Whistleblowing When most people think of whistleblowing they might think about recent events surrounding the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden outlining international and domestic surveillance programs. Or of the physical act of blowing a whistle by a referee to indicate a foul. Either way, whistleblowing is the indication of wrongdoing by someone. This paper focuses on the traditional form of whistleblowing by calling attention to governmental or organizational wrongdoing and some of the arguments for or against. When it comes to the release of information detailing unconstitutional government wrongdoing there can be people very much for it and some vehemently against it. There will be some who support the whistleblower and applaud their moral
…show more content…
There is substance to this claim as at the time Snowden was only a contractor for the United States and not an employee of the government. So claims against that he had stolen national secrets and released them has merit. Also the fact that the United States has charged him with crimes indicates that what he did was in fact illegal. People who view him as a traitor such as Senator John Kerry in an interview with MSNBC(Todd). The fact that Snowden, as a citizen of the United States, chose to expose secrets about his government can be seen as traitorous. That is a valid argument. There is also a strong argument to be made that the NSA was acting within the law. As director of national intelligence James R. Clapper states, ‘The National Security Agency’s collection of telephone and other communication data has been done entirely within the law; Americans are not being spied upon.’ (Clapper). There are many with this view point that believe that, but on the other hand many do not as they choose to believe the proof provided by Snowden in his leaks.
Another final argument whistleblowing is that it can be seen as morally justified. Being faced with wrongdoing a whistleblower has the obligation to expose the wrongdoing. There is strong merit to this claim as people like to believe that individuals have a strong moral compass. For instance, recent whistleblowing cases, from 1986 up to 20016, that have alleged fraud against the United States has in total recovered over nearly $9.6 Billion (Katel 268). With statistics like that there is merit in that most whistleblowers have strong moral guideline to prevent
There is substance to this claim as at the time Snowden was only a contractor for the United States and not an employee of the government. So claims against that he had stolen national secrets and released them has merit. Also the fact that the United States has charged him with crimes indicates that what he did was in fact illegal. People who view him as a traitor such as Senator John Kerry in an interview with MSNBC(Todd). The fact that Snowden, as a citizen of the United States, chose to expose secrets about his government can be seen as traitorous. That is a valid argument. There is also a strong argument to be made that the NSA was acting within the law. As director of national intelligence James R. Clapper states, ‘The National Security Agency’s collection of telephone and other communication data has been done entirely within the law; Americans are not being spied upon.’ (Clapper). There are many with this view point that believe that, but on the other hand many do not as they choose to believe the proof provided by Snowden in his leaks.
Another final argument whistleblowing is that it can be seen as morally justified. Being faced with wrongdoing a whistleblower has the obligation to expose the wrongdoing. There is strong merit to this claim as people like to believe that individuals have a strong moral compass. For instance, recent whistleblowing cases, from 1986 up to 20016, that have alleged fraud against the United States has in total recovered over nearly $9.6 Billion (Katel 268). With statistics like that there is merit in that most whistleblowers have strong moral guideline to prevent