Whistleblower report sparks controversy

The term “Whistleblower” has surged in activity in the recent news cycle. The word itself doesn’t necessarily shed light on the meaning, at least in the complex legal realm that it inhabits. The US has tried throughout its history to restrict and loosen the regulations surrounding the whistleblowing process, but the very nature of whistleblowers hasn’t shifted far from its original namesake. In the 19th century, whistles were the means that one police officer would use to alert other officers, hence the name whistleblower. It’s not a new idea to American politics either. With the central idea of alerting attention to a problem, Benjamin Franklin issued one of the earliest reports in American history, according to the Journal of American Revolution, when he exposed corruption to the public.
Official means were prompted by Samuel Shaw who exposed torturing of prisoners of war in the American Revolution, according to the Department of State. It was then, in 1777, the Continental Congress passed a unanimous vote for the Whistleblower Protection Act.
That idea of righting wrongs-of exposing problems- has remained an integral position in the importance of whistleblowers. Our system of government was created with the intention of righting wrongs and that spirit can be characterized further in the creation of the three branches of government that rely on the notion of balance.
The controversy surrounding whistleblowers has resided in whether or not the complaint is valid, particularly if the report on the suspected dealings with Ukraine. However, the importance of whistleblowers in America should not be underscored whether or not the complaints issued are valid. It’s important that the integrity of the claims are verified on a national level and that the injustices are brought to light. But it’s more important that we allow complaints to be released without fear of teardown and allow them their moment of trial.

Facebooktwitterpinterestmailby feather