Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (153443)	1/3/2006 11:29:41 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793587

If the person didn't do it for personal gain, Everybody who leaks does it with the best of intentions. In this case, I don't think any court will hold for the defendant.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (153443)	1/3/2006 11:40:59 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 793587

If the person didn't do it for personal gain, didn't (intentionally) give aide and comfort to the enemy, didn't do it for the gain of a third party, and did it for patriotic reasons - it is whistleblowing That definition generously applies to the Cambridge spies. Good intentions don't make it any less damaging or illegal. Derek

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (153443)	1/3/2006 12:03:29 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793587

If the person didn't do it for personal gain, didn't (intentionally) give aide and comfort to the enemy, didn't do it for the gain of a third party, and did it for patriotic reasons - it is whistleblowing. No, good motives are not enough - or mercy killings and bombing abortion clinics would also have to be covered. The people who do those have good motives, too. The essential question is, was the program legal or was it illegal and unconstitutional? If it was legal, you don't get whistleblower protection no matter how much you disagree. But if you blew the whistle on an illegal abuse of power, then you should get the protection.