Snowden isn't a whistleblower because...the law.

[ProSense]

HRW (and this is from a piece critical of whistleblower protections) :

The federal Whistleblower Protection Act exempts from its protections whistleblowers in the intelligence community, including defense contractors. The most legal protection on which such employees can rely is the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which provides a channel for whistleblowers to take matters of “urgent concern” first to the inspector general of the Department of Justice and then to a congressional intelligence oversight committee. However, this law does not provide any legal right of action for such whistleblowers to protect themselves against retaliation for reporting their concerns in these ways, and in practice, even continuing access to congressional committees can be thwarted by agency heads, who usually can identify the whistleblower concerned.[11]In October 2012, the Obama administration released a Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-19) intended to bolster protection for national security whistleblowers; it requires agencies to establish a process by which whistleblowers can seek review of prohibited retaliatory actions. The directive was widely criticized as window-dressing, however, because it explicitly denies whistleblowers the ability to obtain legal enforcement of any rights or procedures set forth under the directive.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/18/us-statement-protection-whistleblowers-security-sector#_ftnref5

He has no protection under the WPA, and failed to use the channel available to him. Even if Snowden wasn't exempt from the WPA, his actions would still be called into question.

Still, why did he go out of his way to put himself outside any protection?

Snowden knew there was no wrongdoing. Some claim he's a whistleblower because he believed the program was illegal. I don't buy that. He knew damn well that wasn't the case. If he really believed he had stumbled onto something illegal (a moot point because his actions were premeditated), he would have used the appropriate channels. As controversial as these programs are because of the potential for abuse, there is no evidence of anything illegal or any abuse of power or anything that qualifies as whistleblowing. Opposing the program is not enough. Snowden's opinion is not enough.

Although HRW states the need for stronger protections, even if such protections were in place, Snowden would likely still have bypassed the appropriate channels. His intent was not accountability.

Fleeing to Hong Kong didn't help his case: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023162351

[Thinkingabout]

1. Do you think he might be someone's patsy? Maybe they promised him protection and

Dropped him. Can't figure what he had on his mind.

[Major Nikon]

7. I think that's possible

The timing of Snowden's leaks coincided with Obama's trip to China. So think about who had motive, intent, and the ability to manipulate Snowden. From there it's just a matter of opportunity.

Regardless of whether Snowden was manipulated or not, I think it was his plan to make millions off his story and live abroad indefinitely as a rich person. I don't buy his story at all that he did it for the sake of liberty. I think he was just an opportunist who thought he was smarter than everyone else.

[davidpdx]

66. Could be

Only time will tell. It appears that Greenwald had contact with Snowden for quite awhile prior to getting information from him. There are times when it seems like Assange is running the show from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

[pnwmom]

63. I wouldn't be surprised if he went to Greenwald and/or Assange with the powerpoint slides

and they said: well, this is interesting -- why don't you get more? But go back and get info on US spying on other countries this time. So he got himself hired into the Booz Allen job, and downloaded thousands of additional documents related to our spying on other countries. They must have convinced him that he'd be a hero for doing this.

But he'd have a lot more credibility here in the US if he'd stopped with releasing the power point files.

[reusrename]

67. How about he's a decent, ethical person?

I understand how that concept is far beyond the reach of some people here.

Still, it makes the most sense.

[woo me with science]

68. +1

[Thinkingabout]

74. He has proven he participated in a Spy and Lie conspiracy, no good will come to him.

It is garbage in and garbage out, he lied to get into a position to steal files and his "friends" got the lies going. He was much too anxious to say "its me, my name is" apparently thinking "now I am a hero and have come to save the world".

[msongs]

2. following orders is not a defense nt

[PoliticAverse]

3. "Snowden knew there was no wrongdoing." - Between the Zimmerman case and the Snowden one,

I'm amazed at all the mindreaders DU has. Surely one of you could claim the JREF $1,000,000 prize...

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

[ProSense]

5. I don't

"I'm amazed at all the mindreaders DU has. "

...have to one of the "mindreaders." I'm forming an opinion, but it's also based on comments by Snowden an Greenwald indicating that the goal was to spark a debate.

