4 ms·

> Hale built on that letter with a statement that lasted a little more than 15 minutes. He said, according to POLITICO's Josh Gerstein, "What I’m really here fo

> Hale built on that letter with a statement that lasted a little more than 15 minutes. He said, according to POLITICO's Josh Gerstein, "What I’m really here for is for having stolen something that was never mine to take: precious human life." > [Judge Liam] O'Grady responded, “You’re not facing prison for speaking out about the drone program injuring and killing innocent persons," and, "You could have been a whistleblower and garnered all this attention without leaking any of these documents, frankly.” O'Grady has a fair point here actually.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
So what would have been the correct channel for a "proper" whistleblower and why should we expect it to have had any impact when the "improper" whistleblowing didn't stop the slaughter of innocent people?
- OnlineGladiator 5y ago
  Yeah, this was the same argument that happened with Snowden. The whistleblowers claim they tried to no avail, and then get punished for actually trying to do the right thing. The system is designed to punish those who question it.
  - secondaryacct 5y ago
    I mean I m glad Snowden did what he did for my own curiosity but stealing the credentials of NSA colleagues to leak secret military (or is the NSA civilian) programs is not something I d expect any country to reward. Solving these problems is very hard and Snowden took a shortcut.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      The truly problematic issues are the murders and wanton spying - not how Snowden obtained and released information.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      > and Snowden took a shortcut Well, speaking as an American citizen, I want unconstitutional surveillance against me to stop now, not 10 years from now. So the idea that I should be upset that Snowden took a shortcut rather than letting my rights get trampled while he struggled impossibly with bureaucracy -- I just have a hard time figuring out why that would be good for the American people. I understand that the government would prefer that only official channels are considered legitimate. That's the whole reason why the Espionage Act exists, that's why whistleblowers aren't allowed to bring up public interest during trial. And I get that motivation, I understand why the government wants complete control over how it can and can't be held accountable for violating my trust and violating my rights. But I don't understand why I should be on the government's side in making it harder to hold them accountable and harder for whistleblowers to let me know when my rights are being violated. Getting mad about taking a shortcut is very strange to me, I'm not sure how to process that sentiment.
- infogulch 5y ago
  Yes, where are all these "proper" whistleblowers at and why don't I know of any of them? For every one that does it "improperly" how many get caught by trying to use the "proper" channels which is actually just a trash chute straight into the abyss?
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    Silenced (2014) is a great documentary about whistleblowers. "Three National Security whistleblowers fight to reveal the darkest corners of America's war on terror, challenging a government that is increasingly determined to maintain secrecy." They aren't famous. IIRC, they each tried to alert everyone in their chain of command, from bottom to top, then went public as a last resort, i.e. were "proper whistleblowers". They all seem to have lost their careers, marriages, homes...everything but their self-respect. It's tough, a neverending nightmare. A very disturbing documentary, highly recommended. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt02827908/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt02827908/
roenxi 5y ago
I mean, we've seen how the discussion would go then. "Well sure he says there are outrageous murders happening, but if that were true why isn't there any documentation?". Looks at how the PRISM leak worked. It turns out in hindsight it was a poorly kept secret and people just dismissed the evidence because it was new and there wasn't documentation. What this looks like to me is while being a whistleblower is legal, owning a whistle, putting your lips to a whistle and exhaling vigorously into a whistle are all illegal. And suspicious noise pollution regulations for disturbing the peace with unnecessarily piercing sounds.
xvector 5y ago
Seriously? No one will believe a whistleblower without an abundance of evidence.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

So what would have been the correct channel for a "proper" whistleblower and why should we expect it to have had any impact when the "improper" whistleblowing didn't stop the slaughter of innocent people?

OnlineGladiator 5y ago
Yeah, this was the same argument that happened with Snowden. The whistleblowers claim they tried to no avail, and then get punished for actually trying to do the right thing. The system is designed to punish those who question it.
- secondaryacct 5y ago
  I mean I m glad Snowden did what he did for my own curiosity but stealing the credentials of NSA colleagues to leak secret military (or is the NSA civilian) programs is not something I d expect any country to reward. Solving these problems is very hard and Snowden took a shortcut.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    The truly problematic issues are the murders and wanton spying - not how Snowden obtained and released information.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > and Snowden took a shortcut Well, speaking as an American citizen, I want unconstitutional surveillance against me to stop now, not 10 years from now. So the idea that I should be upset that Snowden took a shortcut rather than letting my rights get trampled while he struggled impossibly with bureaucracy -- I just have a hard time figuring out why that would be good for the American people. I understand that the government would prefer that only official channels are considered legitimate. That's the whole reason why the Espionage Act exists, that's why whistleblowers aren't allowed to bring up public interest during trial. And I get that motivation, I understand why the government wants complete control over how it can and can't be held accountable for violating my trust and violating my rights. But I don't understand why I should be on the government's side in making it harder to hold them accountable and harder for whistleblowers to let me know when my rights are being violated. Getting mad about taking a shortcut is very strange to me, I'm not sure how to process that sentiment.
infogulch 5y ago
Yes, where are all these "proper" whistleblowers at and why don't I know of any of them? For every one that does it "improperly" how many get caught by trying to use the "proper" channels which is actually just a trash chute straight into the abyss?
- yesenadam 5y ago
  Silenced (2014) is a great documentary about whistleblowers. "Three National Security whistleblowers fight to reveal the darkest corners of America's war on terror, challenging a government that is increasingly determined to maintain secrecy." They aren't famous. IIRC, they each tried to alert everyone in their chain of command, from bottom to top, then went public as a last resort, i.e. were "proper whistleblowers". They all seem to have lost their careers, marriages, homes...everything but their self-respect. It's tough, a neverending nightmare. A very disturbing documentary, highly recommended. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt02827908/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt02827908/

roenxi 5y ago

I mean, we've seen how the discussion would go then. "Well sure he says there are outrageous murders happening, but if that were true why isn't there any documentation?". Looks at how the PRISM leak worked. It turns out in hindsight it was a poorly kept secret and people just dismissed the evidence because it was new and there wasn't documentation. What this looks like to me is while being a whistleblower is legal, owning a whistle, putting your lips to a whistle and exhaling vigorously into a whistle are all illegal. And suspicious noise pollution regulations for disturbing the peace with unnecessarily piercing sounds.

xvector 5y ago

Seriously? No one will believe a whistleblower without an abundance of evidence.