5 ms·

Personally, I have learnt I do not have a moral compass strong enough to outweigh the consequences that come with being a whistleblower. I'm very grateful such

by GVRV 3y ago

Personally, I have learnt I do not have a moral compass strong enough to outweigh the consequences that come with being a whistleblower. I'm very grateful such people exist, though.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
What are the consequences? Legal protection from retaliation? https://www.dodig.mil/Resources/FAQs/#whistleblowerFAQs https://www.dodig.mil/Resources/FAQs/#whistleblowerFAQs
- sigzero 3y ago
  That is only for "legal" whistleblowers though. Snowden was not.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    That was his choice. He could have chosen the legal avenue and would have been afforded whistleblower protections. Fleeing the country with classified material doesn't afford you protection.
    - kenicctwd 3y ago
      Copying from another comment, to prove how stupid is to expect that a secret service will pet you on the head for talking out against them: "Thomas Drake did everything you say is the right, he paid the price: | The first is Thomas Drake, who blew the whistle on the | very same NSA activities 10 years before Snowden did. | Drake was a much higher-ranking NSA official than | Snowden, and he obeyed US whistleblower laws, raising | his concerns through official channels. And he got | crushed. | Drake was fired, arrested at dawn by gun-wielding FBI | agents, stripped of his security clearance, charged | with crimes that could have sent him to prison for | the rest of his life, and all but ruined financially | and professionally. The only job he could find | afterwards was working in an Apple store in suburban | Washington, where he remains today. Adding insult to | injury, his warnings about the dangers of the NSA’s | surveillance programme were largely ignored. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon... "
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        TIL, very interesting. I'll have to read more but it seems that he didn't use proper channels he went to a reporter (with only unclass material, he claims). They raided him probably expecting classified material to be involved. Thanks for sharing, I hadn't heard of this instance.
- csa 3y ago
  Vindman is a perfect recent example of how easily this protections are skirted. He was a “key witness” in Trump’s first impeachment. His career was largely derailed, and his post-retirement second career options are most likely severely limited. To be specific (and iirc): - He was not kicked out of the military. He retired due to “bullying” and a big congressional kerfuffle that was about to happen because of his delayed promotion to full bird. - Iirc, he was told that he could remain in his career, but he would have to move from a hot shot track he was in to something like being commandant of a nowhere base in Alaska so he could lay low. Note that moves like this happen when being promoted to full bird, but I got the sense that this was not his trajectory pre-testimony. - His post-retirement options probably exclude working at any organization that is pro-Trump and most that are pro-Republican, which is a not small number of DoD contractors (common landing spot for retired military). - Note that his lawsuits were dismissed. This type of discrimination is fairly easy to do in such a way that makes it difficult to sue successfully, usually due to something like “documented personal opinion or discretion” that the discriminator had. Note that I have personally seen this knowingly done several times —- it was super creepy to see in action. Wikipedia does a decent job of summarizing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Vindman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Vindman Some of his interviews were enlightening if you search for the links.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    How would you protect someone like Vindman from that kind of retaliation? Would you force the MAGA crowd to wash his feet? He's also benefited- I was surprised and delighted to see him on an episode of Curb your Enthusiasm We were talking about protections from prosecution which Snowden absolutely had.
    - csa 3y ago
      > How would you protect someone like Vindman from that kind of retaliation? Realistically, there is nothing rule-based that I can think of in the US that would protect someone like Vindman. He probably knew that. The protection has to be from a system of shared beliefs about what is ethical and appropriate. Trump’s whole campaign and strategy (love it or hate it) was to completely dumpster that idea. There could be an interesting discussion about the merits and demerits of disrupting the existing system of shared beliefs that was in place when Trump was elected (I would actually welcome that), but Trump mostly (if not entirely) just used the opportunity to feed his narcissism. > Would you force the MAGA crowd to wash his feet? Totally uncalled for. A simple solution would be things like: - Don’t block his career for petty politics. The problem is that Trump specifically was all about retaliation and petty politics. I think most of the folks around him gave guidance not to do these sorts of petty things, but that was his style. - Own your mistakes. Again, I don’t think this was Trump’s strong suit. - Factor in the bigger picture when making decisions. Vindman, if my read on his career is correct, is precisely the type of person we need more of in the upper officer ranks. Tanking his career was bad for Vindman, but worse for the country, imho. That’s just short-sightedness.
sigzero 3y ago
He didn't have whistleblower status, so not sure why you think there wouldn't be consequences.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - GiorgioG 3y ago
    Yes because "officials, senior or otherwise" are trustworthy and honorable.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      So you are claiming that a bipartisan committee of elected officials are all lying? That's a big claim- you should support that claim.
      - GiorgioG 3y ago
        I'm saying they're not trustworthy. And when your life is on the line, you can't trust a bunch of people who care more about doing what's politically advantageous instead of doing what's right.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        So they aren't lying? What part of the report is inaccurate?
  - thequadehunter 3y ago
    This reads like that one time I put in my 2 week notice, and my boss called me into his office to ask why I didn't "let him know I was thinking of leaving" when he gave me a big bonus a month earlier. Like, why would anyone ever paint a target on themselves like that?