In my first substantive discussion with Edward Snowden, which took place via encrypted online chat, he told me he had only one fear. It was that the disclosures he was making, momentous though they were, would fail to trigger a worldwide debate...Snowden, at least in that regard, can rest easy. The fallout from the Guardian's first week of revelations is intense and growing.

If "whistleblowing" is defined as exposing secret government actions so as to inform the public about what they should know, to prompt debate, and to enable reform, then Snowden's actions are the classic case.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023016898

That's not the definition of a whistleblower. Sparking a debate is not a valid reason to leak classified information, and it damn sure isn't a reason to release U.S. state secrets to other countries.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. Let's be real, your opinion has been unchanged since the initial leak.

Your opinion hasn't formed or evolved. It's remained steadfastly against Snowden even before the smear campaign.

[ProSense]

9. Is that

"Let's be real, your opinion has been unchanged since the initial leak. Your opinion hasn't formed or evolved. It's remained steadfastly against Snowden even before the smear campaign."

...a good or bad thing? Do you suppose anyon who insists Snowden is a whistleblower has changes his or her mind?

Have you changed your mind? I mean, you're characterizing criticism of Snowden as a "smear campaign."

I never thought of Snowden as a hero or whistleblower, and I still don't.

[Gravitycollapse]

11. It means that your opinion of the man is motivated by outside forces.

Your unwavering opinion seeks only those stories that confirm your preconceived narrative. Why you do that is a question only you could answer.

[ProSense]

13. That

"It means that your opinion of the man is motivated by outside forces. Your unwavering opinion seeks only those stories that confirm your preconceived narrative. Why do you that is a question only you could answer."

...makes no sense. What the hell does "your opinion of the man is motivated by outside forces" mean?

Are you going to pretend that people who support Snowden aren't posting only stories in support of him?

[Gravitycollapse]

15. No, there are shills on both side of the issue. Both attempting to maintain preconceived narratives.

You just happen to be the most motivated.

I said only you could explain your motivations.

[reusrename]

69. Let's start a process of elimination.

We can immediately rule out moral or ethical motivations.

[PoliticAverse]

8. "Sparking a debate is not a valid reason to leak classified information" - Fortunately Ellsberg

felt differently.

[ProSense]

10. Ellsberg

"Sparking a debate is not a valid reason to leak classified information" - Fortunately Ellsberg felt differently.

...revealed wrongdoing and went through the appropriate channels. He also didn't flee the country and give U.S. state secrets to other countries.

Still, you went from objecting to the wrongdoing claim to now implying that whistleblowing is intended to spark a debate.

[PoliticAverse]

12. Ellsberg went through 'appropriate channels' ?! You know what he did was illegal, right ?

I never mentioned the word 'whistleblowing' (that seems to be a term you are fixated on).

[ProSense]

17. Yes, and

"Ellsberg went through 'appropriate channels' ?! You know what he did was illegal, right ?"

...do you know that whistleblower protections don't change the fact that leaking classified information is illegal?

He still went through the appropriate channels.

Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate; it's something everyone with a security clearance knows. It's written in plain English on the documents you have to sign when you get a security clearance, and it's part of the culture. The law is there for a good reason, and secrecy has an important role in military defense.

But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023068663

Jimmy Carter on Snowden: "He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023119933

[PoliticAverse]

18. "He still went through the appropriate channels" - The New York Times was "an appropriate channel"??

[Arctic Dave]

4. LOL.

Catchy tune dontcha think?

[Zorra]

14. Congressman Alan Grayson on NSA surveillance: ‘Are we that stupid?’

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/30/congressman-alan-grayson-on-nsa-surveillance-are-we-that-stupid/

Sunday, outspoken Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, criticized the NSA and said Snowden’s disclosures had brought troubling behavior to light.

“It simply doesn’t matter whether he is a good person,” Grayson said of Snowden to MSNBC’s Betty Nguyen.

What is significant for Grayson is what Edward Snowden brought to light—telephone companies turning over phone records for telephone calls regardless of whether they were international. “Spying has damaged U.S. foreign policy, harming our reputation in a deep and long lasting way,” he said.

Grayson added that Snowden’s revelation “is an I.Q. test for America. Can’t we parse out what’s useful from what’s not useful? Are we that stupid?”

[ProSense]

19. That

"Snowden’s disclosures had brought troubling behavior to light. “It simply doesn’t matter whether he is a good person,” Grayson said of Snowden."

...still doesn't make him a whistleblower. The program was always "troubling," that has nothing to do with its legality.

At a trial, his actions, character and motivations will be called into question. What's not going to matter is what Grayson or I think of him.

This thread is about his status as a whistleblower, which he clearly isn't by law.

[Zorra]

33. "If he really believed he had stumbled onto something illegal...he would have used the appropriate

channels".

Aww, that's nice...you gotta be kidding me.

Sorry, but this thread appears to be a lame attempt to further discredit Snowden by claiming he's not a whistleblower.

"A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet". ~ Shakespeare

"Snowden’s disclosures had brought troubling behavior to light. “It simply doesn’t matter whether he is a good person,” Grayson said of Snowden."

[CakeGrrl]

62. He ISN'T a whistleblower.

He didn't like what was going on, so he decided to steal the data and share it around.

He did not uncover ILLEGAL activity. That's blowing the whistle on something that isn't supposed to be going on, not just because you find it morally reprehensible or "troubling".

If it were illegal and could even REMOTELY be connected to the WH, as so many here think POTUS is practically pulling the puppet strings, the MSM would be all over it and he'd be impeached faster than anyone could take a breath.

Any attempt to call out what Snowden did for what it is is labeled an 'attack' or trying to 'discredit' or 'smear' him.

No one has to smear him. His actions speak for themselves, as do the rejected requests for asylum and the narrow, narrow options available to him.

He stole data. Like it or not. Many want to overlook it, but in the reality-based world, the DOJ has filed charges for his theft and it's going to hang over his head as long as he's in asylum.

[Vinnie From Indy]

16. Who is this Edward Snowden you write about?

Does he like green eggs and ham?
Does he like them in a box?
Does he like them with a fox?

[Kurovski]

71. Does he like them in Bolivia?

Or in Puerto Morazan?

[Art_from_Ark]

75. Does he like them with a romancer?

Does he like them with a pole dancer?
Does he like them in a Chinese train?
Does he like them in a Bolivian plane?

[truedelphi]

20. Uh, Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers shows you can break the law and still be

A whistle blower.

Period. Depends on the need for the release of the material the person has at hand being of a greater value to the public than keeping it secret.
We are already seeing in Bradley Manning's case that the judge has spoken out in a way indicating that the prosecution against Manning must show evidence that he acted out of an evil intent.

Also And I may have posed this question before here on DU; no one yet has answered it: If being guilty of treason and/or espionage are now charges against Snowden, and the very definition of treason and/or espionage involves the participants interaction [h2][font color=red]with an enemy, [/h2][/font color=red] then just who is the enemy with whom Snowden interacted?

In this case - it is everyone that is being spied on, including the citizens of the USA. We are the official enemy of the Corporate Controlled Government.

[KharmaTrain]

77. His Trial Made Those Papers A Very Big Matter...

...in it he was able to reveal illegal actions by both LBJ and Nixon and was found innocent by a jury of his peers. If Snowden is this supposed "whistleblower" then he, too, should be able to present a case to a jury of peers and the American people rather than hiding in some foreign country. He could have brought this information to Senators Sanders or Wyden and surely gotten protection and a fair hearing. He also has the support of Constitutional Lawyer Bruce Fein who could use a trial discovery to expose Prism, Booz-Allen and all aspects of the surveillance program. Running away diminished any whistleblowing and his disclosing of what he had to the Chinese and/or Russians brings his motives into question. Again...it can all be cleared in a trial...Ellsberg did it, no reason Snowden can't either...

[truedelphi]

81. I don't think you understand what rendition is.

Or torture.

Or being "disappeared."

