Skip to main content

View Diary: Part II: NSA Whistleblowers Asked Supreme Court to Review Warrantless Wiretapping (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A whistleblower is someone who exposes a WRONG, with nothing to gain from doing so. There are grey areas, but it's not that hard to categorize the vast majority of people who reveal secrets as either having done it for personal benefit, or having done it out of a plausible argument that this was necessary to stop a wrong from being committed.

    It is true (and courageous) that such people risk being charged with crimes to try to get the right thing to happen. But that DOES NOT JUSTIFY charging them with crimes! That's another wrong. There exist whistleblower protection laws precisely for that reason. And even when those laws don't apply, Attorneys General are supposed to ONLY initial prosecution when it is just and reasonable to do so.

    So lots of people are failing their responsibilities when someone who acted to expose wrongdoing (after other methods failed, and for no personal gain) gets prosecuted for doing so. A lot of the time, it seems pretty clearly to be a case of using the justice system to punish someone who embarrassed someone important, instead of using for, I don't know, say, for justice.

    •  Exactly. It's called prosecutorial discretion. (0+ / 0-)

      And when that discretion is used to go after whistleblowers who revealed seriously wrong government conduct, and not used to go after torturers, warrantless wiretappers, and the people who committed the bigges crimes of my generation, that's f*cked up.

      The Canary in the Coalmine is available for purchase at

      by Jesselyn Radack on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 02:43:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site