ACLU: Edward Snowden is a Whistleblower

[Catherina]

Edward Snowden is a Whistleblower
July 30, 2013

by Michael German, senior policy counsel at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office and a former FBI agent.

My American Civil Liberties Union colleagues and I have been extremely busy since the Guardian and the Washington Post published leaked classified documents exposing the scope of the government's secret interpretations of the Patriot Act and the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allow the FBI and NSA to spy on hundreds of millions of innocent Americans. We haven't written much about the alleged leaker of this information, Edward Snowden, however, mainly because we took his advice to focus on what the NSA and FBI were doing, rather than on what he did or didn't do. (See exceptions here and here).

But I did want to clear up a question that seems to keep coming up: whether Snowden is a whistleblower. It is actually not a hard question to answer. The Whistleblower Protection Act protects "any disclosure" that a covered employee reasonably believes evidences "any violation of any law, rule, or regulation," or "gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, and abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."

In the two months since Snowden's alleged disclosures, no fewer than five lawsuits have been filed challenging the legality of the surveillance programs he exposed. The author of the Patriot Act, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), called the scope of data collection revealed in one of the leaked Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders "incredibly troubling," and "an overbroad interpretation of the Act" that "raise[s] questions about whether our constitutional rights are secure."

It doesn't end there. Over a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress to narrow these now public surveillance authorities and increase transparency regarding continuing programs. No one can know what was in Edward Snowden's mind, but clearly he could have had a reasonable belief the documents he leaked to the news media revealed government illegality and abuse of authority.

The disclosures also revealed that U.S. military officers and intelligence community officials have been less than truthful in their public comments and congressional testimony about the government's domestic surveillance practices, both in the scope of the programs and their effectiveness. Such false and misleading testimony threatens more than just Americans' privacy; it threatens democratic control of government.

Americans need and deserve truthful information about what the government is doing, particularly where the activity infringes on individual rights. As the father of the Constitution James Madison said, "A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both." Denying Americans this knowledge through excessive and unnecessary secrecy, or worse, official deception, is unjustifiable and illegal. In a democracy, the law should never be secret.

The countless articles on the front pages of dozens of newspapers across the country since the documents leaked reveal the public thirst for this information. It is clear that these disclosures benefited the public, by giving victims of illegal surveillance – essentially all Americans – the knowledge and opportunity to challenge these unconstitutional programs, both in the courts and through their elected representatives in Congress. Even President Obama said he "welcomed this debate" and thought it was "healthy for our democracy." Yet a properly informed public debate on these programs would not have been possible without Snowden's leaks.

But the fact that the leaks served the public interest by exposing government illegality and abuse doesn't mean Snowden is protected by the law, because the intelligence community has always been exempted from the Whistleblower Protection Act. This fact refutes the other common misperception: that there are effective internal avenues for reporting illegal activities within the intelligence community.

Congress passed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act in 1998, but it is no more than a trap. It establishes a procedure for internal reporting within the agencies and through the Inspector General to the congressional intelligence committees, but it provides no remedy for reprisals that occur as a result. Reporting internally through the ICWPA only identifies the whistleblowers, leaving them vulnerable to retaliation. The examples of former NSA official Thomas Drake, former House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark and former CIA officer Sabrina De Sousa show too well.

This lack of protection means that when intelligence community employees and contractors – who take an oath to defend the Constitution – see government illegality they must turn the other way, or risk their careers and possibly even their freedom. The people we trust to protect our nation from foreign enemies deserve legal protection when they blow the whistle on wrongdoing within government.

Michael German is senior policy counsel at the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office and a former FBI agent.

Learn more about government surveillance and other civil liberties issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Permitted Distribution. Unless the specific web page from which ACLU text materials is available indicates you may not do so, you may copy or distribute any text materials that appear on the ACLU Site in print or digital format only and only for the following non-commercial purposes: research, teaching, private study, and activism

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security/edward-snowden-whistleblower

[shawn703]

1. I would for once want to see the ACLU and company

give a well thought out defense of Snowden's disclosures to China, Europe and Latin America.

But they won't, so we are left with a choice of whether all crimes should be prosecuted or not, or if people who do good deeds (providing information for discussion on domestic spying) should get a "Get out of jail free" card when they do a bad one (leaking to foreign governments national security information).

[progressoid]

4. That's not the ACLU's job.

[shawn703]

15. Sure it is

If they are making the case that Snowden is a whistleblower and didn't do anything wrong, to make an honest argument to that effect they need to address the glaring evidence that suggests otherwise, or their whole article is a waste of time.

[NuclearDem]

17. The article didn't address the alleged disclosures to China and Russia

They didn't assert he didn't do anything wrong. They only stated that he's a whistleblower.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. But read the article again ...

They (this lawyer) declared him a "whistleblower, after saying he does not meet the definition of a whistleblower.

