[Buzaga]

~Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.~

Ouch.

[fear91]

A classic psychopathic behaviour. Blind your victim with carefully spun web of lies. Distort the reality and then when the time comes, abuse them.

Psychopaths are so good at lying that they self-deceive themselves. They believe their own lies. That's why it's so easy to fall for what they say.

They always fly to the top - be it at corporations, governments, crime organizations. The more psychopathic they are, the higher they get.

[chatmasta]

The fact that psychopaths and Obama share certain characteristics does not prove that Obama is a psychopath. Yet people continue to suggest that he is, citing the incongruent logic that overlapping characteristics imply equality.

The fundamental problem is not people's flawed logic, but the psychological diagnostic tests. Psychologists broadly categorize most disorders because they cannot find a reliable symptom that also acts as evidence of a disorder. That is, there is no symptom that definitively allows psychologists to say "Patient exhibits Symptom X. Therefore, patient has Disorder Y."

Contrast this to "biological" diseases like viruses or cancers. They exhibit physical evidence as symptoms. Doctors can detect the physical presence of a virus or a cancer. The evidence they find serves both as a symptom and evidence of their diagnosis. Thus, medical doctors can precisely define diseases by their symptoms.

Unfortunately, psychologists are not afforded such luxury. Yet many of them act as though they are. This is how we end up with severe misdiagnoses. We need to be aware as a society of how this affects us.

[criley2]

ITT: Armchair psychologists confuse "psychopathy" and "sociopathy".

The tops of government and business exhibit the signs of sociopathy, not psychopathy.

Psychopaths generally exhibit many behaviors that makes them fundamentally unsuited for public life, such as poor behavior control.

Sociopaths, on the other hand, have just the right mix of anti-social tendencies to turn their empathy on for the crowd, and off while making decisions that affect millions negatively.

[mortehu]

If you're really a trained psychologist; in what diagnostic system do these categories even exist? Surely not ICD or DSM?

[Bluestrike2]

Outside the public consciousness, the term's only real professional use is limited mainly to some forensic psychologists because of the criminal justice system's rather peculiar requirements of psychology. Given the hoops it requires they bend through, I wouldn't look towards FP for diagnostic guidance. Robert Hare as well, but personally I tend to think of his work is sophomoric at the best of times and idiotic at the worst . He's also (in my opinion) a world-class prick, having used legal action to prevent the publishing of a critical paper that had already made it through peer review:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=critique-of...

But that's neither here nor there.

Anyhow, setting aside the lack of any diagnostic definition for either term, sociopathy has never been anything more than a synonym preferred by certain individuals. But if we're looking for some point of differentiation, one of the main reasons to prefer one synonym over another was to try and emphasize causation by social factors. Certainly not some sort of empathy switch.

Generally speaking, that confusion is part of the problem with both terms. They carry a lot of baggage and pop-psych definitions, but sorting through the muck and deriving some sort of diagnostic criteria is an exercise in futility.

[GhotiFish]

every discussion I've seen about this has inevitably come to the conclusion that psychopathy and sociopathy have entered the public consciousness, and have ceased being relevant diagnostic terms.

Every description I've seen of sociopaths and psychopaths is basically parallel.

My recommendation is to jump ship and avoid talking about psychopaths and sociopaths, and just stick to new material coming out about the spectrum of anti-social personalities.

Starting at the word psychopath or sociopath will get you to the relevant material, but those terms in and of themselves are not considered relevant anymore.

[coldtea]

>The fact that psychopaths and Obama share certain characteristics does not prove that Obama is a psychopath. Yet people continue to suggest that he is, citing the incongruent logic that overlapping characteristics imply equality

Err, you don't get to the top chair of the west by NOT being psychopath in some degree.

You think people fuck their promises, move ahead as nothing happened, overpass the wild dogs in Washington and get to the White House by being boy scouts?

[AlexeiSadeski]

Right, as soon as we can get a psychiatrist to examine him, we'll get back to you. Until then, we'll have to rely on circumstantial evidence and induction.

It does seem likely that anyone able to rise to the pinnacle of American politics would be a psychopath, so it's not as if such accusations are shots in the dark.

[kaonashi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

[MDCore]

Would you mind providing some citations for your idea that Psychopaths self-deceive? From what I've read the better Psychopaths are masterfully in control of their web of lies, that it's easy to believe what they say because they don't suffer the remorse of neuro-normals. And that it's more likely for the neuro-normal person who lies compulsively to believe their lies.

I really don't think it's helpful to classify Obama's behaviour as psychopathic. It demonises him instead of taking a practical, accurate look at his behaviour. It seems as useful calling someone "evil" or "a nazi".

[crusso]

He's not a psychopath or even a sociopath.

I'm definitely not a fan of his, but I do think he cares about people and has empathy. You don't become a Community Organizer for the power and money.

