> then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Congress it was a simple matter of bad apples who would be punished, not a systematic problem with new U.S. military policy.

Rumsfeld's story is symptomatic of how the US treats powerful people: once you arrive you will be among friends, your voice will be amplified by the press, with an infinitely wide safety net and no ability of any group to hold you accountable or even make a dent in your bottom line. For all of the hoo ha about American democracy, powerful individuals are sacrosanct and checks on power are devalued: in the courts, in government, in the workplace, and in culture.

**

Seems to me that we both are rankly speculating outside the bounds of the given evidence, no?

Whistleblowing is an essential theme of this article; by stripping it out of my rhetoric, we go spinning off into a generic tangent. While there are broader themes at work here as with anywhere, we're more likely to have an edifying discussion if we focus on the particulars: whistleblowing, the VA, mental health, and what Ian Fishback's case reveals about them.

All I did was bitflip your original statement and then change "individualism" to the equally general term "democracy."

In both cases the final statement is way too broad to be anything but a non-sequitur. A government intent on silencing whistleblowers is indeed a type of organization, but it does not follow that the behavior of all or even most organizations are beyond reproach.

Similarly, while Donald Rumsfeld played a role in the Bush administration, his role was one small part of our entire representative form of government.

To make the argument for either conclusion, there need to be more ideas connecting our final sentences to the ones that preceded them.

The "bitflipped" version expanded the theme from whistleblowers to "powerful people" — that's where I think it fell down.

In both cases there are broad generalizations being made, but in my version I was careful to circle back to the smaller theme. I try to do this consistently because avoiding "generic tangents" is in the HN guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

In retrospect, rather than relying on context, I could have explicitly qualified the final sentence to clarify that I was speaking of the relative weight of individuals and organizations in US society specifically with regards to the outcome of whistleblowing. I'd like to think there's something I could have done to have earned a more generous reading from you so we don't end up in a rhetorical gotcha game.

Have you noticed the utterly laughable political pardons and ass-covering that surrounded the worst failures of that war?

In any meritocratic society, the political careers of the people responsible would have been over, and a few of them should have at least stood trial for crimes against peace. Even if they were ultimately found not guilty, this is the kind of sword of Damocles that whistleblowers tend to face.

Instead, the only person of import whose career was truly destroyed was Collin Powell.

As JFK said about the Berlin Wall "Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect. But we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in -- to prevent them from leaving us." The American democracy doesn't need to be perfect. The problem is it's been idealised way to much. The reason America is the greatest country in the world (i say that from the UK) is because nowhere else do individuals enjoy such freedom and liberty to pursue happiness . Don't blame democracy, understand it's limitations.

Your last sentence is on point.

I bitflipped OPs statement, with the idea that if the opposing rhetoric sounds equally appealing then there's a strong possibility that neither of them are nutritious. :)

Edit: clarification

Has nothing to do with the US, is the same everywhere.

A whislteblower has acted against 'the group'. Nobody will want to touch you anymore.

That may be the case, but from a distance it seems like the US has more of a martial / military obsession than most western countries. Soldiers seem to be treated like saints, the president referred to as "Commander in chief", generals become household names even in peace time, etc. It's way more pronounced than anywhere in the G7.

So it's not a surprise to me that people who speak up against the military are shunned; not just by that group, but by society at large, which venerates the armed forces.

The US owes most of it's economy, assets, innovations and global respect due to it's military, starting from the world wars. Worship of the military is entirely expected, and i might say it works out largely to the advantage of the country as a whole. Remember the US has little history on which to build a culture.

We have a similar case in The Netherlands ( a military whistleblower ), but I have given up on trying to combat this American Exceptionalism.

I do wonder why so many really want it to be an American thing.

It is not.

But it does have history that we can use: what are its consistencies over the past couple centuries? Genocides and decimations and coups of democratically-elected leaders. Stealing technology and basically every other transgression the US accuses of China. The nearly ritualistic abuse and/or murder of nonwhite residents (and otherwise) with regularity.

What achievements justify the crimes it commits? For how long can it claim youth as an excuse?

Ah, but the US also produces "The Bachelorette," and McDonald's, so it's really a wash.

You just described pretty much all of Europe, except for Switzerland, which just banked for the others.