[NuclearDem]

70. Of course he doesn't meet the US definition of whistleblower

Because Congress had made the horrid NSA program legal.

That's more damning of the government than Snowden.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. okay ...

That comment deserves no response because it is wrong on so many level. So, I'll just say "OKAY".

[NuclearDem]

95. No it's not.

Whistleblower Protection Act covers people who blow the whistle on illegality and fraud, waste and abuse. As many of our friends here have repeatedly pointed out, the NSA surveillance is a legally established and operated program. Therefore, he can't be protected by the WPA because he didn't expose any illegality. He simply brought what was secret--however legal--to the public's attention.

And the article never said what you claim it did, that Snowden's "a whistleblower, though he doesn't fit the definition of one." That's a completely absurd rephrasing that distorts what the author was saying. What he said was:

But the fact that the leaks served the public interest by exposing government illegality and abuse doesn't mean Snowden is protected by the law, because the intelligence community has always been exempted from the Whistleblower Protection Act.

That's not claiming he's not a whistleblower. That's making a statement on the weakness and ineffectiveness of the ICWPA. Snowden's not protected by the law because the law is weak and poorly-written.

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. Then ...

please explain the title of the OP?

If the OP had been titled: "Of course Snowden is not a whistleblower because the law is weak and poorly-written and defines him out of it's protection(s) and that is the problem", I would have no problem with the OP ... but that is not what he has written.

[AppleBottom]

83. What disclosure to China and russia are you talking about?

You mean the fact that the NSA spies on foreign governments? That's not exactly a disclosure since the whole reason why the NSA exist is to spy on foreign governments.

The NSA should NOT be spying on American citizens within their own borders, you see that's the REAL PROBLEM here.

Russia is not the bad guy, this is not the cold war and China is America's #1 trade partner and Creditor. These are not the enemy. The enemies are the ones whom trample on the Constitution.

[sabrina 1]

28. The fact that Whistle Blowers break laws, which generally happens, as in Manning's case, after

they have reported wrong-doing and are ignored., is a given. Those ignoring the reports of the violations of laws, are also breaking laws. If they did their jobs and acted on the reports of illegal activity, there would be no need for Whistle Blowers. It is BECAUSE of LAW BREAKERS that we have Whistle Blowers.

Eg, Civil Rights Activists broke many laws. Were they doing something wrong? Legal does not equal moral. History is filled with courageous individuals breaking bad laws to correct injustices.

Usually those bad laws are eventually changed. So the question is, would those now defending the LAW have done the same thing during the Civil Rights Movement?

Once it becomes clear that human rights are being violated, it also becomes clear that existing laws are going to be broken in order to end the abuses and substitute bad laws with good laws.

[tblue]

54. Oh sabrina1

You are my hero!

[midnight]

58. Yes Sabrina..... First thing I was taught in political science 101... Who knew I would be on a blog

like this one day.....

[Ash_F]

64. Well said.

These laws will also be used disproportionately against minorities, liberals, activists, academics ect.

When the agency is led by a Bush appointee and the Judges overseeing it are Bush/Reagan appointees, can you expect any better? We need to be wary of our executive and judiciary until we have a solid 20-30 years of Dems in the White House.

[blackspade]

87. +1000

[bvar22]

41. Please give us the details of the "disclosures" that you claim....

... Snowden made to "China, Europe, and Latin America".
Do you have ANY documentation beyond the unsupported hysterical claims that have floated around DU since Day 1.

The only "disclosures" I have seen documented were TO credentialed Journalists
working for News Agencies. The Editors and Staffs of these News Agencies THEN made decisions on exactly WHAT they felt justified in publishing.


So for our benefit,
please document these "disclosures" that Snowden made "to China, Europe, and Latin America", and to whom he made these disclosures.

We'll wait.

[shawn703]

46. Ok press

Since of course all of these stories can only be linked to as they appear in the foreign press. But by extension of your argument, are you saying that it's acceptable for people with security clearances to provide details of foreign surveillance to foreign press, as long as they pinky promise that nobody from their government would ever see it? If I knew the IP addresses of certain Iranian computers that were being monitored because we knew communications regarding their nuclear programs passed through them, it would be okay for me to tell the Tehran Times which computers those were as long as I don't directly communicate that to Oghab 2?

[bvar22]

48. Your failed attempt to Move the Goal Posts has been noted.

[font size=3]I will accept your post as an admission that you can NOT back up your original claim that Snowden disclosed Classified Information to China, Europe and Latin America.[/font]

In other words, You Got NOTHING,
and are just making it up as you go.


Disclosing Classified Information to Foreign Governments is SPYING.
Disclosing that information to credentialed JOURNALISTS employed by Major Publications is "WhistleBlowing".
The editors and staff of those publication THEN decide WHAT get published, and what doesn't.
BIG DIFFERENCE,
and a Far Cry from what you claimed in Post #1.


