brah, Russia would've still dindu nuffin if they were behind the leaks. There's nothing wrong with exposing dirt on any political candidate or faction in any country.

>there is nothing wrong with interfering in a sovereign democratic election

nice ethical bankruptcy

No, there isn't. There's a problem with subverting one.

You could make a solid case that this is Russia's motivation, of course, but there's a difference between interference and subversion.

Subversion is a form of interference. You're truly delusional if you can't see that.

If subversion is a form of interference, US officials really have no ground to stand on by calling out Russia.

It's not like the USG hasn't done the same, but I don't think that's an excuse.

the US has done far worse than what Russia is accused of doing in this case.

And while I don't really believe the Russians have done shit, even if they did, this is kind of a "get what's coming to you" moment. If the United States wants to continue pursuing foreign policy that violates international law and the integrity and inner workings of sovereign nations, its leaders have no business crying when the same things befall them. I think it's a fine excuse.

I don't give a fuck if the Russians did interfere in our election because I don't support our government trying to make decisions for the rest of the world. Iraq was a fucking crime, Libya was a fucking crime, Syria is a botched crime still in progress.

I believe in the sovereignty of independent states, and I'd like my own to be sovereign, but I can't really advocate for that when the officials that are supposed to represent me are trying to establish a global hegemony, with their fingers in everyone else's pies.

Hypocrisy on behalf of the US is not a justification for another country doing the same. (I am not defending the US' meddling in other countries' elections.)

It isn't a justification for, say, Zambia doing it to Chile, but it is entirely reasonable to give the US a taste of its own medicine.

Quote

A side-effect of your position is the normalization

Truly normalization is the most heinous crime of 2016.

Quote

of this kind of behavior and letting it going unpunished. The US shouldn't do it, nor should any other country.

Unfortunately, the US is doing it, and will continue to do it unless A) the US is crippled geopolitically or B) an isolationist regime takes power (the latter may have just happened, we'll see)

Quote

If Russia did interfere in the election, it should be punished regardless of whatever the US is guilty of itself. Violation of sovereignty is one of the highest crimes a country can commit against another.

LMAO fuck off. Russia allegedly did it in order to cockblock a politician hellbent on starting "democratic revolutions" in every country not trading in USD and enslaving itself to the IMF. If it really happened, this would have been a violation of sovereignty done in order to prevent further violation of everyone's sovereignty.

There is no "regardless of whatever the US is guilty of", because a humongous chunk of the geopolitical assfuckery in the world right now, including this, is a result of shit the US political establishment is guilty of. None of these people have any right to start pointing fingers at Russia, given their own treatment of countries that would prefer to stay out of the USA's sphere of influence, as well as their quite open ties to states like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Nobody in the media pressing this red scare shit seems to have been half as concerned about Clinton's relationship with the Saudis or the Chinese (the latter having been a common concern during Bill's presidency). That says a lot to me.

You're arguing that:

1) The entire population of the United States, a sovereign nation, deserved to have its democratic election disrupted as retribution for its government's actions abroad, despite that many of those actions are completely secret and unaccountable, and not necessarily endorsed by the citizenry, due to the nature of espionage
2) Russia should go completely unpunished for this transgression, assuming they did it

Are you legitimately brain damaged?

This is the nature of democratic election. Yes, when you elect a politician, he is your representative. You are accountable for what he does, because you voted for him. "But what if I didn't vote for him?", you might ask. Well, too fucking bad, the democratist will say, you lost the election. This is one of the many reasons why democracy is stupid and gay.

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was personally responsible for the actions of military and intelligence officials who may have been appointed by people I didn't vote for, and are insulated from political influence by having (or not having) term limits independent of the president or Congress, even if a) I was not yet a legal voter, or b) I was not born yet, when the relevant election took place. Officials may be "representatives" as a ceremonial title, but being represented by them is in no way a tacit endorsement of everything and anything they do. What you're describing is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination, especially not that of the United States.

Furthermore, I have no control over someone else's free will, so my "guilt" for anything and everything they do is something you pulled out of your sphincter. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Russia should not face retribution for this alleged transgression until the United States faces retribution for its own. You can pretend there are no rules and no laws all you want, if you have the power to bend or break them. But if you do, there will come a time when someone is able to bend the law at your expense, and you will wish dearly that you had not set a precedent for them.

I mean, jesus christ man, look at the language you use. "russia should go unpunished", as if the US and its vassals get to make up the rules of international relations as they go along, and anyone who refuses to play along is a child in need of a spanking.

Russia may have committed an act of war against the United States. An eye for an eye is not a valid justification for their actions.

Do you or do you not believe in democratic government?

Of course I would not blame you personally for the actions of the US government any more than I would blame myself. But if you endorse representative democracy, the system pushed in the US, you are effectively backing the notion that you are in some way accountable.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Do the people have the right to a measure of control over the state? If they are given the reigns, via elected representatives or whatever else, they are accountable. You cannot one day demand the voice of the people be heard, and the next day shrink from responsibility when that voice elects a villain.

The notion that voting for someone is the same as being directly responsible for their actions is a dangerous and foolish one. Should we imprison everyone who voted for Bill Janklow? (The only correct answer is no.) You have extremely nonsensical concepts of democracy and the burden of responsibility.

The US government's foreign policy since the fall of the Soviet Union has made it quite clear that the only justification needed for any action is the means to carry it out.

I think you're being melodramatic as fuck, too.

I'm being melodramatic? You can defect any time you like, pal.

It is only dangerous if you consider the implications it has for the sacred institution of democracy.

Of course, I also understand that the US is not 100% democratic and that the holders of representative offices are largely decided by the results of massive propaganda campaigns funded by wealthy businessmen and special interests groups, both domestic and foreign, so I don't expect your average joe to know the implications of his choice and I can't really blame him for it. Which is why I'm not crying over the election of a candidate who has promoted policies favorable to an "enemy" country as opposed to a candidate who was taking money from every country she could get a "speaking gig" in. You can't really damage the integrity of an institution that had none in the first place.

No. It is always dangerous.

It's an ideology that demands fellow countrymen be recognized as enemy combatants and threats to the nation overnight. You keep using the word "democracy" but then depict it as factional warfare where honest mistakes, an inability to foresee the future, and a simple lack of information are all that's necessary for civilians exercising their freedom of speech to become public enemy #1. It blurs the line between the private individual and public institutions to the point that they are somehow one in the same.

It is a tremendously distorted view of US institutions that has zero basis in reality.

I don't really feel like I'm on anybody's team and therefore I don't think "defecting" is something I can do. I don't feel represented by the US gov't or any other government and I don't feel like I have an obligation to defend it. I think loyalty is owed firstly to God and then to tribe or nation, not to any particular state or regime.

I wasn't sure, because you've spent this entire thread advocating for the collapse of US institutions by a foreign power.

I don't love Putin or his government. I don't like a lot of what he's done domestically or on the world stage. But when he does something right, he does something right.

You really think a country that assassinates opposition journalists is going to "do right" by the world by contributing to freedom of information? You're beyond delusional. You need professional help.