David Sirota: Why Edward Snowden Is the Definition of a Whistleblower

[marmar]

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 Snowden’s 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

[Vox Moi]

1. A whistleblower is not an apostate

People make a lot of comments about Snowden violating his 'oath' or agreement not to disclose NSA information.
Such an agreement, made in advance of getting the information cannot be held valid if the intent of the 'oath' is to protect an illegal activity.
If you attack Snowden on the grounds that he violated what amounts to a pre-emptive gag order, then what about the people demanding that sort of allegiance? That demand, if found to be sheltering illegal activity, should also be crime.

[Scuba]

2. +1