Skip to main content

View Diary: Should Leakers Be Prosecuted? The Deafening Silence From Whistleblowers (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But Drake didn't come forward with the info.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He leaked it and remained anonymous... until he was caught.

    I can't see how you can compare his situation to yours.

    Surreptitiously spreading classified information is leaking and is not whistleblowing.

    I can understand his reticence to come forward, especially given your story, but he still should have simply gone public.  That would have been the right thing to do.

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

    by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:14:41 AM PDT

    •  The problem is (6+ / 0-)

      who, "in public" do you really trust?

      What's saddest is, one used to simply go to The Newspapers, period. Now you have to be careful which one you go to, because the Feds the Corporations might employ someone whose best interest lies in turning your ass in,
      if not worse...

      In that respect, the surreptitiousness absolutely makes sense. But the bigger picture here is the fact that in the reporting of this kind of thing by Teh Mediaz, the line between "leaking" and "whistleblowing" is blurred. That is surely deliberate, in and of itself...

      The American Television and Newspaper Mainstream Media = Private, For Profit Corporate Information Service Monopoly

      by o the umanity on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:20:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True--I don't have the cite, but I read the other (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        day that a source went to a newspaper and instead of publishing, the journalist handing the info over to the CIA.

        Did anyone read about this?

        "[K]now that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." -Barack Obama

        by Battle4Seattle on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:25:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Did the public have a right to know what... (5+ / 0-)

      ...Drake leaked. Yes or no?

      The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

      by Bobjack23 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:10:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fill me in (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrkvica, skrekk, Uberbah, elwior

      because my historical knowledge in this respect is incomplete: Did Daniel Ellsburg leak the Pentagon Papers anonymously, or did he reveal his name at the same time he revealed the info?

      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

      by Geenius at Wrok on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:28:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If there is any (8+ / 0-)

      rational distinction to be made between whistleblowing and leaking, the obvious difference is this:

      disclosure of information that a government employee reasonably believes shows fraud, waste and abuse

      As opposed to this:

      In contrast, when Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, unmasked voert CIA operative Valerie Plame,

      he was not trying to disclose evidence of wrongdoing.

      Quite the opposite.  He put at risk national security and people's lives to undermine a critic.  He was trying to punish Joe Wilson by outing his wife.  Libby was leaking, not whistleblowing.  His disclosure had no intrinsic public value

      The contrast couldn't POSSIBLY be more obvious or easier to recognize, and the necessity for distinguishing and responding differently to these types of circumstances is self-evident.  Any effort to define this differently (like basing it on whether or not it was done anonymously)requires stretching and twisting logic to the extreme while ignoring purpose and intent, and completely dismissing the obvious, most important and most RELEVANT distinctions.

      "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." Robert F. Kennedy

      by enough already on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:36:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read her editorial again--leaking endangers (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrkvica, elwior, An Affirming Flame

      people and serves NO public interest; it's cowardly; whistle-blowing uncovers dangerous acts of the government against the people that it's meant to serve. Whether it's anonymous or not, there's a difference between the two, and imo, Drake's actions are the latter.

      Whistleblowing make public information of significant public importance, which reveals illegal, unconstitutional and dangerous conduct, often at the highest levels of government.  Leaking is cowardly, often vengefuly, and and of no public value.

      Are you really saying Drake should have kept quiet? Or are you just disagreeing with how he revealed the info? I think the latter, but all I care about as a citizen is that the information is made public.

      "[K]now that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." -Barack Obama

      by Battle4Seattle on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:22:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The way he revealed it leaves open (0+ / 0-)

        the interpretation of his motives.

        Was it politically motivated?  Did he have a personal axe to grind with someone in government?

        Was the story complete, or did he pick and choose what data to leak?

        The other thing that strikes me about this case, is that it seems to me these leaks were done primarily to embarrass the NSA regarding mis-managed projects, rather than reveal NSA crimes against Americans or the Constitution.

        And then he lied about it when questioned.. you never lie.. If they cannot get you on substance, they will always get you for lying, which is what he is being changed with.

        Too many questions..

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

        by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:18:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not arguing there were no illegalities in the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          details. What I am saying is there's an intrinsic difference between leaking and whistleblowing. Does he deserve whistleblowing protections? That's a different question, but you continue to call him a leaker, and I disagree.

          His revelations WERE in the public interest (complete transparency in the revelations? Perhaps not--but nevertheless we needed to know), how he did it--well, there are the legal questions.

          "[K]now that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy." -Barack Obama

          by Battle4Seattle on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:37:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site