We have already killed an American teenager with a drone, while he was with his young cousins, also killed. In that instance, Obama spokesman said that the teenager should have done a better job of picking his parents.

We allow our banks to foreclose ILLEGALLY on people.

We are basically a nation without laws for the major interests. (Unlike during the Nixon era, when laws for the major interests still existed.)

I for one do not blame Snowden at all for going off to Hong Kong.

And what proof can you offer that he disclosed anything to Russian or Chinese agents? His only source for distributing what he has is Greenwald.

[KharmaTrain]

82. The Proof...

...will be at his trial. That's his Constitutional right and he will be given the opportunity to present what information he has about abuses of civil liberties...even having the power to subpoena the NSA, Booz-Allen and others who he feels are violating rights...or what he perceives them to be. It'll be up to a jury of peers to determine if he truly is a whistleblower or a spy or somewhere in between...not a military tribunal...but the system established by the same founders who wrote that coveted Fourth Amendment. Inversely, the federal government will have the burden of proof to show that Snowden did steal classified information and if it was given to a foreign government.

Sorry...this isn't Jose Padilla who was considered an enemy combatant and detained under a regime that was overseen by war criminals. He isn't Manning who violated the UCMJ and his case will held by a military tribunal. Snowden was indicted on Federal charges and his case would be in a Federal, not military court. Sorry, no disappearing...he may even qualify for bail...that is if he isn't a flight risk. He has high powered attorneys such as Bruce Fein and other Constitutional lawyers who should gladly help defend him and use the opportunity to expose the corruption and abuses within the surveillance apparatus. This case would be very high profile...most definitely on the Innertoobs.

As it stands right now, by running and putting himself in diplomatic limbo, Snowden has "dissapeared" himself...

[truedelphi]

83. There is no way to politely say this, so here goes:

Bwhahahahahaha!!!

[woo me with science]

21. Prosense: "Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal."

"He knew there was no wrongdoing." Really. The hypocrisy reeks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[ProSense]

23. Can't quit

being disingenuous, huh: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122617

Do you stand by this post, Prosense?

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

Yup, stand 100 percent behind it.

Ever heard of the PAA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

By all means, go on pretending you never received a response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122942
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3125366
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122561
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133751
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134370
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060#post86
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023169023#post167
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023185307#post1

You know I'm going to post this everytime you post your failed gotcha, don't you?

No, you can't quit being disingenuous:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3186751
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3186886
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3187300

[Gravitycollapse]

88. Commenting to bookmark. Thanks.

[Savannahmann]

22. Yawn

Another day, another ProSense nothing to see here all is well the Administration is awesome post. Besides, if you don't agree you're probably a Libertarian/RW Troll or a dolt who doesn't understand that this is all fine/legal/awesome/great for us all.

[ProSense]

25. Maybe

"Yawn

Another day, another ProSense nothing to see here all is well the Administration is awesome post. Besides, if you don't agree you're probably a Libertarian/RW Troll or a dolt who doesn't understand that this is all fine/legal/awesome/great for us all."

...you should wake up. Your dreaming up straw men.

[Savannahmann]

32. I don't know about a strawman.

But I know I'm still in the minority. Roughly 45% of the people polled thought that it was wrong that the NSA/CIA/FBI/Booz Allen was doing this. http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

But I know I'm still in the minority. I know that the numbers of people who think this is OK, is shrinking, and soon they will be in the minority, if I keep pointing out the logical fallacy of the arguments justifying it, I can convince one person, and that one person is another on the right side, the civil rights side specifically. So I'm going to do what I did to help get Obama elected. I'm going to argue, and harangue, and I'm going to keep it up until a majority agree with me.

I'm not winning the argument yet, but I'm closer to winning it then we were a few short years ago. In another few months, and the way that the world is turning against us, it may not take that long. We'll end this crap before the fucking Republicans get in office and use that database to start to hunt us down. History tells us that already happened, and for some reason, many on our side seem determined to bring back the worst days of our history. We want McCarthyism, and for the life of me I can't figure out why.

No, I'm not using the Strawman. I'm just pointing out the consistency, if inaccuracy of your posts.

