David Sirota: Why Edward Snowden Is the Definition of a Whistleblower
from In These Times:
Why Edward Snowden Is the Definition of a Whistleblower
The verdict on Snowden is in.
BY David Sirota
For months, a debate over Edward Snowdens status has raged. In the back and forth, one question about this icon who disclosed NSA abuses has dominated: Is he or is he not a whistleblower with all the attendant protections that should come with such a designation?
As of this week's federal court ruling saying the NSA's data collection programs are probably unconstitutional, that debate is finally over. After all, if the most basic definition of a government whistleblower is one who uncovers illegal or unconstitutional acts, then the ruling proves Snowden is the dictionary definition of a whistleblower.
Of course, there still remains a cottage industry of tough-talking saber rattlers slamming Snowden not merely for being in a foreign country, but more revealingly, for the disclosures themselves. These demagogues often invoke the age-old law-and-order cliches about classified information. Yet, based on what we now know, their criticism of Snowden actually puts them on the side of those who are systemically violating the very laws and constitution, which they purport to love. .......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://inthesetimes.com/article/16021/edward_snowden_whistleblower
xchrom
(108,903 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.
Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.
WowSeriously
(343 posts)They couldn't stop posting, now they can't post at all.
It's was perfectly ok to hold that position. But what is your position now?
elias7
(3,976 posts)I despise the "cue the this or that group in 3..2..1..." It is provocative and unnecessarily so, like starting an argument before there is even a disagreeing voice.
WowSeriously
(343 posts)There was a concerted effort to shutdown discussion about Snowden because it reflected poorly upon the President.
They had loud voices. Let them defend their position in light of the new evidence, or demonstrate that they can evolve their positions in light of new evidence.
Both approaches are perfectly valid.
elias7
(3,976 posts)But for someone who is neutral or ambivalent on many contentious issues, I find this to be a baiting tactic.
No one is silencing you. No one is saying you can't express your opinion. And if you believe people were trying to shut down discussion about Snowden, I get your anger.
But I also feel that many on your side ascribed the defense of Obama at all cost argument to anyone who disagreed with you, which I believe was unfair.
On this particular issue of Snowden, I am in agreement with you. I say dump the entire contents and give some fuel to the public to make changes, because it sure ain't happening through our legislature.
WowSeriously
(343 posts)It just frustrates me when we don't tie the past to the present. It's kind of like when a news organization publishes the story on page one and retracts the story on page 17.
But I shall try to ammend my ways so as to start discussions rather than stop them.
Thanks!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Kurovski
(34,655 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, marmar.