Do Whistle Blowers Make The World A Safer Place? Please Debate

First, I want to ask for the Mods to move this topic if need be.

Recently I witnessed a very heated debate that aired on the BBC. Of course the famed Julian Assange was present along with several other "journalist". The arguments were actually strong for both sides.

While viewing the debate my husband and I began to discuss the issues, but our discussion became so heated I walked out of the room in order to keep from losing it. We both needed to cool down.

Here were the points made and the link to the video. It is about an hour and a half but well worth it.

viddler.com

The points that led the discussion between my husband and I are as follows:


Number one: If someone is engaging in immoral and/or criminal behavior that is threatening someone's well being, do you release that information even if will damage your own country and threaten your loyalty?

Number two: Do you release any and all information regardless of how trivial it may seem to you without having full disclosure of the repercussions?

These are only 2 of the main points that were brought up. I will save my opinion for later.

As always thank you for your time,

Pax

Its a touchy subject.

There is one scenerio where it is a good thing and one where it is a bad thing.

Good scenerio- Releasing info where innocents aren't in danger.

Bad scenerio- Releasing info where innocents are in danger.

The bad thing about whistle blowers is that they rarely know if the info they are releasing will put innocents in danger. It may seem like a good idea, but the info they release might or might not be able to, with other info they do not know existed, lead to people being killed.

Its a slippery slope with a lot of blind curves in it.

reply to post by paxnatus


Well, someone has to get the truth out right? Then again it may not always be the truth they are telling.

I'll go with the truth.

It's always the best option.

The rest seems to be up to everyone else.

Well the only thing that should be considered, using wikileaks as an example:

How may people have died from the release of cables from Julian Assange?

Now, how many have died due to the illegal wars that are ongoing?

( Famous words from Ron Paul on the Senate floor )

Case closed.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Well the only thing that should be considered, using wikileaks as an example:

How may people have died from the release of cables from Julian Assange?

Now, how many have died due to the illegal wars that are ongoing?

( Famous words from Ron Paul on the Senate floor )

Case closed.

Okay, here is my opinion. First you need to define what a Whistle Blower is.and is Not...

According to the debate, a Whistle Blower is anyone whom releases information regarding criminal corruption or immoral behavior. It has nothing to do with whose side you are on. Example if you were privy to information regarding the mistreatment of our known enemy prisoners do you release this info.? Yes! A Whistle Blower would.

A Whistle Blower is NOT someone whom releases every last detail they know about a Head of State, Example: The Prime Minister of Germany is a real bore and has no personality.

The last statement disqualifies Julian Assange as a Whistle Blower and makes him more of an irresponsible busy body, fronting as a journalist.

Pax

Who decides?

Seriously! Who decides what is best kept secret and what is best to be released?

What is to prevent abuse, keeping legit info under wraps to help your buddies?

One simple example is the Warren Commission. Why did so much evidence have to be kept from the American people for multiple decades? If the Warren Commission truly answered all the questions necessary, shouldn't all this info be released?

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. ~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

Let the chips fall where they may. Truth is truth and in the long run that can never change.

They do the right thing. Everyone should. Its not about safety.

I completely agree with the statement "The truth stands alone". However, lets say a group of children have been kidnapped by a foreign country and we need our Intel. to rescue them. We have discovered the whereabouts of the kids and our mission to reach them has been laid out. Should a journalist from the side of the perpetrators, who stumbled upon this information then go public with it. Perhaps for him it means honor and favor in his country but for those children it means certain death. He would be considered a Whistle Blower right? In this case he should keep his mouth shut if he has a human soul. No question.

Pax

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I am a big supporter of Ron Paul, and have been for a few years now, based mainly upon his push to have the Fed shut, permanently. And while I do see the sense in keeping some information secret for the direct protection of armed forces and civilians, they are inherently in far more danger when those troops are sent in to areas of the world where they probably shouldn't be in the first place. It's all well and good and very simple to ask "how many people were killed because of x and y", but there is simply no way to prove or disprove it, and at the same time, you can ask yourself that question about a great many things - things that have been kept secret. How many people have been killed by the secrets kept by the Bush administration? By the Clinton administration? By Lyndon Johnson's administration? People all around the world suffer for secret actions every day - I'll take judicious revelation of things done in the name of "national security" over the ones done in the dark, thank you very much. Let the people be the judges, and let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.

If its behind closed doors and it doesnt deal with the TOP SECRET life and death issues - it should be public. and as far as the rest of the stuff... they shouldn't be doing it in the first place if its against what we stand for.
this deceptive crap has got to end - and I hope it ends really badly for them.

reply to post by Telfer


Exactly. the secrecy has gotten out of hand. Did you know there were some 16 million documents classified as secret.

The " whistle blowers " out there are only bringing truth to light, and being punished for it.

So should we remove the ref from a football game because there is a possibility of someone getting hurt in the stands when the ref calls a penalty? Oh wait, it happens anyway, whether the ref blows that whistle or not. If the media did their job regulating the government instead of changing the subject, then the people wouldn't have to pick up the slack and maybe, just maybe, the governments of the world would operate just a little more honest in the future. As I see it by the argument against whistle blowers is just continuing the lies, and the lack of whistle blowers allows the governments to create accidents to shut people up, making people more fearful of telling the truth. I personally am sick and tired of the double standards of the governments. If we lie its perjury, if they lie its national defense. If we seek revenge its murder, if the governments seek revenge it's justified. The lies must stop somewhere. Does this justify collateral damage? No, but the needs of the few should never out weigh the needs of the many, but this seems to happen every day with the needs of the elite versus the needs of the common people. IMO