(Isn't this the part where you snip a portion of my reply and pretend that is all I said? If you like, I can highlight the best parts to take out of context.)

[ProSense]

35. No,

"No, I'm not using the Strawman. I'm just pointing out the consistency, if inaccuracy of your posts. "

...you weren't. This:

"Another day, another ProSense nothing to see here all is well the Administration is awesome post. Besides, if you don't agree you're probably a Libertarian/RW Troll or a dolt who doesn't understand that this is all fine/legal/awesome/great for us all."

...is not "pointing out the consistency, if inaccuracy" of my posts. That is a straw man.

As for the poll, it has nothing to do with the point of the OP.

[Savannahmann]

36. But that is the gist of your positions.

Now, if you keep taking my comments out of context, I'm going to PM you again. LOL

[Rex]

24. You say potato, I say potato.

Of course the feds don't think he is a whistleblower! In other news, water is wet.

[ProSense]

26. Wait,

"Of course the feds don't think he is a whistleblower!"


...HRW is the "feds"?

[Rex]

27. Oh I'm sorry I did not know the HRW wrote

The Federal Whistleblower Protection Act. Care to elaborate?

[ProSense]

28. No, I'm sorry

"The Federal Whistleblower Protection Act. Care to elaborate? "

...I didn't realize when you said "feds," you meant the law, which indicates that he isn't a whistleblower.

[Rex]

29. No he is not.

I would call him an idiot, but that is an insult to idiots.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

30. Just because the 'law' doesn't grant him protection, does not mean he isn't a Whistleblowers

in the traditional sense.

He certainly isn't a spy, or traitor.

[Harmony Blue]

31. Ellsberg was considered a whistleblower but it took time for that perception to be universally

accepted.

http://www.ellsberg.net/

[rug]

34. I'm baffled how you drew that headline from the link you posted.

In the case of Edward Snowden, the material he has reportedly shared so far with the Guardian and the Washington Post[21] has revealed that US agencies have exploited security laws to conduct massive data surveillance that intruded on the rights of millions of people around the world, including many US citizens. Companies, courts, and congressional representatives have been gagged from disclosing anything about these surveillance programs, including the scope of the data collected, how long the government retains it, how and by whom it is searched, and what limits, if any, are placed on these programs. This utter lack of transparency and accountability to the public could easily pave the way for further serious human rights abuses and an erosion of democratic governance. The public’s interest in knowing the dimensions of this secret practice, conducted without effective public oversight or check, is extremely high.

It is often difficult for those outside the government to assess the full impact of disclosures on national security, particularly when more revelations may be forthcoming. But the disclosures so far appear to have limited, if any, impact on national security, despite administration claims that they are serious. Ultimately, the burden should be on the US government to make the case that the disclosure actually created a genuine risk of serious and identifiable harm to national security, and that such harm outweighs the value of the disclosures to the public.

Moving Forward to Protect Whistleblowers and Democratic Accountability

In light of these specific facts, Human Rights Watch urges the Obama administration not to prosecute Edward Snowden or other national security whistleblowers until it is prepared to explain to the public, in as much detail as possible, what the concrete and specific harms to national security his disclosures have caused, and why they outweigh the public’s right to know. If the administration truly welcomes a debate on issues of privacy, rights, and security, as President Obama has said it does, then prosecuting the man who sparked the debate is not the way to show it.

In addition, the government should cease using the Espionage Act to charge those who disclose classified information to the public that shows wrongdoing or unethical government programs or policies. In this regard, we note that the penalties for disclosures under the Espionage Act, whose charges carry 10-year prison terms, are significantly heavier than what many other democracies impose on government agents who expose secrets, and that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in favor of protecting security sector whistleblowers when the public interest in their disclosures outweighs other important state interests.[22]

[Savannahmann]

37. Because that's how ProSense rolls

Take a snip, pretends it's the entire argument, and says victory is mine.

[ProSense]

39. No,

"Because that's how ProSense rolls

Take a snip, pretends it's the entire argument, and says victory is mine."

...that's your distortion. The OP states that the HRW piece is critical of the protections.