Being a nation that acts on the world stage is a messy and fraught business.

The big difference between the US and elsewhere is the hypocrisy. To a greater degree than other societies, the US mythologizes the individual, and so the gap between myth and reality is even wider.

I would like it to be different. I would like the US to live up to its ideals and aspirations.

Concretely, I wish that Ian Fishback had received rewards commensurate with his service and contributions — at the very least a comfortable life.

Oh, when will American Exceptionalism finally die already?

In The Netherlands, our government even setup a 'Whistleblowers house / safehaven' to 'encourage' whistleblowers.

You still get treated like shit, be blackholed, unable to find work, your taxes scrutinized etc.

It is really a deep psychological thing : you acted against 'the group'. Whatever words are spoken or laws are enacted, this is what counts. Has nothing to do with the US.

> the US mythologizes the individual

Well, part of this mythology is that the true individual often takes the less-traveled harder road.

The sensible countermeasure would be making sure such group doesn't have the power to unilaterally ruin your life if you expose its corruption, or be immune from the consequences of such corruption.

The legal system is clearly not up to that task, and not only in USA.

Regrettably, improving the lot of whistleblowers may be difficult to achieve legislatively or legally — even if a majority of the citizenry approves, the institutions will resist. It may be that the best way to make a difference is through NGOs like https://whistlebloweraid.org/# since at least they don't have to play by the rules of the organization. The US military may not be able to muster proper rewards for someone like Ian Fishback, but it can't stop a charity from at least disbursing aid.

What Rumsfeld meant was clearly that the incidents were isolated, but I can't help thinking when people use this phrase this that the full version is "a few bad apples spoil the barrel." It seems particularly appropriate here.

The phrase is certainly apropos, but I am not sure Rumsfeld would disagree. I believe it's implied that the behaviour of the bad apples will not be tolerated.

I think this is not just about the people in these organizations who are creating the harm, but more specifically how these organizations are propped up by the people (constituents) that support them.

In my view, when a organization has failed because of the people that run them are running them for the wrong reasons, then they only are able to do so by the people that support them. This systemic corruption is only a reflection of the society we create every day by or choices and actions. It will only stop when people change their life styles to be more supportive of others, and less about self-gratification.

I completely agree that the problems originate in the broader culture within which these organizations exist. However, I would use a different emphasis: I would like individuals to be more supportive of other individuals, and to be more skeptical of concentration of power in both private and public organizations.

In this context, that means treating whistleblowers, specifically, better.

Agreed, but we can only support better treatment of whistleblowers, by making different choices in our lifestyles. These corrupt organizations, that try to make whistleblowers the enemy, are propped up by institutions that are created an exist by our choices. I'm thinking about the [ending](https://youtu.be/vZNnDiDSUiI?t=98) of "Three Days of the Condor"

What in the world? He served 9 more years and got into Special Forces after blowing the whistle. Then he left to pursue a PHD and was likely on a path to an easy life. The fact that it all got derailed by what sounds like late onset schizophrenia doesn't mean he was treated poorly.

Bureaucracies are about blame dispersal.

The messenger will be shot.

I think the US generally is especially about this, and I think it explains a lot of behavior we have that may seem odd or nonsensical to outsiders.

There's a Russian photo-blogger I read a bunch of posts by years ago, and he pointed out something about us that I hadn't fully appreciated before: we post notices everywhere. Simple statements and whole pages of legalese junk. All over the place. You can't un-see it once it's pointed out. The Land of the Free was one of only two countries (he'd been damn near everywhere) that he noted as having this behavior of posting signs everywhere telling you what you couldn't do. The other was Australia, which he found to be the only place much like the US in a lot of other ways, too.

Of course, we do it because lawyers say we need to, so if someone does something stupid and gets hurt we can say we "told" them not to, so they'll lose if they sue us. Or so if we decide we want someone gone we can point to a posted rule as the reason even if that's not actually why (and of course posting a rule somehow gives it magic power, versus just deciding on it). Blame dispersal/deflection.

We're also big on tying up responsibility, punishment, and blame all together, in ways that I suspect are pretty damn harmful overall, including economically. Leads to a pretty gross culture of dishonesty, for obvious reasons.