It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whistle-Blowers Watch Out, Your Not Protected

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
astronomer there is actually a WhistleBlower Act where they are protected. I suggest you read about it.




posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
In addition to the federal act, state legislatures protect whistleblowers too. In Washington, for example, it is unlawful to retaliate against employees who make complaints to supervisors or state agencies alleging workplace safety violations. The issue is that the complaint must relate to issues affecting the public or coworkers. If the complaining employee is acting out of self-interest he will not be protected.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I can accept whistleblowers being protected in cases of employer wrongdoing, or safety issues. But not when it comes to releasing classified documents.

Think about it: if you provided classified documents to a foreign gov't, what would that make you?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
would you accept the iraqi abuse case as rightful whistle blowing? how about the yellowcake/saddam thing? if the action is illegal yet its classified where do you stand then?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
The problem is they set a precedent with a case that was over incidents at a local level. So where does it go from there? This wasn't even a national agency or a ntaional issue.

Really quite disturbing when you think about it.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
would you accept the iraqi abuse case as rightful whistle blowing? how about the yellowcake/saddam thing? if the action is illegal yet its classified where do you stand then?

Which of those two cases involved leaking classified documents?

A classified illegal action could be a special case that I would not care to comment on. But if you do leak it, you should not leak it to the press, but to the proper authorities. And you should be willing to stand up and admit your action, not hide behind the moniker of "unidentified source".

I'm sure enough knee jerk reaction will erupt to incorrectly conclude that I am in favor of illegal action, that's why I don't care to comment on any specific case.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
you do know corruption runs rampade, so would you really risk it by telling say the FBI? face it, when whistleblowing on government actions, you dont go to an agency government run. you go to a source as far away from government affiliated as possible. whistleblowing can be life threatening depending on the situation, do you really want to risk it by telling "the proper authorities" when they are close knit with the government. the press is the safest route because it will catch wind the quickest, people will find out the quickest. If that action is illegal, it has every reason to be found out and not be classified.

its not the whistleblowers fault for telling the public, its the governments fault for taking the action in the first place. It would be like trying to blame the person who told on the kid stealing the cookie for the cookie being missing. No you blame the kid who stole it, not the person who told on him.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
you do know corruption runs rampade, so would you really risk it by telling say the FBI? face it, when whistleblowing on government actions, you dont go to an agency government run. you go to a source as far away from government affiliated as possible. whistleblowing can be life threatening depending on the situation, do you really want to risk it by telling "the proper authorities" when they are close knit with the government. the press is the safest route because it will catch wind the quickest, people will find out the quickest. If that action is illegal, it has every reason to be found out and not be classified.

Corruption does not run that rampant to the point where you cannot tell the proper authorities.

As far as risking your life. I seem to remember hearing something about freedom not being free unless you were willing to give your life for it? Do you remember that?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
yep risking your life when necessary. Its necessary he risk his life to tell about the illegal acts, but if he has a choice between the two i wouldnt blame him for not choosing the proper authorities. You dont know who is or isnt corrupt in the government. its not about how rampant it is its about who can you trust. the media is a much better way to get it out then a secret authority.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Corruption does not run that rampant to the point where you cannot tell the proper authorities.



I gotta go with grim on this one. There are times when corruption is so pervasive you cannot find the good guys, at least not any of them that are willing to stick their necks out for you. Sometimes, not even the press. I hope you never have to learn it first hand - any of you.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
JSOBECKY- One of your Homeland Security people was arrested for trying to pick up and have sex with a 14 year old. Marines execute children in Iraq. Your President has had over 30 scandals in six years, several are federal offenses like wiretapping American citizens and lying about WMDs in Iraq.

So are you going to your pedophile boss with a complaint? The marine who just got done shooting a 11 year old girl? Or the president who just got caught in another lie?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yumi
JSOBECKY- One of your Homeland Security people was arrested for trying to pick up and have sex with a 14 year old. Marines execute children in Iraq. Your President has had over 30 scandals in six years, several are federal offenses like wiretapping American citizens and lying about WMDs in Iraq.

So are you going to your pedophile boss with a complaint? The marine who just got done shooting a 11 year old girl? Or the president who just got caught in another lie?

The DHS scenario has absolutely nothing to do with whistleblowers. It is a law enforcement issue. The police should be notified in those cases.

The marine incident should be investigated by the military, as was done in Ishaqi and is being done in Haditha.

I won't even touch your rant about the president.

So, apparently you're not an American, since it is MY DHS, military, and president, eh?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by grimreaper797
would you accept the iraqi abuse case as rightful whistle blowing? how about the yellowcake/saddam thing? if the action is illegal yet its classified where do you stand then?

Which of those two cases involved leaking classified documents?

A classified illegal action could be a special case that I would not care to comment on. But if you do leak it, you should not leak it to the press, but to the proper authorities. And you should be willing to stand up and admit your action, not hide behind the moniker of "unidentified source".

I'm sure enough knee jerk reaction will erupt to incorrectly conclude that I am in favor of illegal action, that's why I don't care to comment on any specific case.



Under the case referenced here, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. In this case, the ADA was left without protection from retaliation specifically because he brought the matter to his superiors rather than publish it to the media.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join