Aren't you glad that the OP included a "blue link" so that you could read the rest of the piece?

[ProSense]

38. What?

"I'm baffled how you drew that headline from the link you posted."

It's not a "headline." It's my opinion, which should be very clear from the OP. I cited HRW's take on the law, and mentioned that the post was critical of the existing protections.

Are you disputing HRW's description of the law?

[rug]

42. I'm disputing your headline, your opinion and your disingenuity.

Your avatar's ok.

[ProSense]

43. Wait,

"I'm disputing your headline, your opinion and your disingenuity."

...you're "disputing" my "opinion"?

Does that mean it's not my opinion?

Feel free to dispute my "disingenuity"

Actually, your comment makes no sense.

[rug]

44. Yes, I'm disputing your opinion. It's bullshit.

You posted your opinion, implying it's backed by your HRW link, and it's not.

Ergo, bullshit.

Ergo, disingenuity.

And your avatar actually is not so hot.

[ProSense]

49. Well, I think your dispute is "bullshit" In fact,

it's utter "bullshit"

Ergo, nonsense

Ergo, drivel.

"You posted your opinion, implying it's backed by your HRW link, and it's not."

No, you fucking implied that. I made no statement that my opinion was "backed" by the "HRW link"

I cited the organization's statement on the law. You decided to imply the rest to justify your nonsensical claim.

[rug]

50. No you didn't. In fact HRW had an entirely different conclusion as the law applies to Snowden.

In any event, allow me to rephrase: the comment you posted was intentional and knowing bullshit.

[ProSense]

54. Nonsense.

"In fact HRW had an entirely different conclusion as the law applies to Snowden."

Nothing in the text you cited indicates that the "law applies to Snowden." In fact, you're implying that the portion of the text cited in the OP, which comes from the same text, and specifically states the law doesn't apply to Snowden, isn't HRW's interpretation.

Here is the excerpt you posted:

In the case of Edward Snowden, the material he has reportedly shared so far with the Guardian and the Washington Post has revealed that US agencies have exploited security laws to conduct massive data surveillance that intruded on the rights of millions of people around the world, including many US citizens. Companies, courts, and congressional representatives have been gagged from disclosing anything about these surveillance programs, including the scope of the data collected, how long the government retains it, how and by whom it is searched, and what limits, if any, are placed on these programs. This utter lack of transparency and accountability to the public could easily pave the way for further serious human rights abuses and an erosion of democratic governance. The public’s interest in knowing the dimensions of this secret practice, conducted without effective public oversight or check, is extremely high.

It is often difficult for those outside the government to assess the full impact of disclosures on national security, particularly when more revelations may be forthcoming. But the disclosures so far appear to have limited, if any, impact on national security, despite administration claims that they are serious. Ultimately, the burden should be on the US government to make the case that the disclosure actually created a genuine risk of serious and identifiable harm to national security, and that such harm outweighs the value of the disclosures to the public.

Moving Forward to Protect Whistleblowers and Democratic Accountability

In light of these specific facts, Human Rights Watch urges the Obama administration not to prosecute Edward Snowden or other national security whistleblowers until it is prepared to explain to the public, in as much detail as possible, what the concrete and specific harms to national security his disclosures have caused, and why they outweigh the public’s right to know. If the administration truly welcomes a debate on issues of privacy, rights, and security, as President Obama has said it does, then prosecuting the man who sparked the debate is not the way to show it.

In addition, the government should cease using the Espionage Act to charge those who disclose classified information to the public that shows wrongdoing or unethical government programs or policies. In this regard, we note that the penalties for disclosures under the Espionage Act, whose charges carry 10-year prison terms, are significantly heavier than what many other democracies impose on government agents who expose secrets, and that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in favor of protecting security sector whistleblowers when the public interest in their disclosures outweighs other important state interests.

Nothing in that text claims that the existing law applies to Snowden. Maybe you can point to the text that contradicts the earlier section:

The federal Whistleblower Protection Act exempts from its protections whistleblowers in the intelligence community, including defense contractors. The most legal protection on which such employees can rely is the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which provides a channel for whistleblowers to take matters of “urgent concern” first to the inspector general of the Department of Justice and then to a congressional intelligence oversight committee.