When he made those promises, he did so because he was(still is) naive and had very little real world experience.

He's an astoundingly awful President and possibly a closet-Marxist, but he's no cold-blooded sociopath.

[edit: clarification]

[tlear]

You become community organizer to advance in the Chicago political machine duh..

[pizza]

Oh look, a comment that can see through the lies we've been fed, and shows us the malice of those who are 'above' us! And no citations or examples, to boot!

[hnriot]

Armchair psychology at its best

[foobarbazqux]

Freud's ghost hates that expression.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/EPqt8An_Sj2i...

[mncolinlee]

This is a real leap of logic. How can you diagnose the president without knowing his motivations?

For all we know, the wiretaps on State Senator Barack Obama uncovered some incriminating information that political elites have used to make the president their puppet. No one has to be a sociopath to contradict oneself. For all we know, he really planned to run an accountable administration and was met with either resistance or blackmail.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...

[jafaku]

Isn't that a sociopath? I think I read that psychopaths can't really live in society and go undetected, they can't control themselves.

[ealexhudson]

Sociopathy isn't really a specific diagnosis (whereas psychopathy is, in most places) - and the term is used largely interchangeably with psychopathy when referring to an actual disorder. Any semantic difference in the terms hasn't come from the broad medical community as far as I'm aware.

[mortehu]

What's the ouch?

> Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws

2012: President Signs Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act[1]

> Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

2013: Whistleblower Edward Snowden is charged by federal prosecutors[2]

Has something happened to Snowden that I'm not aware of? As far as I understand, he fled to avoid a trial, not because there was some imminent threat to his life.

1. http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/42-2012/2380-president-sig...

2. http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar...

[jussij]

> not because there was some imminent threat to his life.

Treason does actually carry the potential of a death penalty.

Based on poor state of the current US legal system, I too would have run.

The last decade has seen the US legal system turned into nothing but a rubber stamp and puppet for the government.

The founding fathers would be turning in their graves.

[rtpg]

He isn't going to be charged with treason.

[muuh-gnu]

How is he supposed to know in advance that they will not try to kill him if that legal option is on the table and they are known to be willing to make examples out of previous whistleblowers like Bradley Manning?

And even if he is not threatened with outright execution, even slightly less radical but more likely punishments, like that of Manning, are sufficiently radical to justify defecting to the Soviet Union. Even a simple life in some far away Siberian village will be more endurable than a US 24/7 waterboarding & force-feeding facility.

[sampo]

> defecting to the Soviet Union

Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. 1991 was 22 years ago. You must be a real old-timer?

[3825]

Perhaps a jab at Putin, if I had to guess

[mortehu]

> How is he supposed to know in advance that they will not try to kill him if that legal option

Well, in most countries it's illegal to deport someone if there's a risk of a death sentence, which is why US often cannot extradite people. Hence US has to convince the "host" country first, which I guess counts for something. That's what US is currently trying to do with Russia:

> "The charges he faces do not carry that possibility, and the United States would not seek the death penalty even if Mr. Snowden were charged with additional death penalty-eligible crimes," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Russian Minister of Justice Vladimirovich Konovalov.

[jussij]

Ok, let’s say they charged him with of "aiding the enemy". That also carries the death penalty.

Who knows what kind of trumped up charges the government where planning to throw at him.

But there's no way he'd be getting a fair trial, so why on earth would he be offering himself up for trial.

[arunkd13]

I have heard the term secret court, for the first time only with reference the the USA. With secret courts, secret indictment, your statement of 'He isn't going to be charged with treason' only looks like a trap being laid.

[rayiner]

Oh for fucks sake. There are no secret courts that can issue indictments.

[jussij]

> There are no secret courts that can issue indictments

You are 100% correct. The US government now thinks it's a court all unto itself and is now above the law.

It's got to the point where it doesn't even try to hide these indiscretions.

Rendition of prisoners to foreign countries by US personnel is now OK as long as no US personnel are involved in the subsequent torture.

It’s a well known fact the US government does not participate in torture, they don’t condone torture and as a government they do everything in their power to stop it. But rendition is OK. Out of sight, out of mind.

So that does not mean they can't assist in the process of rendition.

Also water boarding is not considered a form of torture by the US government. We the government consider it a form of intelligence gathering.

Unlawful detention? There is no such thing. We can hold any one for any length of time as long as it is in the national interest.

Is this the new US democracy?

The big disappointment for me is Obama.

I actually thought he was different, but I now know that was just foolish of me.

In many ways he is turning out to be much worse than the alternative :(

[officemonkey]

They're not needed. The government can just declare him an enemy combatant and stick him in Guantanamo. (see: Jose Padilla.)

Or, drop a drone bomb on him. (see: Anwar al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, Abd al-Rahman, and Jude Mohammed.)