by GVRV 3y ago

Personally, I have learnt I do not have a moral compass strong enough to outweigh the consequences that come with being a whistleblower. I'm very grateful such people exist, though.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

What are the consequences? Legal protection from retaliation? https://www.dodig.mil/Resources/FAQs/#whistleblowerFAQs https://www.dodig.mil/Resources/FAQs/#whistleblowerFAQs

sigzero 3y ago
That is only for "legal" whistleblowers though. Snowden was not.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  That was his choice. He could have chosen the legal avenue and would have been afforded whistleblower protections. Fleeing the country with classified material doesn't afford you protection.
  - kenicctwd 3y ago
    Copying from another comment, to prove how stupid is to expect that a secret service will pet you on the head for talking out against them: "Thomas Drake did everything you say is the right, he paid the price: | The first is Thomas Drake, who blew the whistle on the | very same NSA activities 10 years before Snowden did. | Drake was a much higher-ranking NSA official than | Snowden, and he obeyed US whistleblower laws, raising | his concerns through official channels. And he got | crushed. | Drake was fired, arrested at dawn by gun-wielding FBI | agents, stripped of his security clearance, charged | with crimes that could have sent him to prison for | the rest of his life, and all but ruined financially | and professionally. The only job he could find | afterwards was working in an Apple store in suburban | Washington, where he remains today. Adding insult to | injury, his warnings about the dangers of the NSA’s | surveillance programme were largely ignored. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon... "
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      TIL, very interesting. I'll have to read more but it seems that he didn't use proper channels he went to a reporter (with only unclass material, he claims). They raided him probably expecting classified material to be involved. Thanks for sharing, I hadn't heard of this instance.
csa 3y ago
Vindman is a perfect recent example of how easily this protections are skirted. He was a “key witness” in Trump’s first impeachment. His career was largely derailed, and his post-retirement second career options are most likely severely limited. To be specific (and iirc): - He was not kicked out of the military. He retired due to “bullying” and a big congressional kerfuffle that was about to happen because of his delayed promotion to full bird. - Iirc, he was told that he could remain in his career, but he would have to move from a hot shot track he was in to something like being commandant of a nowhere base in Alaska so he could lay low. Note that moves like this happen when being promoted to full bird, but I got the sense that this was not his trajectory pre-testimony. - His post-retirement options probably exclude working at any organization that is pro-Trump and most that are pro-Republican, which is a not small number of DoD contractors (common landing spot for retired military). - Note that his lawsuits were dismissed. This type of discrimination is fairly easy to do in such a way that makes it difficult to sue successfully, usually due to something like “documented personal opinion or discretion” that the discriminator had. Note that I have personally seen this knowingly done several times —- it was super creepy to see in action. Wikipedia does a decent job of summarizing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Vindman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Vindman Some of his interviews were enlightening if you search for the links.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  How would you protect someone like Vindman from that kind of retaliation? Would you force the MAGA crowd to wash his feet? He's also benefited- I was surprised and delighted to see him on an episode of Curb your Enthusiasm We were talking about protections from prosecution which Snowden absolutely had.
  - csa 3y ago
    > How would you protect someone like Vindman from that kind of retaliation? Realistically, there is nothing rule-based that I can think of in the US that would protect someone like Vindman. He probably knew that. The protection has to be from a system of shared beliefs about what is ethical and appropriate. Trump’s whole campaign and strategy (love it or hate it) was to completely dumpster that idea. There could be an interesting discussion about the merits and demerits of disrupting the existing system of shared beliefs that was in place when Trump was elected (I would actually welcome that), but Trump mostly (if not entirely) just used the opportunity to feed his narcissism. > Would you force the MAGA crowd to wash his feet? Totally uncalled for. A simple solution would be things like: - Don’t block his career for petty politics. The problem is that Trump specifically was all about retaliation and petty politics. I think most of the folks around him gave guidance not to do these sorts of petty things, but that was his style. - Own your mistakes. Again, I don’t think this was Trump’s strong suit. - Factor in the bigger picture when making decisions. Vindman, if my read on his career is correct, is precisely the type of person we need more of in the upper officer ranks. Tanking his career was bad for Vindman, but worse for the country, imho. That’s just short-sightedness.

sigzero 3y ago

He didn't have whistleblower status, so not sure why you think there wouldn't be consequences.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
[flagged]
- GiorgioG 3y ago
  Yes because "officials, senior or otherwise" are trustworthy and honorable.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    So you are claiming that a bipartisan committee of elected officials are all lying? That's a big claim- you should support that claim.
    - GiorgioG 3y ago
      I'm saying they're not trustworthy. And when your life is on the line, you can't trust a bunch of people who care more about doing what's politically advantageous instead of doing what's right.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        So they aren't lying? What part of the report is inaccurate?
- thequadehunter 3y ago
  This reads like that one time I put in my 2 week notice, and my boss called me into his office to ask why I didn't "let him know I was thinking of leaving" when he gave me a big bonus a month earlier. Like, why would anyone ever paint a target on themselves like that?