• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we protect whistle blowers when....

Should the law develop a way of protecting whistle blowers of criminal activities?

  • Yes, Courts could develop a doctrine

    Votes: 9 64.3%

  • Absolutely not, we should prosecute aggressively

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Total voters
    14
kaya'08

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?
 
Last edited:
blatantly disproportionate and obviously criminal activities
Click to expand...

Who's deciding that this is what everything is? Was there a Supreme Court Trial that ruled as such?

Until it's decided on officially - it's all subjection.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Who's deciding that this is what everything is? Was there a Supreme Court Trial that ruled as such?

Until it's decided on officially - it's all subjection.
Click to expand...

That's up to you. I proposed:

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/thought to be required in giving effect to the survival of the state or it's allies?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It is not criminal activity in the US so I disagree with your basis. Even beyond that, no if they have signed a confidentiality agreement or the information is deemed protected or privileged. Beyond that, just depends.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Who's deciding that this is what everything is? Was there a Supreme Court Trial that ruled as such?

Until it's decided on officially - it's all subjection.
Click to expand...

Nope. Criminal is criminal. SCOTUS is fallible and makes mistakes... and criminal in this case goes outside the jurisdiction of the law anyway. It is morally corrupt what they are doing. Is it legally corrupt as well? I say it is and that may be determined in the courts later.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Who's deciding that this is what everything is? Was there a Supreme Court Trial that ruled as such?

Until it's decided on officially - it's all subjection.
Click to expand...

Translation: So you need a government official to tell you if another government officials behavior was improper.
 
Fisher said:
It is not criminal activity in the US so I disagree with your basis. Even beyond that, no if they have signed a confidentiality agreement or the information is deemed protected or privileged. Beyond that, just depends.
Click to expand...

I stated classified documents in my post, so that by implication means information that is deemed protected or privileged - otherwise it wouldn't be a very purposeful discussion. So yes, that is illegal in the United States, but to say it is acceptable to prosecute on this basis is more legal indifference to justice than legal formalism wouldn't you say?

Those who believe a legal doctrine to protect whistle-blowers may think it is important because they believe a secret illegal act by gov is STILL an illegal act that, pursuant to justice, should be revealed and subject to the rule of law.

Other's don't, but BOTH positions require elaboration.
 
I think whistle blowers should be protected when clear violations of the law are committed. The US government needs to screen better for people that will do anything for money and keep quiet about it.
 
kaya'08 said:
I stated classified documents in my post, so that by implication means information that is deemed protected or privileged - otherwise it wouldn't be a very purposeful discussion. So yes, that is illegal in the United States, but to say it is acceptable to prosecute on this basis is more legal indifference to justice than legal formalism wouldn't you say?

Those who believe a legal doctrine to protect whistle-blowers may think it is important because they believe a secret illegal act by gov is STILL an illegal act that, pursuant to justice, should be revealed and subject to the rule of law.

Other's don't, but BOTH positions require elaboration.
Click to expand...

You also cited wiretapping in your post. By the way, so far as I can tell, the FISA Court has issued blanket warrants for these things that you deem "illegal" in compliance with federal law ergo they are not "illegal in the United States." Whether or not a foreign country considers our acts illegal matters little as far as the whistleblower protections you seek.
 
Fisher said:
You also cited wiretapping in your post. By the way, so far as I can tell, the FISA Court has issued blanket warrants for these things that you deem "illegal" in compliance with federal law ergo they are not "illegal in the United States." Whether or not a foreign country considers our acts illegal matters little as far as the whistleblower protections you seek.
Click to expand...

I used recent events as a means of justifying my proposition of the question. It is a hypothetical completely independent of whatever Edward Snowden or Assange leaked. I am asking you to apply the question to whistle blowing of "privileged documents" in respect of illegal activities in general. That is pretty clear, as I am not asking you to adjudicate on their individual cases.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
I used recent events as a means of justifying my proposition of the question. It is a hypothetical completely independent of whatever Edward Snowden or Assange leaked. I am asking you to apply the question to whistle blowing of "privileged documents" in respect of illegal activities in general.
Click to expand...

Assange did not leak any documents--Bradley Manning did. My response still depends. Leaking to the press should be the last resort, not the first.
 
Fisher said:
Assange did not leak any documents--Bradley Manning did. My response still depends. Leaking to the press should be the last resort, not the first.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I was more invested in you understanding the point of the OP then with semantics. Please feel free to elaborate, it is the point after all.
 
Jango said:
Translation: So you need a government official to tell you if another government officials behavior was improper.
Click to expand...

AND the government judges how you should be punished for revealing government corruption and illegal action? The criminals adjudging the witness to the crime?

A "whistleblower" by definition is someone who is exposing illegal or corrupt conduct. If the information being released is confidential but is not about illegal or corruption actions, then that person isn't a whistleblower.
 
Fisher said:
Assange did not leak any documents--Bradley Manning did. My response still depends. Leaking to the press should be the last resort, not the first.
Click to expand...

That last sentence sounds nice, but it reality I suspect it is always either-or. I don't think it is as simple as going to the government or military and say "look at all this illegal corruption?!" - and if the government says "that's confidential and we have to imprison at least temporarily - and BTW here's a federal court order that 1.) we can seize and search everything you have and 2.) the federal court order is a federal gag order - "and now next we are going to interrogate you and detain you indefinitely until we decide it is safe to release you under the Patriot Act" - I don't think the person still has the option of going to the press.
 
There was no criminal charge against Assange. Not an American. Not in America.
 
joko104 said:
There was no criminal charge against Assange. Not an American. Not in America.
Click to expand...

I don't think the fact that he is not American and not in America matters much to the authorities over there. As a British citizen, that much is pretty clear.
 
joko104 said:
That last sentence sounds nice, but it reality I suspect it is always either-or. I don't think it is as simple as going to the government or military and say "look at all this illegal corruption?!" - and if the government says "that's confidential and we have to imprison at least temporarily - and BTW here's a federal court order that 1.) we can seize and search everything you have and 2.) the federal court order is a federal gag order - "and now next we are going to interrogate you and detain you indefinitely until we decide it is safe to release you under the Patriot Act" - I don't think the person still has the option of going to the press.
Click to expand...

Then deliver it to your congressman or the ACLU or a liberal prosecutor anonymously and let that be your good deed. Leaking it to the press hasn't worked out so well for Manning or Snowden nor has it changed anything. Why ruin your life for nothing?
 
Fisher said:
Then deliver it to your congressman or the ACLU or a liberal prosecutor anonymously and let that be your good deed. Leaking it to the press hasn't worked out so well for Manning or Snowden nor has it changed anything. Why ruin your life for nothing?
Click to expand...

What makes you think the government won't go after those guys too?
 
kaya'08 said:
With all due respect, I was more invested in you understanding the point of the OP then with semantics. Please feel free to elaborate, it is the point after all.
Click to expand...

The world is a messed up place and defending our nation is not an academic exercise by Starbuck's-sipping scholars in a classroom. Not everyone in our government is 100% perfect even 1% of the time. If it is your job to work in that world, then do your job and honor your word or face the consequences. If someone wants to "whistle-blow" about an FDA inspector not washing his hands before fondling the food, have at it, but stealing classified information is ILLEGAL regardless of what that information reveals. Allowing people to commit a crime to create some political porn and get your name in the paper is pointless and could endanger a lot of intelligence assets. And please, it was no secret whatsoever that the government was doing this stuff. Well before Snowden, this was in the news and very often was attached to the name "Alberto Gonzales"
 
kaya'08 said:
What makes you think the government won't go after those guys too?
Click to expand...

What makes you think they won't go after the press? Woops too late, they are already spying on them too. I guess one should move to China where they can be free of the evil government.
 
There is considerable difference between a corporate whistleblower and international espionage, also known as treason, where information leaked can irreparably harm national security and give "aid and comfort" to our enemies.
 
Fisher said:
The world is a messed up place and defending our nation is not an academic exercise by Starbuck's-sipping scholars in a classroom. Not everyone in our government is 100% perfect even 1% of the time. If it is your job to work in that world, then do your job and honor your word or face the consequences. If someone wants to "whistle-blow" about an FDA inspector not washing his hands before fondling the food, have at it, but stealing classified information is ILLEGAL regardless of what that information reveals. Allowing people to commit a crime to create some political porn and get your name in the paper is pointless and could endanger a lot of intelligence assets. And please, it was no secret whatsoever that the government was doing this stuff. Well before Snowden, this was in the news and very often was attached to the name "Alberto Gonzales"
Click to expand...

Your right, government doesn't know best. So how can you expect people who work in government to keep their mouths shut if the government where to perpetrate terrible crimes or crimes in general? I don't believe people who sign up to any government post sign up to that. They sign up to protect the American people first and foremost, not the twisted ambitions of one administration, or a few bureaucrats.

And yes revealing classified information is illegal, which is why the question is compelling you to justify why it should be illegal, even if it is exposes illegality itself, or information that the public have a right to know.
 
Fisher said:
What makes you think they won't go after the press? Woops too late, they are already spying on them too. I guess one should move to China where they can be free of the evil government.
Click to expand...

I don't think they won't go after the press. Realistically I don't think there is any political limit as to what the state can achieve, so long as it keeps quiet about it. That to me is incredibly troubling. In turn it guarantee's it's position by hunting down whistle blowers through a web of arbitrary justifications enshrined in law.

Maybe a legitimate right to whistle blow is a step towards achieving that democratic balance of power.
 
kaya'08 said:
I don't think they won't go after the press. Realistically I don't think there is any political limit as to what the state can achieve, so long as it keeps quiet about it. That to me is incredibly troubling. In turn it guarantee's it's position by hunting down whistle blowers through a web of arbitrary justifications enshrined in law.

Maybe a legitimate right to whistle blow is a step towards achieving that democratic balance of power.
Click to expand...

I'm on the side of the whistle blowers. The gov't has constantly lied, covered up, misled, falsified and about every other verb that denotes deception to us, the people, the citizens, the voters, the taxpayers, that they are alleged to represent. NSA lied to Congress. No perjury charges. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. It doesn't appear Snowden, Assange, or Manning lied, but our representatives did and are.
 
kaya'08 said:
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?
Click to expand...


Seeing how untrustworthy the government I think the only thing the government should be allowed to keep secret is troop movement during a time of against a country we are at war with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom