We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
JOURNALISTS HAVE ALWAYS regarded whistleblowers as saints. Now some politicians have fallen into the very same trap.
Journalists love whistleblowers because, by definition, they are willing to give you information that is private. But they learn, to their cost, that there are good whistleblowers and bad whistleblowers.
The information that is given to you by bad whistleblowers may prove to be no better than a heap of junk. Such people may be acting as agents provocateurs, may crave publicity for themselves or may simply be motivated by malice.
Good whistleblowers sometimes do need to have saintly qualities. They may suffer for their courage and their commitment to truth. They may be physically threatened, they may lose their careers, they may even be attacked in parts of the media.
The ethics of whistleblowing are most complicated, as Ireland has discovered following the row over the cancellation of penalty points for motoring offences.
The Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan became visibly upset under interrogation by an Oireachtas Committee. First, he seemed agitated that there should actually be any whistleblowers at all within his own force. Secondly, he felt that if such whistleblowers did exist it was entirely improper for them to lay their allegations before an Oireachtas committee.
The Commissioner seemed to be saying that all allegations of wrongdoing should in the first instance be taken to him. The implication is that he would then decide the appropriate course of action.
That the Commissioner should object to a probe by an Oireachtas Committee is extraordinary. What better way is there for the people whom he serves to assert the primacy of our elected parliament within our democratic system?
In the United States this problem is dealt with under the Whistleblower Protection Act (1989) which specifically provides for individuals to disclose information about any ‘serious or flagrant problem, abuse or violation of law’ to a congressional intelligence committee. The whistleblower must first bring the allegations to either the attorney general or the National Security Agency’s inspector general.
Our own Commissioner’s hard line got a mixed response from the media. In one sense, of course, he is correct. In order to maintain morale within the force he must defend the reputation and record of his officers until it is demonstrated that it would be wrong to do so in a specific case or cases. The Commissioner could not take disciplinary action against a serving officer merely on foot of an allegation. Otherwise, morale would collapse.
The job of An Garda Siochana is enormously difficult. It would be perverse if men and women, who must daily prove the guilt or innocence of others beyond reasonable doubt, should themselves be damaged simply on the basis of unproven allegations.
But the idea that Commissioner should vet all complaints is just wrong. The first principle of international law is that no man should act as a judge in his own cause. No Garda Commissioner can act as judge and jury in relation to complaints made against his force. It is absolutely vital that these complaints should be probed by an independent entity such as the office of the Garda ombudsman or indeed an Oireachtas committee. Or by both.
The issue of whether the probe should be public or private is a separate matter.
In the United States Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning is doing 35 years in the slammer. A soldier with the rank of private, who took an oath of secrecy, she dumped three-quarters of a million documents into the public arena without any regard for the interests or safety of anybody named in those documents.
Some of her disclosures are clearly in the public interest: they consist of video evidence of murderous attacks on civilians and journalists by the US forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But others are just diplomatic cables containing chit-chat.
To get the information out she used the services of Wikileaks. This service was created by Julian Assange, a computer hacker and journalist who puts himself about as a victim of the Pentagon but who is not formally wanted by the United States on any charge related to freedom of information.
There is no evidence that Assange, an Australian, conspired personally with Manning to steal or disseminate classified information. Wikileaks as a matter of policy does not insist on knowing the source of its information.
Assange is actually an ‘on the run’. Since mid-2012 he has been holed up in Equador’s embassy in London. He is resisting extradition to Sweden to face questioning on allegations of sexual misconduct with two women. Assange insists that the Swedish extradition warrant is a ruse. Once sent to Sweden he would be subject to ‘rendition’ to the US where he could face the death penalty for ‘aiding the enemy’.
Some regard Assange as the most important publisher of classified material since Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Others see him as a self-regarding flaneur, a sensationalist.
But it is the work of Edward Snowden the National Security Agency contractor who has revealed the massive scale of surveillance activity both within the US and in other countries that may ultimately prove of greatest significance.
Snowden has proven that George Bush, Barack Obama, the US courts and Congress itself have approved under the Patriot Act the tapping of all telephone calls and e-mails within the US and the tapping of all calls and e-mails made by targeted individuals outside the US including, oddly, those of trusted allies like Angela Merkel. This gathering of what is called ‘metadata’ has been done without any public disclosure of what is taking place.
The National Security Agency (NSA) has been permitted to monitor the movements of people across the globe using telephone tracking technology. It has acted as a sub-contractor for overseas intelligence agencies, doing tasks for them that are not legally permitted in their own countries.
The NSA targets vast numbers of people who are not terrorists, not criminals and who are entirely above suspicion. By any standards, Snowden has demonstrated a massive abuse of power by US authorities. It is obviously in the public interest that the people should know what is being done in its name to its telephones and its computers.
In order to get security clearance Snowden would have taken an oath. He is therefore vulnerable to prosecution under the US Espionage Act and for allegedly stealing information. He is currently in Russia where he has been given sanctuary.
A very nasty row beckons if Snowden returns from Russia. Government officials have lied under oath by denying his revelations, which are themselves demonstrably true. The scale of what is happening in the US is enormous.
It puts our own little spat here in Ireland into context. But, then, Gods make their own importance.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
In order to have a successful democracy, it is required that we know what the government is doing in our name.
Is that so complicated?
On the face of it no, but in instances where national security could potentially be involved/compromised then yes, it does become complicated.
So maybe we should give up “democracy” world as it’s confusing with real democracies like Athenian Democracy and call our system Nationalism.
Illegal acts committed under the veil of national security–how do you deal with that situation? That is the primary question. Under “national security, the state can, will and has done anything it chooses, illegal acts including murder, torture and violations of the constitutional protections that the state claims are afforded all citizens.
Your critique of “bad whistleblowers” pertains to the degree to which the journalist has to do their job more than if working on information from “good whistleblowers”, so I don’t consider that a valid critique but a slightly bizarre perspective for you to choose; do you want the guy to type the article for you too?
Given the career ending, financially devasting, legally threatening vilification that a whistleblower exposes themselves to, I’m struggling to think of an example where someone has been found to do it for the purposes of getting attention or malice. The whistleblower gets as good as no protection. That a Garda feels he has to refer to go from within his own Estate to another administrative estate is something that does need review however. I would not presume it tells us that the Garda was malicious or attention seeking however.
Regarding morality, the clichéd maxim rings true; had more whistleblowers prior to the banking crisis told the truth in the knowledge that they would be protected in doing so, my children wouldn’t be paying for the vast corruption and criminal mismanagement that went on.
Well said. This columnist appears to be attempting to smear anyone with the courage to oppose injustice, by casting aspertions as to the genuiness of their motives. Attention seeking could also be the primary motivation of some journalists.
Not really mate. State pensions cant be touched or withdrawn. Both whistle blowers are entitled to the exact same pay and pension regardless.
I think the article is excellent piece. Well done. Good read
The failure of Journalism in Ireland and its refusal to expose corruption in circles of power in Ireland has played a large part in the failing of this state.
Look at your colleagues and editors first Damien.
Very true. It should also be remembered that many US politicians, among others, called for the death penalty of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, some even went so far as to say they should just be executed by special forces. It seems somewhat hypocritical to me that a nation should have legislation to protect Whistleblowers yet when some come forward to reveal some of the most breathtaking abuses of Nation’s Authority there’s a doubt that they may be traitors.
In this country there can be very few agencies with power and authority that have not been shown to abuse that or at the very least have questions raised. Rather than protect whistle blowers our companies will often have contracts than make it explicitly clear they will be pursue any whistle blowers legally.
If you see or know of illegal activity in your workplace, would you reveal it, to whom? Would you seriously believe you’d be protected and hold onto your job? Not a chance. When those gardai came forward Martin Callinan was like spoiled child, running around trying to ensure we wouldn’t hear what they had to say and discrediting them before they even spoke. And we’re supposed to trust this man?
Callinan’s reaction was exactly like a bishop in Ireland confronted with an allegation of his priests and child abuse. Omertà!
Maybe these men are saints, maybe sinners. Maybe there is an agenda.
If they want to expose wrong doings in the Guards or in wider society then I welcome it.
Their motivations pure or otherwise are for them to ponder on.
We as a society benefit from whistleblowers and desperately need to encourage it.
Garda Commissioner visibly upset! You are having a laugh. This is the Garda Commissioner that last spring, told the Garda Association that every reported crime is investigated-untrue and then spoke of the determination of the Gardai to always get to the truth (after the publication of the Smithwick Report) – not true. Same Commissioner that is providing a protective shield to white collar criminal gangs that steal in excess of €4b per year from Irish consumers through criminal price fixing & market sharing cartels.
Can you clarify the white collar criminal gangs please, genuinely not sure, do you mean bankers?
They are saints, why else would they put themselves in such a difficult position, except to oppose the injustice and corruption that is rampant in this country. Whistleblowers’, should be put in charge of the country. Louise O’Keeffe would make an excellent Minister for Education because by now, she probably knows everything there is to know about the corrupt establishment management, and is the only person likely to do something about it. Whistleblowers could put right the many wrongs in this country. If the people want to express their gratitude to these honourable people they should nominate them for election and form a proper management team to put the country right again.
The more whistleblowers the better, we face a bunch of lying toads in government so what other way will we find out the truth about these scoundrels
As for the “Whistleblower Protection Act” in the USA, clearly it doesn’t apply to anyone who blows a significant whistle. Case in point being the fellow in Russia now. “He’s not a whistleblower” Obama said. “He could have worked within the system.” And the fact is, he did just that, but was told to turn a blind eye to illegalities.
And that being said, precious little “protection” is available anyway. You will still be attacked by your employers, still face vendettas. Oh, you might be able to sue for damages, but you’ll be years collecting a penny and black-balled from working in most industries.
So to blow the whistle is to entertain the economic death penalty, protection or not.
You will find very few saints in Irish media, journalist stoked the flames of the Celtic tiger promoting Bertie and the FF team. Bad news sell newspapers, knocking a person who stands up against the abuse of power and position that is happening in this country is a cheap shot that I am sure every whistleblower excepts from vested interests. Good and bad depends if you were involved in the whitewash of corruption or you are the idiot left paying for it. The Garda Commissioner is more worried about other gardai coming forward with evidence than the truth. In my view whistleblower are not saints, they emigrated like everyone else, I call them hero’s and it is a sad country that needs them to risk their own futures and that of their family. Comparing Ireland with America is laughable we are to busy fighting ourselves to bother with anyone else.
The whistleblower at the UEA/CRU did a great service to science by exposing the damning emails sent between various ‘scientists’ and the BBC, journal editors and to fellow scientists whom they deemed to be heretics. This whistleblower released just as few emails to start with as a warning or caution to those who were misbehaving [this was known as Climategate] but the warning was scoffed at leading to the release of the entire file of which 250000 emails are still encrypted. This was an example of a whistleblower acting for the common good who gave the miscreants every chance to mend their ways before releasing all the evidence of corruption. There were 7 whitewashes conducted but there has been a noticeable improvement in behaviour of the academics involved since.
I posted this as maybe we have some people who are reluctant to act as whistleblowers but who may be in a position where they can throw out a hint and maybe get results in a quiet and organised fashion?
So is the Guarda whistleblpwer a gpod or a bad one?
There are two of them. I expect Callinan will have done his level best to ruin their reputations before his resignation.
Was Callinan not trying to cover up the level of ‘fixing’ that goes on? The Minister colluded until he was forced to order an investigation, saying the PAC was at fault.
Whistleblowing is critical, especially in a culture like Ireland’s where the first reaction is to get things fixed, or fiddled.
Regarding your remarks on Assange, you might want to read the affidavit regarding the women’s statements on the charges http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#efmNojN05
have your say