kaya'08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,363
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- British Turk
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The United States has been caught red handed in a web of lies, deceit and subversion of the law on a scale even the most ardent of conspiracy theorists find hard to grapple with.
From bugging the phones of allied leaders, the embassies of friendly nations and entire populations, American leaders have been scuppering to justify there illegal and/or grossly disproportionate war on privacy by insulting the memory of the victims of 9/11 and countless terrorist attacks across the nation.
And although blaming terrorist elements for government misbehavior has become a bit of a banality since the Arabic unrest, the federal government insists it has been pushed into a corner by radicals, that it is fighting it's corner on the behalf of liberty, and that mass surveillance is it's means.
Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have fallen foul of the United States, as it uses it's authority to attempt to smoke them out of every nation and embassy on Earth.
But despite arguments as to whether or not these men have endangered US lives, the question remains: Should we protect whistle blowers who reveal blatantly disproportionate and obviously criminal activities sanctioned by the US government regardless of secrecy classification (ie, a legal entitlement to whistle-blowing)? Or should Courts remain indifferent as to the content of what has been leaked and concentrate instead on whether or not it can be proved that an individual caused the leak and charge accordingly (status quo)?
Maybe the Courts could develop a doctrine to determine what constitutes a "legal entitlement to whistle-blowing".
Like: would a reasonable actor regard the act as disproportionate, was the act contrary to the constitution of the United States and/or it's laws, was the realization of the act required or genuinely thought to be required in giving effect to the survival of the state or it's allies?
On the other hand, maybe aggressively pursuing whistle blowers, regardless of what it is they leaked, is the only sure way of protecting U.S national security as a way of setting a precedent that leaks of any form, which could aid enemy countries, are not tolerated?
From bugging the phones of allied leaders, the embassies of friendly nations and entire populations, American leaders have been scuppering to justify there illegal and/or grossly disproportionate war on privacy by insulting the memory of the victims of 9/11 and countless terrorist attacks across the nation.
And although blaming terrorist elements for government misbehavior has become a bit of a banality since the Arabic unrest, the federal government insists it has been pushed into a corner by radicals, that it is fighting it's corner on the behalf of liberty, and that mass surveillance is it's means.
Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have fallen foul of the United States, as it uses it's authority to attempt to smoke them out of every nation and embassy on Earth.
But despite arguments as to whether or not these men have endangered US lives, the question remains: Should we protect whistle blowers who reveal blatantly disproportionate and obviously criminal activities sanctioned by the US government regardless of secrecy classification (ie, a legal entitlement to whistle-blowing)? Or should Courts remain indifferent as to the content of what has been leaked and concentrate instead on whether or not it can be proved that an individual caused the leak and charge accordingly (status quo)?
Maybe the Courts could develop a doctrine to determine what constitutes a "legal entitlement to whistle-blowing".
Like: would a reasonable actor regard the act as disproportionate, was the act contrary to the constitution of the United States and/or it's laws, was the realization of the act required or genuinely thought to be required in giving effect to the survival of the state or it's allies?
On the other hand, maybe aggressively pursuing whistle blowers, regardless of what it is they leaked, is the only sure way of protecting U.S national security as a way of setting a precedent that leaks of any form, which could aid enemy countries, are not tolerated?
Last edited: