• mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Or, with equal validity, I could say they could include Merrick Garland and Jonathan Meyer.

    You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies, as opposed to because they’re doing exactly what’s the standard thing to do when you have an issue with what your employer the United States Govt is doing.

    You’re also comparing them to music professors speaking on climate change, when professors have tenure specifically because of this exact issue, so they can speak publicly on controversial issues without being fired for it if they cross someone powerful. Since these people don’t have that protection, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that the reason they’re anonymous is because they want to be able to tell the truth without being fired, and they’re using the exact mechanism built into our society for doing that.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies

      Not at all. If they are anonymous, then they are no better than an internet stranger but also no worse.

      We’re all equal here. After all, for all I know you could be Merrick Garland.

      And I fully understand why they want to remain anonymous. I’m anonymous too. But claiming the benefits of anonymity means giving up the mantle of authority. You can only earn that by providing your CV.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        If only there were a process where some third party could vouch for their credentials while keeping them anonymous

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          There is, but unfortunately that process was pretty slipshod here. All we can conclude is that the Intercept interviewed four authors and confirmed that at least three of them are government lawyers.

          They don’t report anything about legal backgrounds beyond that. Perhaps they think that’s sufficient but I don’t. Maybe other news outfits will do better.