4 ms·

It’s really hard to believe we would have heard anything if official channels were used. It’s really hard not to hear the judge’s statement outside of that con

It’s really hard to believe we would have heard anything if official channels were used. It’s really hard not to hear the judge’s statement outside of that context.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
Might the solution be an independent agency which centralises whistleblowing? Whose decisions are appealable to the courts and legally required to balance public interest and national security?
- hashkb 5y ago
  Who would fund this? No chance of the same corruption in that independent organization designed to oversee a much more powerful one.
- kodah 5y ago
  I can't speak for the rest of the government, but I can speak for internal whistleblowing of the Marine Corps. You can "request mast" all the way up to the Commandant, which is the tippy top. I think it's possible that some whistleblowing is discarded when it should have been honored, but I think for the most part these processes exist and are in-tact. Now, whether there's a perception that you can use them effectively is another issue. Let's not forget someone whistleblew on the President amid a highly political environment in recent memory. That's no short order.
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  There is no recognized public right to know any information that subverts the defense apparatus or benefits a foreign adversary. So even if you want to reveal a war crime you may need to wait until after it can't be proven in court to jeopardize national security. Until such time you would need to limit your disclosure to approved channels. Anything else is treated differently. Stuff like waste, abuse, environmental issues, discrimination and the like are usually a different ballgame.
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago
    Except that, "national security" has grown into an all encomoassing concern for juat this reason. It can be used to hide thay which is condemnable or embarassing.
    - buck4roo 5y ago
      "national security crimes" are actually "political crimes". There's a reason many countries exclude both "crimes" from extradition treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security#Impact_on_civil_liberties_and_human_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security#Impact_on_ci...
libertyhouse 5y ago
It's likely that the sentence wouldn't have been as harsh had there been evidence that he tried official channels first.
- pope_meat 5y ago
  If he'd gone through the official channels first, he wouldn't have gotten the chance to do it another way when inevitably official channels did nothing. They'll ruin your life either way, at least this way the info makes a splash.
  - libertyhouse 5y ago
    You mean he wasn't capable of gaming out the consequences of the Government reacting poorly to the use of official whistleblower mechanisms and wouldn't therefore be able to go to the press in the manner in which he did?
    - pope_meat 5y ago
      He would have lost access to all the files, and been shown the door. Without proof no one cares what you claim.
      - libertyhouse 5y ago
        You believe that the Government could hide/destroy all archival Target Development packages, SIGINT Reporting, Full Motion Video, Tactical Reports, Collateral Damage Estimates, Judge Advocate and other leadership decisional communications, Battle Damage Assessments, Political Communications, and other material about any particular strike in question to prevent the investigation of a whistleblowers claims?
        pope_meat 5y ago
        https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-... Working within the system to blow a whistle is... risky, you'll end up like Bill Binney, or Thomas Drake, and almost no one will hear about you.

It’s really hard to believe we would have heard anything if official channels were used. It’s really hard not to hear the judge’s statement outside of that context.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

Might the solution be an independent agency which centralises whistleblowing? Whose decisions are appealable to the courts and legally required to balance public interest and national security?

hashkb 5y ago
Who would fund this? No chance of the same corruption in that independent organization designed to oversee a much more powerful one.
kodah 5y ago
I can't speak for the rest of the government, but I can speak for internal whistleblowing of the Marine Corps. You can "request mast" all the way up to the Commandant, which is the tippy top. I think it's possible that some whistleblowing is discarded when it should have been honored, but I think for the most part these processes exist and are in-tact. Now, whether there's a perception that you can use them effectively is another issue. Let's not forget someone whistleblew on the President amid a highly political environment in recent memory. That's no short order.
erosenbe0 5y ago
There is no recognized public right to know any information that subverts the defense apparatus or benefits a foreign adversary. So even if you want to reveal a war crime you may need to wait until after it can't be proven in court to jeopardize national security. Until such time you would need to limit your disclosure to approved channels. Anything else is treated differently. Stuff like waste, abuse, environmental issues, discrimination and the like are usually a different ballgame.
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  Except that, "national security" has grown into an all encomoassing concern for juat this reason. It can be used to hide thay which is condemnable or embarassing.
  - buck4roo 5y ago
    "national security crimes" are actually "political crimes". There's a reason many countries exclude both "crimes" from extradition treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security#Impact_on_civil_liberties_and_human_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security#Impact_on_ci...

libertyhouse 5y ago

It's likely that the sentence wouldn't have been as harsh had there been evidence that he tried official channels first.

pope_meat 5y ago
If he'd gone through the official channels first, he wouldn't have gotten the chance to do it another way when inevitably official channels did nothing. They'll ruin your life either way, at least this way the info makes a splash.
- libertyhouse 5y ago
  You mean he wasn't capable of gaming out the consequences of the Government reacting poorly to the use of official whistleblower mechanisms and wouldn't therefore be able to go to the press in the manner in which he did?
  - pope_meat 5y ago
    He would have lost access to all the files, and been shown the door. Without proof no one cares what you claim.
    - libertyhouse 5y ago
      You believe that the Government could hide/destroy all archival Target Development packages, SIGINT Reporting, Full Motion Video, Tactical Reports, Collateral Damage Estimates, Judge Advocate and other leadership decisional communications, Battle Damage Assessments, Political Communications, and other material about any particular strike in question to prevent the investigation of a whistleblowers claims?
      - pope_meat 5y ago
        https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-whistleblowers-who-tried-to-lift-the-veil https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-... Working within the system to blow a whistle is... risky, you'll end up like Bill Binney, or Thomas Drake, and almost no one will hear about you.