[socialist_coder]

Who cares what he's charged with. Look at what they did to Bradley Manning. Actions speak louder than words.

[adventured]

The ouch is that the Obama Administration has been hyper aggressive in attacking whistle blowers and leaks of all kinds.

"The Obama administration has already charged more people — six — under the Espionage Act for alleged mishandling of classified information than all past presidencies combined. (Prior to Obama, there were only three such cases in American history.)"

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/09/obamas_unprecedented_war_on_...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/obama-whistleblower...

[joering2]

> As far as I understand, he fled to avoid a trial, not because there was some imminent threat to his life.

Would you write your comment again after knowing this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/opinion/15tue3.html?_r=0

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/bradley-on-abuse

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/justice/manning-wikileaks

Enough?

[mortehu]

Have civilians ever been tried in US military courts?

[glesica]

Have military prisoners ever been subjected to torture while awaiting trial?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/bradley-manning-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Detention

It doesn't matter if he's tried in a civilian or military court, if he's tortured or otherwise subjected to inhumane treatment and if he is not likely to receive a fair trial then he should flee.

Edit: typo

[wooster]

Not since Ex parte Milligan (1866), AFAIK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan

[ry0ohki]

No, but they have been targeted by drones without a trial...

[jasonlotito]

Once. Al Awlaki.

I'll refer to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6107997 for the rest.

[CWuestefeld]

Once. Al Awlaki.

As far as we know.

Remember, we are now in an age where we do not know what our government is doing. In fact, we're not allowed to know what it's doing, or even why we're not allowed to know.

Smart money shouldn't bet that this is the only actual occurrence.

[Demiurge]

Has Obama even called Snowden a whistle-blower? He called him a hacker, and his tone of voice has always been dismissive and implying treason.

[mortehu]

If I'm not mistaken, he was responding to the question of whether he would put pressure on China to extradite Snowden, and he basically said that he wouldn't scramble jets or start wheeling and dealing for a single case of a 29-year-old hacker suspect.

Reading this in the context of what his actual powers and responsibilities are in this case, it seems to me like he was diminishing the crime, rather than rallying for a witch-hunt.

[Demiurge]

Besides not rallying for a witch-hunt, which is of course extremely commendable, he could acknowledge Snowden as a whistle-blower who sacrificed comfort and freedom for protecting constitution. Even while pursuing him for prosecution.

[Buzaga]

The ouch to me is how much this that's written relates to what's happening today, I just imagine the shame he ought to feel if he reread this today, or someone read this to him...

Obama is great at keeping a straight face(he's a lawyer, after all), but sometimes it makes me wonder how far can he handle since there's so much dirt with all that stuff... I mean, the "The programs are transparent" is a Bush-like statement from 'the great talker', and really, he is, but he's now completely demoralized in many eyes, people from the world rooted for him, I watched the fucking debate and shared a pic of 'debate drinking game' with my friends, we all wanted that seemingly enlighted dude at this position... it's just a very ugly story, even considering that arriving there it was inevitable that he would have to give in to a shit or two or three, but it went overboard, this is a disaster in my 'very-far-away' eyes... what will it be of his name in history? What will this do for future 'enlighted-hopeful' candidates? What about the next black person running for it?

It just makes you go 'ouch'.

[ekianjo]

- save taxpayers dollars : looks like this was rejected just yesterday by the Congress. Who cares about taxpayers dollars anyway? - whistleblower laws : did Obama ever do anything in that regard apart from public speeches as a candidate? - abuse of authority : Obama himself clearly abused authority in the Snowden case in what he said and in the threats he placed on the guy. - full access to court and due process: yeah, isn't Obama the one who agrees to keep secret court secret in the first place, and protect them from monitoring ?

"Yes We Can". Nothing more to say.

[jamesbritt]

"Yes, we could."

[Demiurge]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2874/8988666085_0749d7fcea_b.j...

[mr_spothawk]

"No, you can't. Because you got duped!"

[Demiurge]

wow. ironically, that's the most eloquent political statement on whistleblowers I can recall reading.

[Vivtek]

Can't deny the man can talk - and can identify a damn good speechwriter when he finds one.

[CWuestefeld]

This sounds, to me, similar to Mao's Anti-rightist Movement [1]. Basically, Mao encouraged all of the concerned citizens to come forward with their concerns, putatively so that any problems could be corrected. But in fact, Mao used this as an opportunity to identify those that could be viewed as political problems, imprisoning all of those who foolishly believed his rhetoric and who genuinely wanted to help the country. (My wife's uncle spent two decades in prison for this, and his wife was forced to denounce him.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Movement

[prawn]

After the leaks we've seen, wouldn't publicising protection of whistleblowers potentially motivate more leaks of state secrets? I can see how the government would be nervous about that. Clearly they think that some abuse of authority is justified to maintain global power.

[mitchi]

So much for that