Originally Posted by rufuspaul
No it isn't. "Providing a check on the government" can lead to serious breaches of national security. It's a perfectly logical argument. If anyone can be a whistleblower and whistleblowers can be protected then who can be trusted with confidential information that could have negative effects on security?
In other words whistleblowers can be good or bad depending on the circumstance. The difficulty lies in where to draw the line or if a line can even be drawn.
Of course they lead to serious breaches. But the only reason why they have to do what they do is because the whisteblower protection laws and the proper channels for whistleblowing are not effective. Off the top of your head, do you know the names of the NSA whistleblowers who came before Snowden? No, you probably don't. Because they were snuffed out and punished for trying to do what was right for our country through the proper channels. If the government doesn't want whistleblowers, then don't do stuff so bad that would cause people to whistleblow.