4 ms·

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 d

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/

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/