No, the larger issue would still be a foreign power attempting to influence an American election by illegal means. That doesn't actually stop becoming illegal or an issue of national security because one doesn't like the party being targeted.
America understands this, and does not try to influence Korean election (or, if they still do, they are really careful not to get caught), because the risk of it backfiring is simply too much.
...And South Korea was basically America's puppet state during the majority of its existence.
And yet the rest of the world still complains when America does it.
If it's a problem when America does it, it's a problem when Russia does it.
>Laws are meaningless if no one follows them.
Laws are also meaningless if no one enforces them.
>Laws are also meaningless if no one enforces them.
And still, Rule of Law requires that those who enforce the law, follow the law.
Countries that believe the US interferes with their elections are free to try to do what the US is doing, and attempt to prosecute a case against whomever they can catch.
Otherwise... what conclusion are we meant to reach? That countries which engage in espionage or which interfere with other countries' elections shouldn't have espionage laws or should allow any interference in their own? There's no argument of equivocation one could make to excuse or exonerate Russia in this case that doesn't also do the same for the US.
If <insert country here> had an election and the US-CIA had hackers put malicious code in their voting machines, and that country had laws against tampering with voting machines, then I would fully expect that country to indict those involved. Obviously in a geopolitical environment, that usually means through sanctions or some other means.
The truth to that statement has to do with power and influence. The average Joe isn't gonna get out of a speeding ticket by saying everyone speeds.
What happened was expected at every election, it's on the DNC and FBI for not protecting their servers.
Never mind the joke being on the Russians as Trump is turning out to be several times tougher on them than Hillary would likely have been, even going so far as to start threatening their European gas pipelines.
That's odd. During the campaign, I distinctly remember Hillary being described as an insane bloodthirsty war hawk who was going to plunge us into World War 3 against Russia at the first opportunity, and Trump as the reasonable man who understood Russia and just wanted to do business.
[added] I see double, down-voting standards. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
We all agree that criminals should be charged, and that someone who organizes and benefits from criminal activity is criminal too.
As America charges GRU agents, and thus targets their boss Putin, the same should be done for known actions by NSA agents, and their boss Obama at the time.
Eavesdropping and spying, even amongst allies, is basically an open secret or just an activity everyone assumes the other is doing.
Actively influencing an election is much more serious and not something you would expect your allies to be doing in your country. If Obama was doing that to Germany then I expect there would have been a real shit show.
Not even counting that the DNC of 2000 is the same in 2018. Or that Hillary was as good (or bad) a candidate as Gore.
Edit: I think a more fair reference would be looking at Clinton's past to see if there was anything ever questionable or sketchy. Like for instance... Did Clinton ask CNN's Donna Brazil to not send any more debate questions that would be asked later that week? No, she didn't.
(Interview: https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101866202/pogrom-revisits-inf...)
The author kept making the point that even though the 1903 pogrom was very well documented contemporaneously such that there really are no unresolved questions among historians about the facts of the events, both the victims and perpetrators (and their descendants) clung to erroneous mythologies, more so than other pogroms that were less well documented.
The author kept making the point that facts are complex and messy, whereas myths provide a simple, consistent narrative. The internal consistency of mythology can actually make them seem more true and even more factual. Bolster that basic quality with some convenient ties to the historical record, against the backdrop of the seeming inconsistency of reality (mixed motives, people contradicting themselves, and even sheer randomness) the truth is often much more difficult to believe. Certainly truth rarely offers answers as satisfying as myth.
Perhaps, but you and I both know this is not a legitimate question or interest. It's a talking point used to deflect blame.
Because if it's not wrong or fake, and it's damaging - none of that blame lies with the creators and only with the publisher? That seems odd.
Yes, the information presented to the American public as part of the (still ongoing) Russian political influence operation aimed at destabilizing the US has often been, and continues to often be, both “wrong” and “fake”.
The only thing that matters is, has US law enforcement conducted investigations, and of those investigations, which ones have produced evidence of actual crimes having been committed?
Your whataboutism doesn't change anything. It doesn't uncommit the crimes, it doesn't rescind the indictments, and it doesn't reverse the guilty pleas. US law enforcement has found evidence of crimes and some of those criminals have pled guilty. Some of them are sitting in jail right now.
Sorry, what was your question again? Because what I heard you ask was "why are the admitted criminals in jail and not the victims?"
Unethical that while the DNC is well within their right to push the candidate most likely to win, their public impression of fair voting was not at all that to Bernie supporters. Nor did the DNC disclose just how much the Clinton campaign was funding operations before her being selected as candidate.
Also unethical would be the private email server set up to push unecrypted backups to an unvetted third civilian party with no security access. Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info.
I'm not sure having media push the articles the campaign writes with the promise of greater access is ethical.
Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine? IDK. Maybe that's "opposition research"... It's hard to tell where that line is.
... Unless you don't think those things happened.
edit: More downvotes, but all of those things happened. Sorry HN, seeming more like Reddit every day :(
Running one's own email server is not unethical, in fact, many on HN do just that. I can't say I've ever seen the allegation about "unecrypted backups," but I'm not sure of the relevance in any case. Care to elaborate (and cite)?
>Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info
You're on HN, so can we assume you understand how email servers work? IMAP/SMTP?
>Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine?
Why would anyone pay for phony information instead of just making it up?
Yes, I do know how IMAP works. Why were classified files being forwarded to Wiener's laptop? He didn't have clearance for that information to be on his computer. Do you know how security clearance and handing of classified documents work?
I'm trying not to be aggressive with you, but man, that was some flimsy argument there.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikilea...
> ..you're paying a very selective kind of attention.
I think focusing on countries like Syria and Lybia while ignoring Saudi Arabia is the real instance of selective attention. I'm not the one ignoring an edge case that's inconvenient to our economy.
Antagonizing the Saudi government would not be nearly enough here. Economic sanctions would be a bare minimum.
I don't see how this is anything short of a scandal. And don't assume I'm implying that Republicans are innocent here.
This isn't a coincidence. The British installed the Saudis purposefully, knowing that they would be more accommodating to Western interests. This was reflective of their colonial strategy to install minority groups into power so the minority group would have to rely on external assistance to maintain power. Unlike the fumbling strategies of the Americans or French who simply install puppet regimes, the British strategy means that the rulers can't or won't always do your bidding. But it's a far more stable strategy with better long-term outcomes.
America has to tolerate the Saudis doing things that aren't always in America's best interest, not unlike tolerating the choices of other allies. The alternative is probably a regime like Syria or Iran. Maybe that would be better for Saudi Arabian citizens, but almost certainly not better for American interests--at least not in the foreseeable future.
Unfortunately, geopolitical relations don't work like relations between neighbors on a cul-de-sac.