Whistleblowers – Heroes or traitors?

[webfact]

Whistleblowers – Heroes or traitors?

Robert Hackwill

 

 

Snowden, Assange, Manning. A piece of art in Berlin representing the three famous whistleblowers is meant to encourage citizens to speak out. For some people these whistleblowers are heroes. For others, especially the US administration, they are traitors.

 

Chelsea Manning is the only one of the three to have served prison time. The 29-year- old transgender US army private was initially sentenced to 35 years for her role in leaking diplomatic cables to Wikileaks.

 

Wikileaks has published sensitive information for 10 years now, but made headlines worldwide in 2010 when it released Manning’s classified military documents. Especially shocking was the footage showing US soldiers who shot dead several Iraqi civilians from a helicopter. This caused a public outcry.

 

 

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange promoted the video. He remains holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, because by leaving it he may risk extradition to the US. To his critics, Assange is a publicity-seeker, but to his supporters, he informed the public about the hidden damage of US military actions.

 

“We have seen there are approximately 15,000 never previously documented or known cases of civilians who have been killed by violence in Iraq,” says Assange.

 

Like Assange, whistleblower and former intelligence agent Edward Snowden faces a life in exile. After leaking information about the extensive internet and phone surveillance done by the National Security Agency he fled from the United States to Russia.

 

“If we can’t understand the policies and programmes of our government, we cannot grant our consent in regulating them,” he insists.

 

 

Heroes or traitors? Certainly for the media world they are more often than not heroes. From Stanley Adams, who exposed corruption at Swiss drugs giant Hoffman-La Roche, a cause celebre in the 1970s and immortalised in song by British rock band The Fall…

 

 

…to Jeffrey Wigand, who exposed the fact that US tobacco companies knew how harmful their products were. He would be played by Russell Crowe in the 1999 Michael Mann movie.

 

 

Or there is Dr. David Kelly, a British weapons expert who tried to expose what he called the British government’s “sexing up” of reports claiming Saddam Hussein retained a chemical and biological weapons capability, used to justify the US-led invasion of Iraq. Television, not film, has examined his case.

 

 

In any case after the Snowden publications took place, the US Congress passed a historic NSA reform law. US President Barack Obama added further changes to NSA practices, and tech companies have been using encryption to better protect millions of people’s privacy.

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2017-01-19

[craigt3365]

Whistle blowing on specific events can be OK.  But releasing massive amounts of data with no vetting of the info doesn't accomplish the same thing.  Plus, if laws were broken, then justice must be applied.  It's a slippery slope when we starting deciding for ourselves what laws we obey and which ones we think we can ignore.

[johna]

A whistle blower, is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is illegal or unethical. within a private or publicn organization, usually putting themselves at great risk.............heroes

[impulse]

41 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Whistle blowing on specific events can be OK.  But releasing massive amounts of data with no vetting of the info doesn't accomplish the same thing.  Plus, if laws were broken, then justice must be applied.  It's a slippery slope when we starting deciding for ourselves what laws we obey and which ones we think we can ignore.

 

Agreed on the slippery slope, and the vetting.  But sometimes (like the Pentagon Papers) a massive amount of information is required -and appropriate- to show a pattern of behavior and cover ups.  Too easy for government entities to explain away or falsely debunk a specific event (think Roswell- but not too literally).  Not so easy to falsely debunk if there had been 100 UFO crashes (again, not to be taken too literally)

 

And since just possession of that information puts the whistleblower and his objectives at risk, I can understand why they'd be more anxious to put the information out there than to go through and redact thousands and thousands of pages.  

 

IMO it's even worse when government officials choose which parts of their oath (dare I say, scared obligations?) they observe and which ones they thumb their noses at.

[craigt3365]

37 minutes ago, johna said:

A whistle blower, is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is illegal or unethical. within a private or publicn organization, usually putting themselves at great risk.............heroes

And with regards to some info that's exposed, puts others at great risk also.  Kinda like Wikileaks exposing the health records of women in Turkey.  Disgusting.

[Mousehound]

Whistle-blowers that reveal illegal or unethical practises by government agencies or business are without any doubt in my mind heroes.

[thaihome]

1 hour ago, Mousehound said:

Whistle-blowers that reveal illegal or unethical practises by government agencies or business are without any doubt in my mind heroes.

 

So how do you feel about Wikileaks release of the Turkish data, that included personal information on millions of civilians?  

 

How do you feel about Snowden holding on to thousands of pages of NSA secret  documents having nothing to with his original revelations on email and phone interception? Documents whose current location while he is in Russia are unknown.

 

 Are they still heros? 

 

For me, I believe they both were doing what they thought was the right thing, then became victims of their own PR campaign and thought they could do no wrong in their continue pursuit of publicity and relevance. 

 

TH 

 

Edited January 19, 2017 by thaihome

[DM07]

I guess, you have to take some bad with the good!

So, in general, they are heroes!

[thaibeachlovers]

Heroes.

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, Mousehound said:

Whistle-blowers that reveal illegal or unethical practises by government agencies or business are without any doubt in my mind heroes.

Its taken me by suprise how many posters consider whistle-blowers traitors rather than heroes on the threads related to this subject !

 

I've come to the conclusion that many are so nationalistic that they hate anyone proving that their country has behaved badly, whereas others have little time for purely nationalistic considerations and prefer to know the truth about the wrong-doings of our governments and corporations.  Edit - as this is the only way we stand any chance of keeping them on the 'right' path, rather than being allowed to get away with anything they like.

Edited January 19, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[Kinnock]

5 hours ago, johna said:

A whistle blower, is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is illegal or unethical. within a private or publicn organization, usually putting themselves at great risk.............heroes

 

Well yes - in a perfect world.  But sometimes the so-called 'whistle blowers' have ulterior motives.  Fame, revenge, blackmail.

 

And in some cases there may have been other, legitimate, legal, but less adventurous ways of raising the issue.

 

In most cases I think they are more likely to be blowing their own trumpet rather than whistleblowers.  I suspect the 'heroic' motives are created after the event.

 

 

[Mousehound]

2 hours ago, thaihome said:

 

So how do you feel about Wikileaks release of the Turkish data, that included personal information on millions of civilians?  

 

How do you feel about Snowden holding on to thousands of pages of NSA secret  documents having nothing to with his original revelations on email and phone interception? Documents whose current location while he is in Russia are unknown.

 

 Are they still heros? 

 

For me, I believe they both were doing what they thought was the right thing, then became victims of their own PR campaign and thought they could do no wrong in their continue pursuit of publicity and relevance. 

 

TH 

 

Don't think I said they were heroes did I?  Did I say that the release of personal information or the theft of secrets made someone a hero?  I don't think so.  I stand by my comment. 

[dick dasterdly]

9 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

 

Well yes - in a perfect world.  But sometimes the so-called 'whistle blowers' have ulterior motives.  Fame, revenge, blackmail.

 

And in some cases there may have been other, legitimate, legal, but less adventurous ways of raising the issue.

 

In most cases I think they are more likely to be blowing their own trumpet rather than whistleblowers.  I suspect the 'heroic' motives are created after the event.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that ulterior motives are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to whistle-blowers, as any fame is more than off-set by the negative aspects of revealing the truth.  Having said this, fame and revenge may later become a small part of the equation.

 

"less adventurous ways of raising the issue" doesn't work in practice.

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Especially shocking was the footage showing US soldiers who shot dead several Iraqi civilians from a helicopter.

I guess this answers your question. Government cover ups accompanied by harsh jail terms to discourage future truth sayers. America has a loss of face problem similar to Asia. 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its taken me by suprise how many posters consider whistle-blowers traitors rather than heroes on the threads related to this subject !

 

I've come to the conclusion that many are so nationalistic that they hate anyone proving that their country has behaved badly, whereas others have little time for purely nationalistic considerations and prefer to know the truth about the wrong-doings of our governments and corporations.  Edit - as this is the only way we stand any chance of keeping them on the 'right' path, rather than being allowed to get away with anything they like.

Some of us have more respect for the law than for a whistle-blower. 

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Some of us have more respect for the law than for a whistle-blower. 

 

Just days after Martin Luther King Day, this quote from the man seems apt: "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Just days after Martin Luther King Day, this quote from the man seems apt: "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".

And who gets to decide what is just and what isn't? 

[dick dasterdly]

30 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Some of us have more respect for the law than for a whistle-blower. 

And some of us prefer to know the truth about the bad behaviour of governments and corporations, rather than 'respecting' the laws that protect them.

Edited January 19, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[optad]

22 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

And who gets to decide what is just and what isn't? 

 

Answer: Time, ultimately.

 

But courage, and conviction in that first instance. What shapes the law and better worlds other than ethics that the person to lead people from injustice/ from  bad spaces courageously into better ones? And how else do you want to teach children to craft ethical futures for themselves. 

 

Moral compass helps the bigger picture.

Edited January 19, 2017 by optad

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

And some of us prefer to know the truth about the bad behaviour of governments and corporations, rather than 'respecting' the laws that protect them.

Good luck with that.  Every government in the world has at least a bit of bad behavior! LOL

[sugarcane24]

8 hours ago, Mousehound said:

Whistle-blowers that reveal illegal or unethical practises by government agencies or business are without any doubt in my mind heroes.

I totally agree, especially keeping in mind that the major Western governments including that of the US are the world's biggest and vilest terrorist  organisations.

[anon467367354]

whistle blowers are heroes, releasing classified documents for personal gain or for the benefit of a foreign state or states is treason.

[Morch]

These either/or questions are too limiting. People can many things at  the same time. IMO, it's more a case by case issue, than a general "rule". And then, "hero" or "traitor" are relative terms - they are determined by perspective and narrative.

[Credo]

In the situation with Chelsea Manning, she was convicted and has served time.   Her sentence has been commuted and she was not pardoned.   Her conviction was warranted, but her sentence is the only thing up for discussion.   Since she will not have access to any sensitive gov't information, then there is little need to continue the incarceration.   She was low enough on the food chain and villainized enough to not be able to restore any communications with those that may have assisted her.   The commuting of the sentence is justified and humanitarian.   She presents no further danger.   

 

Snowden has served no time.   He is not a whistleblower, he is a traitor.   Assange on the other hand is just a hateful cowardly person.   Snowden I have some sympathy from and I suspect he could be rehabilitated.   I don't know that he meant harm.   Assange, on the other hand, deserves no sympathy.   He cannot be rehabilitated and deserves whatever bad things come his way.   Karma is a bitch.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Credo

[Roadman]

In the case of Manning I would be p!ssed as US commander in chief but as a world citizen happy with what occurred. Hero or villain? Depends where you sit. Just some one making a moral judgement. Outcome of doing some time then getting a pardon seems a fair call from either side you look at it.

[optad]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

These either/or questions are too limiting. People can many things at  the same time. IMO, it's more a case by case issue, than a general "rule". And then, "hero" or "traitor" are relative terms - they are determined by perspective and narrative.

You are right. I think 'context' really is the definer. Can be fickle but being calibrated to fix, helps.

[elgordo38]

18 hours ago, optad said:

And how else do you want to teach children to craft ethical futures for themselves. 

Build ethical futures for themselves needs a lot of work. Not to many role models around to teach them. Its fast becoming a world where the unethical succeed and the ethical well the majority are trying to hang onto the sinking middle class lifeboat. I like to consider myself ethical and my middle class lifeboat at the time sailed a good course and was sound. Today hmm glad I am where I am. 

[RuamRudy]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

These either/or questions are too limiting. People can many things at  the same time. IMO, it's more a case by case issue, than a general "rule". And then, "hero" or "traitor" are relative terms - they are determined by perspective and narrative.

 

To further complicate things, the rise of the 24hr media culture and fake news (not only the wilful dissemination of lies but the very notion that one should be wary of all sources) means that even the narrative can be very hard to discern.

[Skeptic7]

Heroes! Brave and self-sacrificing beyond my comprehension. Heroes of the highest order. 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Some of us have more respect for the law than for a whistle-blower. 

Really? In my opinion from working most of my life in public service, going through the correct channels does not work and is likely to have a negative effect on one's career prospects. Those that have never worked in public service have no idea about the way they rule by fear. To bring the bad activities of government activities to public light is usually a last resort and needs more courage than most have.