ATS: Diebold Whistle Blower Faces Felony Charges

So these guys use the law to nail little people....

and to protect the already rich and powerful.

Then they blame parents for not raising their children properly when all the kids do is follow their leaders.



Plus ca change...

Originally posted by df1
Oh Bull. If proper channels had been followed we would have no story because the-powers-that-be would have buried this guy before the story ever reached the media. The point of beating on this whistleblower now is to send a message intended to silence other possible whistleblowers in the future.

How do you conclude so? There have been many stories that have made it to the press and followed the proper channels and these stories were very critical of the current administration, and companies too.

I keep hearing some people claim that "the government owns and controls the media", yet when the media bashes and shows the skeletons in the closet of the present administration these same people accept those stories and comment on "how corrupt the government is, blah, blah, blah".

If the media is controlled by the government, don't come around claiming that some other story, provided by the government controlled media as some claim, proves how corrupt the government is...

Originally posted by df1
It appears to me that you are the one guilty of the partisan political voting on ATS articles which you imply others are doing.

Nice try...

First of all he was honest. Second of all I would have voted "no bias" to the submission if I had another chance, and if the introduction line still had bias on it. Now, if the story was presented as it is now I would have voted yes.

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by loam
Just to be clear, the implication I think is in play by my research was that the decision to prosecute was potentially motivated by political reasons. Given the guy's track record, it's not like that would be a far fetched story.

I understand what you are saying but that will not change the fact that allegedly he got caught stealing/committed burglary. That is the bottom line and the only line that really counts.

I think what happened was he may have been part of the group of activists and they convinced him to do it on his own rather then the legal way as he should have. That is just my opinion though and does not count.

Originally posted by shots
I understand what you are saying but that will not change the fact that allegedly he got caught stealing/committed burglary. That is the bottom line and the only line that really counts.

I think what happened was he may have been part of the group of activists and they convinced him to do it on his own rather then the legal way as he should have. That is just my opinion though and does not count.

Agreed. You cannot forgive the crime on the basis that the system is broken in this one instance. There are many other avenues one could pursue, including the media and/or skipping over one or more levels in the chain of command.

Fogiving the crime is akin to endorsing vigilante justice.

You can't forgive the crime, indeed that's true, but it doesn't really matter.

Anyone who is right-minded will know that sometimes, in order to do the right thing, one has to break the law. I'm sure the whistleblower is happy and proud to be a criminal of this sort, as it should be.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Agreed. You cannot forgive the crime on the basis that the system is broken in this one instance. There are many other avenues one could pursue, including the media and/or skipping over one or more levels in the chain of command.

Fogiving the crime is akin to endorsing vigilante justice.

Thanks jsobecky, it is nice to see that there are still a few of us who can see what the real problem is here.

I do however disagree on using the media as a First approach simply because if the media got a hold of the story first that would have given Diebold time to hide the files/data.

What I would have done as previously mentioned was get a good lawyer and have him make arrangements to contact an honest DA or ADA. We all know there is nothing they love better but to get a chance at exposing politicians and corruption Now once that was done, I would then notify the media once sufficient time had passed to issue the warrant just to trap the DA or ADA if they intentionally tried to cover it up as some seem to think would have been the case. The media then in turn could burn the DAs butt for not doing their job Here again we all know there is nothing better the media loves then bashing a corrupt government for wrong doing.

But no not this schmuck, he took the law in his own hands which is down right wrong. I agree he should have exposed them, but there is no way anyone will ever convince me at times it is right or OK to commit a crime to expose a crime. :shk:


Now if I am correct the very same people here who are all for protecting the little guy would certainly be calling for his head if he was a polotician.




[edit on 3/2/2006 by shots]

I have no respect for those that equate the crime of one individual against Diebold versus Diebolds crimes against every voter which used their voting system as being equivalent crimes. The Diebold apologists are politcally partisan low lifes that have no sense of integrity and fair play. These individuals will do or say anything to insure that those who share their political agenda will continue to stay in power, whether it be by corruption, fraud or even murder.
.

Originally posted by df1
The Diebold apologists are politcally partisan low lifes that have no sense of integrity and fair play.

I have seen no one applogize for what Diebold did. Most if not all want to see them get their butt burnt as well. What they did was equally wrong.

The obvious point you clearly want to miss is this left wing nut case/schmuck was also wrong and should be prosecuted as well. Two wrongs do not make a right in my book

Originally posted by shots
Two wrongs do not make a right in my book

Again you are representing the "two wrongs" as being equivalent. Diebold's crimes are against every man, woman and child in America, as well as, our very system of government, whereas Heller's crime was done to expose Diebold's criminal actions. Your position is like emphasizing the prosecution of a jay walker that apprehended a bank robber rather than the bank robber. IMHO Heller is a patriot of the highest order.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by df1]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
You can't forgive the crime, indeed that's true, but it doesn't really matter.