Thanks for playing.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[shawn703]

49. So you would support such a leak

Good to know.

Tell me, which law is it that says that leaking information to the foreign press is protected as whistleblowing? Careful, whistleblowing only applies to illegal activities, and there is nothing illegal about spying on foreign countries.

[NewThinkingChance40]

52. But

there are laws about spying on innocent American citizens. So at least in that case he would be protected as a whistle blower. I have not seen any credible stories here, or anywhere else, that show evidence that he was releasing information about the government spying on foreign countries. The speculation has been put forth that The US govt was spying on other countries, which is logical, but again no evidence that Snowden put forth to back that up.

[shawn703]

56. Here you go

http://m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-hacking-targets?page=all

http://m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1266777/exclusive-snowden-safe-hong-kong-more-us-cyberspying-details-revealed?page=all

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/paper-reveals-nsa-ops-in-latin-america/2013/07/09/eff0cc7e-e8e3-11e2-818e-aa29e855f3ab_print.html

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-908609.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=http://t.co/m0QlVInqAo

[AppleBottom]

101. Your article failed to identify any machines that were actually tergeted?

Just a bunch supposition with no facts.
By the way the whole point of the NSA is to spy on foreign governments, it is NOT to spy on Americans.
Actually the real revelation here would have been to find out that the NSA wasn't spying on China or Russia and was instead spending the money on booze and hookers. But I guess they're not the Secret Service.

[shawn703]

102. So is your claim that information released by Snowden is all supposition with no facts?

Because the articles are quite clear on what information they received and from whom.

[AppleBottom]

103. No not really.

Throwing around supposition does not make fact.

[shawn703]

105. Which part do you say is supposition?

The specific IP addresses of machines in China that were hacked by the NSA?

[AppleBottom]

110. Which specific IP address and machines again?

"One of the targets Snowden revealed was Chinese University, home to the Hong Kong Internet Exchange which is a central hub of servers through which all web traffic in the city passes.

A university spokeswoman said yesterday that staff had not detected any attacks to its "backbone network".

Sounds like the media report got it wrong, or a language barrier issue but no machine. There are no specific IP addresses listed or machines to be found in any those articles you cited. Just shock that the NSA was spying on these foreign governments. Now certainly the NSA probably shouldn't be spying on foreign allies, but that's really not up to me to decide. But once again they certainly do exist to spy on foreign governments.

[shawn703]

115. Come on now

When's the last time you saw a specific IP address in any news report in the mainstream media about someone getting hacked?

[AppleBottom]

117. There's a problem when claims lack evidence.

no machines, no addresses, just supposition.

[shawn703]

118. I suspect you're just trolling me at this point

Since you weren't able to provide me any previous article where the mainstream media provided IP addresses of specific hacking targets, and I don't believe you're making the claim that all reports of hacking are suspect because they lack that information.

But to play along - if the SCMP had not just said Snowden provided a list of IP addresses but also printed each specific Chinese IP address in their article, you would agree with me that this a crime and should be prosecuted?

[AppleBottom]

119. It's your claim not mine, I don't need to prove your accusations

So if by trolling you mean I need evidence, apparently so...

[shawn703]

120. Avoiding the question I see. N/T

[Benton D Struckcheon]

77. One more time, as ignoring this is high art around here

It's actually some very specific stuff that he himself said. This is why they want him, both the USG and, no doubt, Russia, assuming they haven't already gotten this info out of him.
Here's a description of Snowden's "lawyer":

A supporter of President Vladimir Putin who supported Putin's election campaign last year, Kucherena also has a legal practice in Moscow that takes on high-profile cases.
He also sits on the "public council" of the Federal Security Service (FSB), which was created by Putin in 2006.
According to its website, the council works to "develop a relationship" between the security service and the public. Its fifteen members have to be approved by the head of the FSB.

So, Snowden is being "represented" by a guy who sits on a board all of whose members have to be approved by Russia's FSB, but Snowden isn't giving the Russians anything? He really isn't telling them a thing? How naive do you have to be to believe crap like that?

Now, to what Snowden actually said.
Note carefully that Snowden said this, not Wikileaks, or Assange, nor is this some interpretation someone else put on his words.

He.
Said.
This.

It makes him a spy. He is now in the hands of Russia and the FSB, as we can see from the above, and so our intel folks have to assume that everything he knows, they know.

What Snowden May Know About Human Ops

Beyond technical systems, U.S. officials are deeply concerned that Snowden used his sensitive position to read about U.S. human assets, for example spies and informants overseas as well as safe houses and key spying centers.
They worry this recent quote from Snowden was not an exaggeration: ”I had access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all over the world. The locations of every station, we have what their missions are, and so forth.”
So it’s not just about what he took, but what he knows, officials emphasize. Officials describe Snowden as a walking treasure trove, a dream for foreign intelligence services. One intelligence official called Snowden and his cache an “entire U.S. government problem.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/06/officials-how-edward-snowden-could-hurt-the-u-s/

So, two things:

1 - This compromises all of US intelligence. This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything regarding the NSA. Zip. It's a simple betrayal of the US. Period, the end. Remember, this isn't speculation on what he took, it's him admitting that he took this stuff, the names, the missions, the whole freakin thing.
2 - It also compromises future intelligence. Now if the US wants to do something overseas, no one is going to want to do it for the very good reason they wouldn't want to be outed just because of some contractor with access to all this stuff.

This is way, way, way beyond being a whistleblower on the domestic side of the NSA. This is breathtakingly over the line. It has precisely NOTHING to do with the Fourth Amendment.
All countries spy. Reveal who and where their spies are, and they will, every one, mercilessly track you down.
Snowden will be no different.

What Snowden did is blindingly obvious, if you are paying any attention at all: he is engaged in high-level betrayal that he is deliberately covering up with a few spicy disclosures about the NSA and what it does. The overbroad FISA warrants are being addressed, as the ACLU notes. His disclosures about our spying activities? Well, that's an entirely different story.

[DeSwiss]

63. Should they wrap it with a bow for you too? :-/ n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Or better (worse) ...

What would stop foriegn governments from having their operatives steal info dump it to the internet and claim the "promote discussion" defense?

Absolutism is generally a not well thought out position.

[tridim]

2. Snowden is Pootie Poot's boy now.

He has no rights other than the right to be used for Russian propaganda.

[SoapBox]

16. Ditto!

He's a Ruskky now and anything but an American.

[former9thward]

20. He is an American.

He has a renewable residency permit.

[7962]

35. For all here who've said Russia is "just a stop on the way to South America",

Seems as though now he has no plans to leave Russia at all.
Go head and lambaste me with all the "He's a brave Hero" nonsense.

http://rt.com/news/snowden-russia-kucherena-mills-914/

Looks like a traitor, acts like a traitor........

[morningfog]

92. Russia is just a stop along the way. The aggressiveness of the US has made it

longer.

It looks like he may be out of Russia before the G20 meeting in September.

[HangOnKids]

97. Ditto and he's a Ruskky now?

Gee that sounds oddly familiar.

[NuclearDem]

18. I must have missed the part where he surrendered his citizenship.

[totodeinhere]

25. Wrong. He has the same innate human rights that he has always had and we all have.

No politician can take those rights away.

[tridim]

33. Do you really believe Putin is just a politician?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

37. SPLURT.

It's like 'PLONK', but different.



To you and the "Dittohead" (where have we heard THAT before?) responding to you.



...........................

[tridim]

40. So I take it you like Putin?

[HangOnKids]

98. Fucking Love This Post!

But but but you must lurve Putin the NINGA 2 legged dog in disguise! More SPLURT!

[sabrina 1]

74. And isn't it sad that American Whistle Blowers feel safer in Russia than here?

Now that the world knows the US tortures Whistle Blowers, charges them with major crimes for revealing the crimes of the Bush War Criminals, treats its War Criminals with honor, I am betting that Snowden will be the first of many Whistle Blowers to seek asylum elsewhere.

What he got in Russia is NO JAIL. Here he would have received no bail and could only look forward to the same treatment all the other Whistle Blowers have received over the past several years.

You just condemned the US's treatment of Whistle Blowers. Not sure that was what you intended to do, but that is exactly what you did.

[Zorra]

3. Of course he is. Even a blind possum could see that.

The only people disputing this are reality challenged and/or disingenuous conservatives with an agenda.

[Progressive dog]

8. It's always nice tyo have polls to show who supports what

Despite believing their privacy is being invaded, 50 percent of adults approve of the government’s data-collection program, while 44 percent oppose. A full 57 percent of Democrats support it, compared to 47 percent of Independents and 44 percent of Republicans who say the same. Only 34 percent of self-identified Tea Party Republicans support it (62 percent of them oppose it).

57% of Democrats are reality challenger and/or disingenuous conservatives with an agenda while only 34% of Tea Party are. Good to know.
53% of Americans believe Snowden should be prosecuted.

[bahrbearian]

10. Link Please ?

[Progressive dog]

45. Look it up, it's Pew

two minutes to find.

[Zorra]

12. That is disingenuous propaganda, and a strawman argument.

The OP is about Snowden being a whistleblower, not about who supports NSA spying.

My post was clearly referencing the position that Snowden is a whistleblower, not my position on NSA spying.

There is no mention of whistleblowing in your post.

What you have clearly done here is use a strawman, to wit, poll results, that are completely unrelated to the OP or my post, in order to disingenuously conflate and compare me with republicans and teabaggers.

It appears that you are being disingenuous here.

It is also appears that there are more than a few conservative Democrats nowadays.

And as most of us recognize, polls can be bullshit. For example, consider the results of this poll released yesterday:

August 1, 2013 - Snowden Is Whistle-Blower, Not Traitor, U.S. Voters Tell Quinnipiac University National Poll
PDF format

American voters say 55 - 34 percent that former National Security Agency consultant Edward Snowden is a whistle-blower rather than a traitor, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

This finding is unchanged from a July 10 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pe-ack) University.

"Most American voters think positively of Edward Snowden, but that was before he accepted asylum in Russia," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1930

Do I know if those poll numbers are reliable? No, I don't.

[Progressive dog]

44. He isn't either, that's why a majority

believe Moscow Eddie should face justice.

[HangOnKids]

100. Wow Moscow Eddie Sounds Hot!

Is he in Tiger Beat this month?

[Progressive dog]

106. Now he's Putin's property

[Zorra]

116. Moscow Eddie and the Whistleblowers will be in the same article as Hanoi Jane and the Protesters!

Can't wait.

[MindPilot]

30. If someone calls me up with survey questions about NSA spying

I'm going to let them know that not only do I approve, but I warmly welcome my new Overlords.

I have no clue who is on the other end phishing for information, so the last thing I am going to be honest--especially when the question is basically "do you or do you not support the US Government's data collection polices as it relate to in-country phone calls? Remember choosing poorly may result in your citizenship status being downgraded to "suspect"".

ETA: Yeah it's hyperbole, it wasn't but a few years ago the suggestion of "free speech zones" or "for-profit-prisons" would be considered hyperbole too.

[Progressive dog]

43. Well that would explain it, people who lie on polls.

That's why the polls were so wrong on the last presidential election, they just haven't changed the phone book from Obama to Romney.

[KoKo]

5. And this part is important to repeat...from the article

But the fact that the leaks served the public interest by exposing government illegality and abuse doesn't mean Snowden is protected by the law, because the intelligence community has always been exempted from the Whistleblower Protection Act. This fact refutes the other common misperception: that there are effective internal avenues for reporting illegal activities within the intelligence community.

Congress passed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act in 1998, but it is no more than a trap. It establishes a procedure for internal reporting within the agencies and through the Inspector General to the congressional intelligence committees, but it provides no remedy for reprisals that occur as a result. Reporting internally through the ICWPA only identifies the whistleblowers, leaving them vulnerable to retaliation. The examples of former NSA official Thomas Drake, former House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark and former CIA officer Sabrina De Sousa show too well.

[kelliekat44]

9. As soon as they show what is "illegal" I will agree. nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

11. Spying on all Americans

[tblue]

21. It's as legal as enhanced interrogation.

And as unconstitutional.

[bananas]

62. "the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act...is no more than a trap."

That needs to change ASAP.
There are probably many more whistleblowers waiting in the wings.

[Dragonfli]

6. Only because the ACLU is a commie front group working for Putin while simultaneously

being a Libertarian front group working for Ron Paul (everyone knows right Libertarians are the same as commies and hate us for our liberties).

All ACLU members should be tried for treason along with the traitors that expose the government abuses that make us free from the burdens of not being perpetual suspects.

[bvar22]

42. You know, I've been a loyal Democrat for a looooong time,

and for most of my life, the Democratic Party and the ACLU were hand in glove.
I can't remember ANYONE who claimed to be a DEMOCRAT, but hated or attacked the ACLU.... until just recently.

For most of MY life, it has always been the REPUBLICANS who attacked the ACLU.


"Change"?

[RetroLounge]

112. No change, the ones who are attacking are still republicans

They just hide as so-called dems here on so-called DU

RL

[xchrom]

7. Du rec. Nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

13. They are obvious racists teabaggers who hate Obama

According to the standards of even a tiny minority on DU.

Fortunately most on DU agree with the ACLU

[bigtree]

14. and, a doodyhead

. . . apparently.

rec'd.

[arely staircase]

19. I wonder what Russian misdeads he's going to blow the whistle on now.

Can't wait.

[SunSeeker]

22. LOL. nt

[totodeinhere]

24. Don't be ridiculous. He is not in a position to do that. n/t

[arely staircase]

26. He has all these skills and experience

won't the Russians give him an important high tech gov. job with access to everything? I can't imagine why not.

[totodeinhere]

27. You forgot your sarcasm tag. n/t

[cantbeserious]

29. Thank You For Sharing - Very Timely And Appropriate

eom

[Chaco Dundee]

31. dear catherina

I always do enjoy reading your well thought out and well researched posts.what gets me is that there seemes to be room for interpretion of laws and regulations.if some body was to work in my line of buisness,integrety is an absolute.the language and description and the comprehension of the standart and quality of the product I have to provide leaves nothing to the imagination.so I am at a loss of understanding how rules and regulations our elected officials are supposed to follow can be interpreted by them any way they see it fit and get away with .could it be that wording of our laws is so vague that one can interpret them any way whitch fits the immedte problem or are we to undereducated to understand what is presdented to us as fact.

[forestpath]

32. K&R

[NCTraveler]

34. Don't agree with the ACLU on this one.

Great organization and love them, just don't agree here.

Also love this sentence in the article.

"We haven't written much about the alleged leaker of this information, Edward Snowden, however, mainly because we took his advice to focus on what the NSA and FBI were doing, rather than on what he did or didn't do."

Even when I don't agree with them they always make me think outside of my original thoughts. One of the most important groups this country has.

[WillyT]

36. K & R !!!

[Major Hogwash]

38. No, he's not.

And Snowden is not a refugee, either.

No matter how many times he says he is.

[whttevrr]

39. "In a democracy, the law should never be secret."

How come this is not said more?

I had several conversations with some co workers that just floored me recently. One said: "Why haven't they killed that guy yet?" I was flabbergasted. This person was angry. He wanted Snowden dead... And another said... "The 4th Amendment was written in a different time. Things have changed. With all this digital stuff we need to change it."

I won't even get into the one who said: "The 4th? Which one is that?"

Of these three people one is furious and wants to either drone Snowden or send Seal Team 6 out for him. Another is thinking we need to change our 4th Amendment to accommodate the times. And the third is pretty much oblivious and unconcerned.

I myself never suspected there was anything unknown about my activities online. Maybe average joes/janes would be stymied by a username other than my actual name. But everything I do on the internet I have always suspected could be referenced in some database. The whole nature of it is about identification. I have to identify myself to the cable company to get an IP Address that identifies my traffic on the Internet. In order for information to travel from one point to another; each point must be uniquely identified. Why? Because how else will the information get from one point to another without getting mixed up with all the other information that it travels with. I was just kind of hoping that no one was actually storing that information from all its disparate locations and indexing it in a searchable database.

I'm not doing anything wrong. But it's creepy. And, some of the things I look for could be suspect. I saw a Breaking Bad episode where the guy made exploding rock candy. I looked it up. Briefly. I did not want to leave tracks. I stymied my curiosity out of fear.

In grade school my teachers taught me how people died to give us a Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Freedom. Then in Highs School they made me read The Scarlet Letter, The Crucible, and 1984. WTF!? Sadists. I was hoping for maybe a more Brave New World'ish kind of dystopia. I mean, at least there would be Soma and sex. Instead what we are seeing is the increasingly real possibility that we are heading towards 1984.

That sucks. I don't want a rat in a cage on my head.

I think 'probable cause' should be sacrosanct. I don't think the government should be able to just look at anyone's activity in a blanket sweep and then decide if there is probable cause to look further. And I certainly do not want some private contractor to be handling such things. I just wish more people were informed.

And, I too think that "In a democracy, the law should never be secret."

[Uncle Joe]

47. This is a well written OP explaining the ACLU's reasoning.

Thanks for the thread, Catherina.

[Mnemosyne]

50. K&R nt

[struggle4progress]

51. "... The statutory language of the whistleblower protections requires the disclosure

to (a) evidence (i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; and (b) not be prohibited by law or Executive Order, except when the disclosure is made to the Special Counsel or to the Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures ... Moreover, whistleblowing disclosures that are made public must not contain information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law or which is prohibited by an Executive Order in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs ..."

from the OP link Whistleblower Protection Act, which perhaps the ACLU lawyers should read before discussing

[tblue]

53. I guess it's technically "legal"

but the law is problematic and unconstitutional. Why are you defending it?

[struggle4progress]

79. The Whistleblower Protection Act is unconstitutional?

[NuclearDem]

80. Oh, now that's just disingenuous.

[struggle4progress]

81. Excerpt I posted was from CRS report on WPA linked by OP and suggests

the factual sloppiness of the suggestion in the OP that WPA resolves issues in the Snowden case: if you read the CRS report, or the WPA, it's not obvious WPA applies to Snowden -- and if it does apply, reported facts about the story would indicate WPA won't cover Snowden's actual behavior

Considering such questions seems to me more useful than your vague remarks, such as "the law is unconstitutional" or "that's just disingenuous" -- which don't provide any information or analysis

[NuclearDem]

55. Of course it doesn't fall under the definition in the WPA.

Because Congress made massive invasion of American privacy legal.

[struggle4progress]

82. It may not fall under WPA, as Snowden didn't follow procedures listed there,

and as he may not qualify as a "covered person"

If you're actually interested in protecting people you regard as whistle-blowers, you may want to try to understand the limitations of current law, so that you can decide how you want current law changed

[Number23]

57. And here is a bit about two of those lawsuits

...But the Idaho native knows how she feels about the prospect of anyone tracking calls from her cellphone: She’s outraged. “It’s none of their business what I’m doing — who I call, when I call, how long I talk,” Smith, 32, said in a telephone interview. She added, “I think it’s awesome that I have the right to sue the president. I’m just a small-town girl.”

