I don't think whistleblowing is "sacred", in the sense that anyone who disagrees with his boss and gets fired for it has an aspect of Edward Snowden. [0] Instead it's like most human activities: sometimes good, sometimes bad, occasionally pointless. It's clear that one shouldn't bring explosives on commercial flights or indeed on any motorized vehicle not designed for the purpose, but it's also against regulations to bring apple juice on commercial flights. A line must be drawn somewhere, and I'm all for armaments manufacturers going out of business, but let's do it the right way. In the long run this accomplishes nothing.

[0] To be clear, Snowden is a magnificent human. If punching a hundred plutocrats would get him out of his predicament I would do it tomorrow.

Are you under the impression that people in this thread have lionized the plaintiff as if he were Edward Snowden?

I'm having trouble following your reasoning here. Because this incident of whistleblowing didn't bring down the armaments industry, it is essentially worthless? Because the TSA can be stringent against mundane and otherwise safe carry-ons, that this means we shouldn't judge those who think it safe to bring undisclosed explosives in their carry-ons?

It's my impression that we're talking past each other, to some extent. The idea that there is a "proper" way to develop and market remote anonymous deathmurderbots (the evil purpose of which is well known) is so bizarre that it renders all other aspects of the discussion somewhat vague and insubstantial. If the point is that the Law should protect "bad" people as well as "good" people, then sure I agree. The way that things work in this dingy corner of America, however, is typically more arbitrary than that. It's difficult to take any story we get from this quarter at face value.

It is interesting, which threads inspire the sort of "policing" we see here. Is it so important that we all agree about things we cannot possibly know?