 |
| John André hanged (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/snowden-whistleblower-morning-joe/2013/12/17/id/542295?ns_mail_uid=63138517&ns_mail_job=1550560_12172013&promo_code=15FA9-1
I totally disagree. Here is the official, legal definition of a protected disclosure:
Protected Disclosures
“[A]ny disclosure of information”
that a covered employee “reasonably
believes” evidences “a violation of any law,
rule, or regulation” or evidences “gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial and
specific danger to public health or safe
ty” is protected on the condition that the
disclosure is not prohibited by law nor
required to be kept secret by Executive
Order.
Moreover, “any disclosure” made to
the Special Counsel or to the Inspector
General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency to
receive such disclosures, which the employee “reasonably believes” evidences “a
violation of any law, rule, or regulation,” or evidences “gross mismanagement, a
gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority
, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety” is also protected.
Do you see anywhere in here that making top secret information publicly available is protected? I don't.
Snowden may be a conscientious objector or a practitioner of civil disobedience. But, as I have pointed out many times in this space, such persons must be prepared to pay the price of their civil disobedience. If this were not the case, we all could pick and choose the laws we will disobey, and defend our actions by saying our conscience trumped the law. This can't be the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment