Em sua campanha em 2007, Obama disse que daria a maior força a denunciantes de irregularidades em seu governo.
Em sua campanha em 2007, Obama disse que daria a maior força a denunciantes de irregularidades em seu governo. E agora, contradizendo-se, cai de pau em cima de Edward Snowden.
Veja o que consta no site da campanha dele na época:
The Obama-Biden Plan • Agenda • Ethics (2007)
http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/
“Proteger denunciantes: Frequentemente a melhor fonte de informação sobre desperdício, fraude e abuso no governo é um funcionário público engajado com integridade pública e desejoso de falar. Tais atos de coragem e patriotismo, que às vezes podem salvar vidas e valorizar o dinheiro dos contribuintes, deveriam ser encorajados em lugar de sufocados. Precisamos apoiar empregados federais como vigias de mau comportamento e parceiros do bom desempenho. Barack Obama vai reforçar leis de denunciantes para proteger funcionários federais que exponham essas mazelas e o abuso de autoridade no governo. Obama vai assegurar que agências federais acelerem o processo de verificação de avisos de denunciantes. Além disso, esses denunciantes terão acesso irrestrito aos processos.”
{ via Gilberto Costa }
+1 canalha descoberto...
ResponderExcluirVoces estão confundindo "Whistleblowing" com "Quebra de contrato top-secret" :)
ResponderExcluirA whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).
ResponderExcluirThe Continental Congress enacted a whistleblower protection law on July 30, 1778 by a unanimous vote.[2] The Continental Congress was moved to act after an incident in 1777, when two sailors blew the whistle and suffered severe retaliation by Esek Hopkins, the commander-in-chief of the Continental Navy. [3] Congress declared that the United States would defend the two whistleblowers against a libel suit filed against them by Hopkins. The Continental Congress also declared it the duty of "all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other the inhabitants thereof" to inform the Continental Congress or proper authorities of "misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge."
Please note the following excerpt from your own text:
ResponderExcluir"all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other the inhabitants thereof" to inform the Continental Congress or proper authorities of "misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge."
I don't think The Guardian qualifies as "proper authorities." under any circumstances. Furthermore, he was certainly under a non-disclosure agreement and other restrictions of top-secret or secret clearances.
Had he been an external entity who hacked into the government website and exposed the problems, I'd probably side with him.
The most interesting part of this is how he exposes the government wrongdoings to the world and then flees to China and Russia next. As we all know, those countries have an impeccable record of human rights and respect to their citizens...
I rest my case...
ResponderExcluir