10-20-2016, 10:26 AM
(10-20-2016, 10:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know that there is a lot of skepticism about fair treatment of whistle blowers in this country, especially when it comes to this sort of thing. But my position is that laws are in place for a reason and not everyone in the government is going to be coming after you. Had he approached someone he trusted in the government, even if it had been an elected official he felt would help, and gone that route than my opinion of him would be much greater. Our government is massive, and believe it or not (not necessarily directed at you specifically) most people in it want to do the right thing. Government workers are people, too, and are subject to the same violations of liberties and rights as anyone else.
If he had gone this route, public opinion would have been overwhelmingly on his side, and in that situation the government would have an extremely hard time throwing the book at him, especially if he had followed the guidelines laid out in whistle blower laws.
Good points. But now we are talking about his judgment and mental capacity as much as about whether his revelation of wrong was proper or not. I think the good deed trumps (pardon the use of the "T" word) the poor judgment/paranoia or whatever compelled him to share with whom he did.
I see no evidence of treasonous intent. And, if treasonous intent can be proven couldn't the government put on this proof in his absence. Perhaps trying him in absentia would be unprecedented, but isn't much about the matter unprecedented? Are they afraid he still has more he can retaliate with?
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
