3 ms·
Right. Much better to send the message that even if the disclosure proves warranted, even if we end up agreeing that reforms are needed, even if it's clear that
by lostcolony 13y ago
Right. Much better to send the message that even if the disclosure proves warranted, even if we end up agreeing that reforms are needed, even if it's clear that the 'appropriate channels' are broken, if you disclose we'll hound and pursue you to the ends of the earth.
/sarcasm
Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers led to charges, that were later dropped, and we didn't see some huge number of whistleblowers.
So I assert your claim is a poor one. History has not shown that granting a pardon to a whistleblower has led to inappropriate leaking, and the chilling effect of not doing it when appropriate (or deciding it's not appropriate when it clearly was, such as now), is not worth the trade off.
- diminoten 13y agoI don't think history can help us here, as 1960/1970 was a fundamentally different time than now. It's infinitely easier to proliferate information to the population, and there are no barriers to doing so now, whereas the newspapers were gatekeepers of public dissemination when Ellsberg did what he did.
- moocowduckquack 13y agothe newspapers were gatekeepers of public dissemination when Ellsberg did what he did They are still in the Snowden case as well. Also, to declare that history cannot help in the analysis of a problem in the present is to admit defeat. To fully understand the present, the only real tool you have is history.