Anyone who is right-minded will know that sometimes, in order to do the right thing, one has to break the law. I'm sure the whistleblower is happy and proud to be a criminal of this sort, as it should be.

I might agree with that ( except for the "right-minded" part...unnecessary, imo ) if all avenues were explored and had failed. But this guy didn't do that, did he?

WO, I'd be interested in your idea of when it's OK to commit a crime.

if he had used the right channels and they failed for such reasons, there would be no second chance. There was one chance to expose them and lets face it, its a risk to use the right channels when exploiting such people. bis business owns thegovernment which is obvious by now. such a crime may very well go unchecked, with no second chance to exploit them...legal or illegally. personally in such a situation i find that with the one chance he had, he used it correctly.

I have no respect for those that equate the crime of one individual against Diebold versus Diebolds crimes against every voter which used their voting system as being equivalent crimes. The Diebold apologists are politcally partisan low lifes that have no sense of integrity and fair play.

Who's apologizing for Diebold? The problem here is that many people cannot separate their visceral, gut-reaction emotions from the facts of the case.

shots is correct. And people are jumping on his case because he doesn't toe the line to their way of thinking. But he is correct in that he looks at the situation in the context of a legal case. For example, walk into a courtroom and try to defend this guy's case with an emotional "Diebold is Evil" defense. The judge will look at that opinion and throw it out. Then he will look at the facts of the case, i.e., the theft, and rule against the whistleblower.

Better illustration: walk into a courtroom and tell the judge that you stole your evidence. See how far that gets you.

There's no partisanship here. It's just merely what a good lawyer would tell his client.

if he had used the right channels and they failed for such reasons, there would be no second chance.

Mere speculation on your part. And it's ironic that you don't believe that the proper channels would work, yet you now expect the same system to now punish Diebold.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by jsobecky]

[edit on 2-3-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
shots is correct. And people are jumping on his case because he doesn't toe the line to their way of thinking.

People are jumping on you and shots because you are more concerned with Heller than you are with Diebold which has disenfranchised every voter in the stinking country.

BTW IMHO nobody toes the line better than you and shots. And dont you ever let anybody tell you different.

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by jsobecky
shots is correct. And people are jumping on his case because he doesn't toe the line to their way of thinking.

People are jumping on you and shots because you are more concerned with Heller than you are with Diebold which has disenfranchised every voter in the stinking country.

BTW IMHO nobody toes the line better than you and shots. And dont you ever let anybody tell you different.

I think that shots has made it perfectly clear that he wants to see Diebold punished in a bad way. Me, I never stated that explicitly, but then again, I don't have to pander to you.

Your emotional outbreak of a response shows what I stated earlier: an inability to separate emotion from logic.

If you can't win a debate by arguing your case, please don't resort to ad hominem attacks.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by jsobecky]

Alright, News Network here guys, let's chill.

well when the country know about it, its a bit harder to make it just disappear. the masses cant unlearn what they already know, so that means that it cant get lost in the correct process forever. i wouldnt expect the system to punish them unless the masses knew about it and were well aware of the situation. once the people know then its in the spotlight. if it disappeared in the proper channels before it was ever even released to the public, then its gone. the people should be the first ones to know, because they have the biggest outcome on what happens to them. if you dont think so just think back to the rodney king beating, the court decided that they werent guilty...well it was pretty apparent that the people didnt feel the same way.
the masses are a powerful thing....when they are informed of whats happened.

Then the quickest way to put it in front of the public would be to get the media involved, not to steal the evidence.

Besides, it's doubtful that putting it in front of the public would make a difference; the American public gets exposed to at least one new scandal a week, it seems. The brain can only hold so much until it tunes out the noise.

true, but if the media would make a bigger deal out of the fact theres the good possibility they just got screwed out of elections which is the basis for our countries actions, its a pretty big deal.

im wondering how he would get the media to listen without the proper proof? and the only way he could get his hand on the proof and prove his case was in the end to steal the files.

Just in case anybody in charge of state election systems or polling stations is following the thread...

If you all ever find evidence that the very basis of our liberty and freedoms- the electoral process is in danger of being corrupted, or is being falsified...
I would support you in any way I can publically to protect you from prosecution for whistleblowing.

That includes writing letters, joining protests, sending cookies to your jail cell while the ACLU bails you out... whatever...

It is of upmost importance that the sanctity of our electoral process is preserved...(or re-secured) damn the torpedos...

I think personally that the person who did this, knew they might get in trouble, but it was neccessary... I feel the same.

Originally posted by df1
Again you are representing the "two wrongs" as being equivalent.

Hardly what I said was

Originally posted by shots
Two wrongs do not make a right in my book

There is a big differance, too bad you cannot see it.