4 ms·

Not if your a whistleblower. What if instead of a domestic spying program he leaked a secret program by his bosses to round up every red haired and freckled per

Not if your a whistleblower. What if instead of a domestic spying program he leaked a secret program by his bosses to round up every red haired and freckled person and put them in a concentration camp? Then would you still have to charge him with a crime for revealing a 'secret' program before he could be pardoned and treated as a hero? Of course not, thats ridiculous and so is this.

brown9-2 13y ago
But he didn't do that. Are you a whistleblower if what you reveal isn't illegal?
- jbooth 13y ago
  A number of people hold that this is illegal under the 4th amendment and founding principles of our country.
  - Glyptodon 13y ago
    I think there are good arguments that many of the policies regarding tapping, surveillance, and secret lists and trials extend into violation of not just the 4th, but the 1st, 5th, and 6th also.
- 3825 13y ago
  yes
- cbhl 13y ago
  It would be (relatively) trivial for congress to decide to make it so that "rounding up every red haired and freckled person and putting them in a concentration camp" would be legal. The question isn't legality, per se - it's whether we believe that it follows the values and principles that we want our country to have.
  - michaelhoney 13y ago
    .. and it's not like it hasn't been done before, to Japanese Americans in WWII.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Yes, if what you reveal is unethical but legal. Laws are not handed down from the heavens; laws are created by a notoriously corrupt set of human beings (politicians), and can easily become disconnected from morality.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The better question is: Are you a whistleblower in a legal sense if what you reveal is legal? The government doesn't operate on unicorns and happy thoughts, it operates on the law. It's the job of the people to elect representatives such that the law conforms as much as possible to unicorns and happy thoughts.
    - shawnz 13y ago
      Yes (or at least, possibly). > A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Source: http://www.sec.gov/eeoinfo/whistleblowers.htm http://www.sec.gov/eeoinfo/whistleblowers.htm
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Looking up the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 [1] even more closely, it appears it won't apply to Snowden here. If the material is protected from disclosure by law or E.O. (like this was) then you can only report it to the Office of Special Counsel or the agency I.G. and receive whistleblower protection. It's in fact arguable that things like PRISM even violated any of those provisions, which makes it risky (on a legal basis) to leak even if he wasn't in the intelligence community. [1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101m8SiB7:e10062 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101m8S...:
        13y ago
- mchusma 13y ago
  There was a lot of illegal activity, or at least potential illegal activity, uncovered. Most notably perjury by officials, and violation of a FISA strikedown (which the EFF is trying to dig into). The level of illegality is unclear, because we cannot investigate and the only court that can determine that consists of government officials, in secret, and no oversight. Almost every action they are taking could be completely illegal, we have no way of knowing or assessing.
- Glyptodon 13y ago
  What he revealed is clearly unconstitutional. To say otherwise suggests that you lack basic reading comprehension or never had American history taught in 5th grade or middle school. (...Or that our teachers taught us lies on purpose, I guess... rolls eyes)
- Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
  Who said it is legal or illegal? If some law contravenes the constitution that law is not legal therefore whatever the law says should not be done is legal.
anigbrowl 13y ago
What if my aunt were my uncle? Inventing an alternative set of facts to support your argument is the surest sign that something is seriously wrong wrong with your argument.

brown9-2 13y ago

But he didn't do that. Are you a whistleblower if what you reveal isn't illegal?

jbooth 13y ago
A number of people hold that this is illegal under the 4th amendment and founding principles of our country.
- Glyptodon 13y ago
  I think there are good arguments that many of the policies regarding tapping, surveillance, and secret lists and trials extend into violation of not just the 4th, but the 1st, 5th, and 6th also.
3825 13y ago
yes
cbhl 13y ago
It would be (relatively) trivial for congress to decide to make it so that "rounding up every red haired and freckled person and putting them in a concentration camp" would be legal. The question isn't legality, per se - it's whether we believe that it follows the values and principles that we want our country to have.
- michaelhoney 13y ago
  .. and it's not like it hasn't been done before, to Japanese Americans in WWII.
betterunix 13y ago
Yes, if what you reveal is unethical but legal. Laws are not handed down from the heavens; laws are created by a notoriously corrupt set of human beings (politicians), and can easily become disconnected from morality.
- mpyne 13y ago
  The better question is: Are you a whistleblower in a legal sense if what you reveal is legal? The government doesn't operate on unicorns and happy thoughts, it operates on the law. It's the job of the people to elect representatives such that the law conforms as much as possible to unicorns and happy thoughts.
  - shawnz 13y ago
    Yes (or at least, possibly). > A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if it takes or fails to take (or threatens to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Source: http://www.sec.gov/eeoinfo/whistleblowers.htm http://www.sec.gov/eeoinfo/whistleblowers.htm
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Looking up the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 [1] even more closely, it appears it won't apply to Snowden here. If the material is protected from disclosure by law or E.O. (like this was) then you can only report it to the Office of Special Counsel or the agency I.G. and receive whistleblower protection. It's in fact arguable that things like PRISM even violated any of those provisions, which makes it risky (on a legal basis) to leak even if he wasn't in the intelligence community. [1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101m8SiB7:e10062 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101m8S...:
      - 13y ago
mchusma 13y ago
There was a lot of illegal activity, or at least potential illegal activity, uncovered. Most notably perjury by officials, and violation of a FISA strikedown (which the EFF is trying to dig into). The level of illegality is unclear, because we cannot investigate and the only court that can determine that consists of government officials, in secret, and no oversight. Almost every action they are taking could be completely illegal, we have no way of knowing or assessing.
Glyptodon 13y ago
What he revealed is clearly unconstitutional. To say otherwise suggests that you lack basic reading comprehension or never had American history taught in 5th grade or middle school. (...Or that our teachers taught us lies on purpose, I guess... rolls eyes)
Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
Who said it is legal or illegal? If some law contravenes the constitution that law is not legal therefore whatever the law says should not be done is legal.

anigbrowl 13y ago

What if my aunt were my uncle? Inventing an alternative set of facts to support your argument is the surest sign that something is seriously wrong wrong with your argument.