Maybe just skipping ahead a few steps before getting pulled into a debate about the US government, do you agree with the concept of representative democracy involving different branches with checks and balances being a philosophically strong foundation for governance?  Is your complaint that the US government is an imperfect execution of a fundamentally sound concept, or that the entire idea underpinning our government is irredeemably flawed?

I'm not eager to get into a conversation where you end up saying "But democracy sucks, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."

-david

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:18 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem with whistleblowing is that whatever was going on wrongly, it was almost certainly happening in order to make somebody powerful actually be far more powerful, whether directly or indirectly.  There's likely huge incentivisation to pull far more strings to suppress problems.  Like the killer who becomes a serial killer because it's all they have left, except it's your head of state.

Here's another quote:

However, according to a report that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs submitted to accompany S. 743, "the federal whistleblowers have seen their protections diminish in recent years, largely as a result of a series of decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over many cases brought under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). Specifically, the Federal Circuit has accorded a narrow definition to the type of disclosure that qualifies for whistleblower protection. Additionally, the lack of remedies under current law for most whistleblowers in the intelligence community and for whistleblowers who face retaliation in the form of withdrawal of the employee's security clearance leaves unprotected those who are in a position to disclose wrongdoing that directly affects our national security."[8]