...“It’s kind of the American way to stand up to authority when you feel something is wrong. I don’t live in Russia or China, where I’d probably disappear if I did this,” Peter Smith said. “Why would anyone care about Anna’s phone records? She’s a mom, has two kids, lives in Idaho. She engages in normal mom activities.”

...“I follow the news very little,’’ Smith said. “I work full time and have two young kids. . . . To be honest, I don’t fully understand the law aspect of it and maybe not even the political aspect.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/northern-idaho-mom-sues-president-over-government-surveillance-program/2013/07/25/4994d1d4-f092-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story_1.html

and

"...A $3 billion class-action complaint by Mary Ann and Charles Strange of Philadelphia was believed to be the first civil case against the Obama administration since last week's blockbuster disclosure in published reports about the super-secret National Security Agency surveillance efforts.

...The Stranges have sued Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, NSA director Keith Alexander, Verizon, government agencies and the judge who signed the secret order on phone monitoring. ... The lawsuit offered no specifics of any targeted surveillance. The Stranges based their allegations on "information and belief." http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/nsa-court-challenges

I agree with the Idaho mom that it is awesome that you can sue the president if you think that your government is doing something wrong. I also agree that other countries would not be nearly as accommodating. But the whole "because people are suing, this means this case has merit" is stupid. Some of the lawsuits may have merit but these two links very clearly show that not all of them do.

[dflprincess]

59. Apparently the ACLU doesn't understand that if Bush were president Snowden would be a whistleblower

but because Obama is president Snowden is now a traitor.

Didn't anyone send them the memo about up being down and wrong being right?

[bread_and_roses]

66. Exactly. I guess ACLU is under the bus now (n/t)

[leveymg]

60. Mike German knows what he's talking about. This is an important statement.

The whole edifice of top secrecy and silence is beginning to crack.

[JDPriestly]

61. K&R.

[stonecutter357]

65. ooooh my god someone is watch me online?

Embarrassing I mean really embarrassing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. IMO, the OP’s conclusion …

that Snowden is a Whistleblower, is more advocating the rightness of a legally unsupported position than a legitimate analysis.

After paragraph, after paragraph of discussing the Whistleblower Act, the OP slips this line in the piece:

But the fact that the leaks served the public interest by exposing government illegality and abuse doesn't mean Snowden is protected by the law, because the intelligence community has always been exempted from the Whistleblower Protection Act.

The OP, then, points to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act in 1998, but it states it is no more than a trap.

So in effect, the OP says: even though Snowden does not fall within the legal definition of a Whistleblower; he is one because we call him one. That is an odd argument for an attorney.

Now … I can understand lay persons terming Snowden as a “Whistleblower”; but for an attorney to write an OP, making that claim (in the manner he did) is, IMO, irresponsible … and borders on, unethical. I'm surprised the ACLU allowed him to put their name on this piece.

[NuclearDem]

71. Unethical is a stretch.

Unless you have a very good reason to believe so, but simply acknowledging that the US government doesn't consider Snowden a whistleblower isn't grounds for disbarment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. No one said anything about disbarment ...

But it is not the "government" that doesn't consider snowden a whistleblower ... it is the law.

[NuclearDem]

96. By all practical definitions, Snowden is a whistleblower.

The ICWPA is such a pathetic and weak piece of law that only considers whistleblowing legitimate when it can be swept under the rug by the DOJ and the Intelligence Committees. It does absolutely nothing to serve the public interest or hold the intelligence community accountable for its actions.

[1StrongBlackMan]

109. "Practical" definitions ...

are of no import when talking about laws. The WB Act, and its amendments contain specific definitions of who is, and is not, protected under the law.

Snowden is a "Leaker" of classified information; not a "whistleblower."

[struggle4progress]

78. Then there's this sloppy bit:

... I .. want to clear up .. whether Snowden is a whistleblower. It is .. not a hard question ... The Whistleblower Protection Act protects "any disclosure" that a covered employee reasonably believes evidences "any violation of any law, rule, or regulation," or ".. abuse of authority .." ... No one can know what was in Edward Snowden's mind ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. But everyone is missing the law point ...

the WB Act protects the employee from retaliatory EMPLOYMENT ACTION[.i].

[struggle4progress]

91. More precisely, IIRC, it protects Federal employees from such retaliatory action

I haven't checked the law, or its later amendments, to understand the situation regarding Federal contractors and their employees

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. Federal Contractors ...

have been protected under the WB Act. And specifically addressed in the amendment.

[Number23]

85. Good catch, 1SBM!

There was alot of sloppiness in that article. Alot.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. But ...

it says what I want to hear so ...

