By definition, a whistle blower must reveal evidence of the commission of a crime. The term does not extend to "actions by the government that I disagree with" or "things that violate my personal interpretations of the Constitution"
If you misuse the term, you make it more difficult for legitimate whistle blowers to get the protection they deserve.
> "things that violate my personal interpretations of the Constitution"
The fact that it's even feasible to release confidential information about government action implies that there is some ability for individuals to interpret the law. Otherwise, if the government does it, you just have to accept it as legal.
Yes, sometimes government actions are illegal, but a random individual can't know that unless they A) see a court case actually happen or B) interpret the law themselves and determine that the actions are illegal. Option A doesn't help whistleblowers, since the whole point of whistleblowing is to cause a court case to occur.
You're right that individuals do have to interpret the law, and choose their behaviour accordingly. AFAIK, it's only in the last hundred years or so that we've started to recognise human rights having precedence over a single nation's law, which makes it "legal" for individuals to act contrary to their nation's laws.
That recognition does make it easier (than it was) to counter, but there are still challenges, and they're unlikely to disappear soon.
Murder, torture, blanket domestic spying etc., are not (or have not recently been) considered crimes when the federal government is the actor. The line isn't so clear.
When they're given those labels, they are. The question is whether the actions are accurately described by those particular words. That's why phrases like "enhanced interrogation techniques" are employed, to make a distinction between that and torture, for example.
(Note, I'm not arguing that I think any particular actions are or are not criminal. I'm too ignorant of the details to meaningfully speak one way or the other.)
In the spirit of Pascal, I apologize in advance for not having a more eloquent, concise reply, though on my part its more exhaustion and laziness rather than lack of time.
People have different definitions of what constitutes torture. There is also a legal definition of torture (which may be vague, but will be determined judicially if it comes to that). By definition, torture is against the law. As people have different definitions of what constitutes torture, some acts will meet the legal definition, while others will not even though they meets the definition held by someone else.
I happen to agree with you that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a euphemism for torture. By defining certain acts as such, it gives proponents of using such acts a legal basis of arguing that they're not torture, whether it's ultimately justified or not.
Does that make sense? I'm not asking whether or not you agree with the distinction (which would be hard to do as I haven't defined which acts fall under either). I'm just asking whether the argument follows, that you understand why the language matters.
A similar distinction is made for killing in war and murder. Some people believe all killing is wrong and murder. That said, there's a legal distinction between the two. Which term is applied is legally important.
But what we have seen is that the govt violated the rules that were supposed to constrain them, hiding the illegal acts they committed. They fight to avoid having court cases address the true legality.
If you misuse the term, you make it more difficult for legitimate whistle blowers to get the protection they deserve.