Maybe you can point to the specific language that states the WPA applies to Snowden.

[rug]

56. Prosense

here:

International law requires that any restriction of speech be consistent with the protection of rights in a democratic society and no greater than what is necessary to protect interests such as national security. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a party, provides in article 19:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers…. [The exercise of these rights may] be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary….[f]or the protection of national security.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in General Comment No. 34 interpreting this article, has noted that governments must take “extreme care” to ensure that laws relating to national security are not invoked “to suppress or withhold from the public information of legitimate public interest that does not harm national security” or to prosecute journalists, researchers, activists, or others who disseminate such information.[5]

There is a clear conflict between the ICCPR and the WBPA, both of which are binding on the government. The HWR, which you linked, has made it quite clear which should prevail.

[ProSense]

60. You claimed

"There is a clear conflict between the ICCPR and the WBPA, both of which are binding on the government. The HWR, which you linked, has made it quite clear which should prevail. "

...my opinion was "bullshit" and implied that I was distorting HRW's point and misleading everyone to believe that my opinion was shared by the organization. You stated that HRW's conclusion indicates that the existing U.S. law cited applied to him.

I asked you to the specific language in the supplied text that states the WPA applies to Snowden. The text you just posted is not from that text, and it does not claim that the WPA applies to Snowden.

The section you cited is making a human rights case for whistleblower protections. I realize that HRW wants to see stronger protections, but the OP is about U.S. law, the laws that will be applicable in a Snowden trial in a U.S. court.

Also, as I said in the OP, even with stronger protections, Snowden would likely have bypassed the appropriate channels and his actions would still be called into question.

Another thing, whistleblower protections are just that, protections. They do not change the fact that leaking classified information is illegal.

[woo me with science]

40. You gotta focus on PROCESS, not content.

She has posted blue links; therefore she has won.

[ProSense]

41. I guess that's

"She has posted blue links; therefore she has won. "

...that's the best argument you can come up with from your perch.

[markpkessinger]

64. LOL! n/t

[Bonobo]

45. Ridiculous. The law does not define what a whistleblower is.

whis·tle·blow·er or whis·tle-blow·er or whistle blower (hwsl-blr, ws-)
n.
One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority:

[ProSense]

47. The dictionary does? n/t

[Bonobo]

51. Ummm, newsflash. That's the purpose of a dictionary. nt

[ProSense]

55. The "purpose of a dictionary" is to define the WPA and the legal criteria for a whistleblower?

Do you think that Snowden can use the dictionary in his defense?

[Bonobo]

58. You do not disappoint.

Stupid post.

[ProSense]

61. Citing the dictionary in response to the OP wasn't brilliant. n/t

[ljm2002]

46. and Daniel Ellsberg wasn't a whistleblower because...the law.

[HardTimes99]

85. Had he been convicted on all counts, Ellsberg faced a sentence in excess of

100 years, IIRC.

FWIW, Ellsberg considers Snowden's leaks far more important than his own. No one ever made Ellsberg the judge eternal of what constitutes a righteous leak. Still, I'll take his verdict any day over that of anonymous internet keyboard pounders.

[ljm2002]

86. Yes and he was very lucky...

...about two things: 1 - Nixon's inability to control his own overreach (having his henchmen break into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in the hopes of finding dirt to use against Ellsberg, i.e. character assassination), and 2 - courts that took the rule of law seriously, and who as a result of #1, threw the case out.

No Ellsberg is not the only standard of what is a leak vs. what is legitimate whistle blowing. I am only pointing out that "the law" is not a sufficient argument to distinguish the two.

[HardTimes99]

87. Um, Nixon's goons not only broke into Fielding's office. They also wiretapped

Ellsberg without a warrant, plotted to assault him physically or even assassinate him (google "Operation Gemstone" for more on that brilliant G. Gordon Liddy plot), and other assorted nefarious shit that merited the article of impeachment for "Abuse of Power" (even without the obstruction of justice charges that underlay the Abuse of Power article that passed out of the House Judiciary).

