Kill the Messengers.

[snot]

Go ahead. Literally or figuratively (through character assassination or whatever), kill them.

They knew when they took on the powers that be, that that was the likely result; or maybe they didn't fully realize how brutal the response would be. Whatever; they surely guessed it would be rough; yet they mustered the courage to reveal, or help reveal, the truth, at least partly because they cared about helping all of us, despite any risk to their own reputations and lives.

Literally, or financially, or in terms of their personal characters: kill Edward Snowden. Kill Julian Assange. Kill Bradly Manning. Kill Mark Klein. Kill Sibel Edmonds. Kill Joseph Wilson. Kill David Kelly (maybe someone, literally, did). Kill Anita Hill for accusing Clarence Thomas, once he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Kill Daniel Ellsberg. Etc.

Because yeah, those messengers probably knew or should have known, when they undertook to bring us the truths they brought us, that they were risking all; so they have to accept the responsibility for our killing them (what? nevermind). And they may have been damaged, or crazy, or otherwise imperfect individuals; because who in their right mind would do that! And so yeah, surprise, there probably are various aspects of their pasts that are problematic.

So yeah, kill those messengers, if you will.

Kill everyone with the effrontery to confront us with the truth; or at least, do your best to assassinate their characters and deflect attention from the truths they risked all to reveal to us.

But you can't kill the truths they brought us.

FELLOW DU'er's. Please think on this.

Every time you see someone trying to focus on the messenger's character, please ask yourself: does this mean that the information they brought me is not true?

And if the answer is no, please reflect on the character of the person who's trying to get you to ignore the information brought to you at such a terrible price.

And I personally recommend that you do NOT bother arguing with the person who's trying to get you to focus on the character of the messenger, because that would simply waste your time and efforts. Rather, I hope you will focus on the information that that person is trying to distract us from, and on helping other people understand the importance of that information, and of not allowing themselves to be distracted by efforts to kill the messenger.

[msongs]

1. in a cult of personality there can only be one true prophet nt

[Summer Hathaway]

2. Actually, there can be many true prophets for some

And for many here, they are Assange, Greenwald, Manning - and now Snowden.

[snot]

9. Thanks for mentioning Greenwald.

[datasuspect]

19. there is but one god, Allah, most merciful and beneficent

and he has but one prophet, Mohammed, may peace be upon him.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. They only attack the messenger when the message is too true or risky to debate. n/t

[Half-Century Man]

4. I have noticed a tendency to confuse the content of the message with the character of the messenger

Not only here, but in general. And even though I know to look out for it, I am still susceptible to it.

[snot]

11. Me, too.

Yes, character can reflect on credibility. But most whistleblowers' lives are pretty much destroyed by their whistleblowing, and I'm pretty sure most of them realize that's what they should expect; and in many cases, there is other corroboration of the information they bring.

[ReRe]

5. Kill the Messenger.. great OP!

K&R

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. Another example not related to government is Jose Canseco.

He is a loathsome slug with enough baggage to rival Samsonite.

However, he wrote a book with many claims about PEDs and what athletes used them. He was attacked on character and not what he wrote.

However, he was right. A person may not be likable, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

[sibelian]

7. I spent most of yesterday locking horns with a DUer for whom I ordinarily have great respect

who insisted over and over again that Snowden's character was the main issue.

Perpetual re-assertion can be a very effective tactic.

[snot]

8. I hear that!

We can allow ourselves to be defeated by letting our time and energy be wasted on less fruitful efforts.

[carolinayellowdog]

10. whose credibility are they really destroying-- their own, or that of the messengers?

This deflection routine is an implicit admission that on the merits of the case, to quote Jon Stewart, they "got nothing." The good news is that every hour of this deflection effort causes the propagandists to lose more credibility.

[dipsydoodle]

12. Its their own credibility which fails progressively

.

[snot]

13. +1!

[datasuspect]

23. it's like kids whistling in the dark to scare away the bogeyman

they don't have any morals or ethics to stand upon, their way is the way of the lie, of trepidation, of abject fear and ignorance. the most hideous among them

shine light on them and make lots of noise: but make no mistake - their remonstrances are like those of the common household cockroach.

there's just no there there.

[nashville_brook]

14. kr

[99Forever]

15. K&R

[DCKit]

16. K&R

Damn well said Snot.

Hope this gets around, because even the troglodytes who vote (R) will get it.

[cascadiance]

17. Watch the "short version" (only available now) of "Kill the Messenger" that shows how this is done..

... to whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds who was shut down by things like "State Secrets Privilege" that both Bush and Obama have been using heavily to cover up what's going on behind the scenes...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017125002

[KoKo]

18. Recommend.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing. Thomas Paine

[L0oniX]

21. Character over truth has brought on many negative clown jury results.

[forestpath]

22. K&R

[Mojorabbit]

24. Well said. nt