How to tell legit whistleblowers from political opportunists?
Surely, leaking is dishonest, and leaks can be dangerous. Loose lips sink ships. Yet, sometimes, we must stop the Ship of State. Shocking whistleblowers may be very ethical people trying to prevent disasters.
Let’s imagine a group of ministers discussing what to do to curtail the free press. You’d hope at least one of them raises the alarm.
No one can dodge responsibility claiming they were told to do so. Those sworn to secrecy may decide a situation is dire if not opposed instantly.
A new law to stop leaks seems too extreme. Also, the idea of submitting ministers to polygraph tests is not OK. They are unreliable because cold, unemotional con artists can fake the result—if they are smart. And whistleblowers must be protected, not chased down.
Stopping whistleblowers hinders a free press and democracy. No one is beyond scrutiny and suspicion. Yet, we need a safeguard against abuse.
A panel of the High Court should be allowed to judge if a cabinet leak is publishable based on their judgment if it seems to stem from political opportunism or could be valuable whistleblower’s work.
Just like not every scream of rape should automatically undo someone’s good name or be dismissed unless confirmed in a lengthy court case. A proper police inquiry (and the courts) are there to cut down a false alarm.
All reports of hostage deals are lies, of course, to mislead, wedge psychological warfare, and desensitize us against terrible deals.
It’s all scandalous. Taking hostages is a war crime. So simple. They must be freed immediately, with pressure from all States and bodies that signed not to commit war crimes. No bargaining allowed. And certainly not to exchange these innocent people for life, convicted terrorists from jail. Maybe for dead terrorists. We have thousands now. And absolutely not for a ceasefire helping the top Chamas leaders to escape from their hideouts.