IIRC, it was the warrantless wiretapping of Ellsberg that caused his case to be tossed, not the break-in at Fielding's office. I may be mis-remembering that, though. It may have been the cumulative effect of all the shit Nixon and his goons pulled.

[NuclearDem]

48. Dammit, I'm using those straws.

The ones you're grasping at.

[ProSense]

52. I think

"Dammit, I'm using those straws. The ones you're grasping at."

...the posts declaring Snowden a "whistleblower" are the ones "grasping" for "straws."

The Guardian: Snowden Is A Whistleblower, Not A Spy

The Guardian, the British newspaper that's published the scoops on the National Security Agency's expansive surveillance programs, ran an editorial Tuesday that served as a spirited defense of leaker Edward Snowden.

Snowden, the 30-year-old former defense contractor who leaked details on the surveillance programs, is facing espionage charges from the United States. But those charges are "innappropriate," the Guardian's editorial asserted.

This is emphatically not a cold war style national security case; it is a 21st century case about the appropriate balance between the power of the secret state and the rights of free citizens in the internet era. To charge Mr Snowden under America's first world war Espionage Act is inappropriate. We live in a different world from that. America is not at war in the traditional sense. Mr Snowden is not a spy. Nor is he a foreign agent. He is a whistleblower. He has published government information. And it is as a whistleblower that he will eventually have to answer to the law.

Read the editorial here.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/guardian-snowden-is-whistleblower-not-spy

[NuclearDem]

53. Right, since the official US definition of whistleblower is the only one that matters

After all, they did such a wonderful job defining marriage didn't they?

[ProSense]

57. Are you

"Right, since the official US definition of whistleblower is the only one that matters

After all, they did such a wonderful job defining marriage didn't they?"

...suggesting that Snowden should be tried under the laws of some other country?

Since you mentioned "defining marriage," how about the country where he finds himself stranded?

Russia's Putin signs anti-gay measures into law
http://news.yahoo.com/russias-putin-signs-anti-gay-measures-law-143134967.html

We have come a long way.

Thanks, Obama >> updated, Edith Windsor reacts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023101179

[NuclearDem]

59. No, I'm saying the US has had a terrible record of dealing with whistleblowers

Especially under Obama. After the media campaign against him (hey, speak of the devil), there's absolutely no way he would get anywhere near a fair trial or treatment in the US.

If whistleblower protections in the US meant a damn thing, we wouldn't have ag-gag bills, nor would the people exposing CIA torture be going to prison in the stead of the actual torturers.

[Progressive dog]

78. When enforcing laws, the definition in the law is

the only one that matters.
The law does not always appear to be fair to us, but no one ever claimed it was.
You should want HK Ed to be judged by a jury of his peers and see if they find him to be a whistle-blower. They can find him not guilty, no matter what the law says.

[davidpdx]

65. It seems like people are confusing the dictionary definition and the legal definition

No, they are not the same. To fit the legal definition certain requirements have to be met. I at one time studied them, but I can't remember them off the top of my head. Someone go look up the Federal statues. They are online.

[reusrename]

70. It's a ludicrous argument in the OP.

One can be a whistleblower and not be entitled to the protections of the act.

I suspect the OP is perfectly aware of this.

[Bonobo]

72. Yes, that is an understatement.

It's like saying that if a seal is not protected under the Marine Life Conservation act, it is not a form of marine life.

[reusrename]

73. That's good.

The prophet Orwell is spinning.

[DCBob]

76. The OP is refering to the how the law defines a "whistleblower"

Its a very specific definition and it would appear Snowden isn't one based on what he did.

[ProSense]

79. Don't bother.

If everyone agrees on dismissals, distortions or misinformation, then it's the reality.

I'm sure no one here actually believes that Snowden can use the dictionary definition to gain whistleblower protections.

[DCBob]

80. yeah, it would appear resistance is futile.

[GeorgeGist]

84. I'm guessing Ed didn't give a damn.

And you can't unblow his whistle.