I wonder how many arguing the letter of the law to defend Zimmerman are willing to ignore the letter of the law to defend snowden?

[ProSense]

72. No, he isn't

Congress passed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act in 1998, but it is no more than a trap. It establishes a procedure for internal reporting within the agencies and through the Inspector General to the congressional intelligence committees, but it provides no remedy for reprisals that occur as a result. Reporting internally through the ICWPA only identifies the whistleblowers, leaving them vulnerable to retaliation. The examples of former NSA official Thomas Drake, former House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark and former CIA officer Sabrina De Sousa show too well.

This lack of protection means that when intelligence community employees and contractors – who take an oath to defend the Constitution – see government illegality they must turn the other way, or risk their careers and possibly even their freedom. The people we trust to protect our nation from foreign enemies deserve legal protection when they blow the whistle on wrongdoing within government.

The ACLU continues to advocate a position that isn't supported by law, and the last two paragraphs indicate Snowden isn't a whistleblower.

Human Rights Watch (and this is from a piece critical of whistleblower protections - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023187207) :

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.

Also, when Greenwald made his "worst nightmare" comment (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023259203), he bascially confirmed that Snowden stole information unrelated to the goal of the leak, validating the felony theft charge against him.

Those advocating Snowden's status as a whistleblower completely ignore the fact that he released U.S. state secrets to other countries. They try to focus completely on Snowden's domestic claims. Still, even with that focus, the defense of Snowden relies on excuses and attempts to redefine the criteria for whistleblowing.

Snowden has no crediblity, and deserves no thanks.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023288332

[NuclearDem]

73. Twisted logic.

By that definition, protestors who don't seek permits beforehand can't be considered protestors because they didn't go through proper channels.

The law doesn't have a monopoly on the term.

[ProSense]

75. The "twisted logic" is trying to claim Snowden is a whistleblower. n/t

[NuclearDem]

76. Do you think protestors who don't seek permits beforehand should be considered protestors?

[struggle4progress]

84. So: is it about Snowden, after all?

[morningfog]

93. For fuck's sake. Snowden's acts, the US efforts to get him, the

sentence he is facing and his efforts to obtain asylum are of course about him.

That is just one part of a very big story. The NSA policies, known and unknown are the more important of the big story.

That has to be the most pathetic response, especially two months plus into this.

[struggle4progress]

94. Well, it IS hard to keep up with exactly what "It's not about Snowden" means

Apparently the fact that he went to China and tipped off the Chinese about what Chinese computers the NSA might have hacked, just in time to poison the talks between China and the US, is not part of the story, because "he's a whistleblower" and "we ought to talk about what he blew the whistle on" -- though that seems not to include telling the Chinese about what Chinese computers the NSA might have hacked

And apparently the fact that he went to Russia and got asylum there is not part of the story, because ""It's not about Snowden" -- but the fact that some people think Snowden deserves asylum "is not about Snowden"

[AppleBottom]

99. So Snowden went to China and not HK?

And then he walked around with government officials checking their computers and identified which machines the NSA hacked? Really? Do you have a YouTube video of this?

[NickB79]

104. Get ready for it.

New DU meme: The ACLU is a bunch of anti-Obama, Putin-loving commies. Competely un-American, I tell you!

[Puglover]

111. Yep I can hear it now.

The ACLU are all rat fuckers.



I figured I'd save someone the trouble.

[RetroLounge]

113. Under the bus with the ACLU

All the pro posters with now give you all the reasons why the ACLU sucks.

Makes no sense, I know, but they will twist it all around into random posts, when in reality, they just need to attack anything that makes their messiah look bad.

RL

[Progressive dog]

114. The WPA only covers government employees,

Eddie worked for Booz Allen. Then we have the disclosure of classified information problem, which information is specifically excluded from whistle blower protections, except as in 2302 B).
So in spite of clear reasons why Eddie is not a whistle blower under the WPA, the ACLU attorney tries to place him there and even provides links that unambiguously contradict his claim.

[AppleBottom]

121. I think he did the right thing and that's what's really important.

Being pedantic doesn't change the fact that Edward Snowden raised awareness about important act that were being committed against the American people without their consent. The ACLU is right.

[Progressive dog]

122. It might be important to you but not to me.

Snowden is NOT a whistle blower per the law and the original article says he is. The article does this by ignoring parts of the law. That is simple fact.

[AppleBottom]

123. The ability to determine right and wrong is a human quality and isn't found in a text book

I'm curious if Snowden is no a whistleblower what do you see Clapper as?

[Progressive dog]

124. I'm in favor of a government of laws.

Your right and wrong doesn't agree with those laws and is your personal morality.
Besides, the original article excerpted in the OP lied about what the law says. Most people would have a definition of right and wrong that does not allow lying.