Obama Signs 'Whistleblower Protection Act' The Same Day That Whistleblower Bradley Manning Is In Court
from the funny-how-that-works dept
We've discussed the Whistleblower Protection Act in the past. The bill provides somewhat greater protections for government employees who blow the whistle on government wrongdoing -- though it's not as strong as it could be. After a couple years of various Senators blocking the bill, it finally was approved and signed into law by Obama on Tuesday. Of course, it seems like there's a fair bit of irony that, as Obama signed the bill into law, one of the most famous whistleblowers out there, Bradley Manning, was in court to deal with the latest hearings for his actions. And, yes, I know that Manning's critics insist that he was no whistleblower, but it seems that the line here is very fine indeed. From Manning's statements, he clearly believed he was blowing the whistle on illegal activities by the US government. But he gets no protections at all. Instead, there's a decent chance he'll spend his life in jail.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, president obama, whistleblower protection act, whistleblowers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they are already please disregard my comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private corporation whistleblowers are already protected....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Private corporation whistleblowers are already protected....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
To the best I can find out, the law that covers Bradly Manning is 10 USC § 1034 ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1034 ) Please note that this doesn't let you talk to whomever you want to, it limits you to the chain of command, the inspector general, and congress.
You can see more information on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Whistleblower_Protection_Act and browse through the references. It's interesting reading.
Boojum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
Honestly, I'm rather surprised that Mr. Manning wasn't charged with Espionage given that he stole classified documents and passed them to a foreign national. Given how many documents there were I doubt he had time to read them all and make sure they didn't have any military secrets or anything that would endanger troops.
But here is the thing.. If I choose to break the law because my moral code says it needs to be broken, then I expect I will also be charged with a crime. We do not normally allow an individuals moral code to allow them to break the law, there are to many variances to consider that a good way to promote justice.
If my moral code says it's ok to driver faster than the speed limit it doesn't get me out of a traffic ticket. If my moral code says it's ok to shoot a girl for going to school on a bus it doesn't get me out of murder charges. If my moral code says it's ok to use harsh capital punishment on my child it doesn't get me out of child protection laws being used to put me in jail.
At some point, I.. like every other human being.. has to decide where it's important to take a stand and where it's not. Bradley Manning found his point and chose to make his stand there. This doesn't get him out of punishment for how he went about doing it.
I know that I don't want political parties sifting through classified documents and deciding what to whistleblow on to best get their candidate into office.
To me, the best answer is to change how we classify documents and make government more open. But under the laws now I can't see how Bradley Manning can avoid some level of punishment to prevent worse results later on.
Boojum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
The code, and any other law, however, is not inherently moral. Just because it's official procedure doesn't make it morally correct.
What law allows the United States Government to cover up murder? I'm sure there are a few. It doesn't make it morally acceptable. If the legal or military system demands that you take immoral action and you follow orders, you are morally culpable for doing so, ala the Nuremberg trials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
You'll notice too that the ones persecuting this guy aren't exactly his peers. No they are his "superiors" that were hiding information on illegal activities...
I mean you've got the original guilty party acting as the law enforcement here. Seems like a highly questionable conflict of interest to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
A hypothetical question for anyone familiar with the UCMJ.
If Manning believed that information he passed contained constitutional violations by the government, wouldn't it follow that the orders to keep the information secret would be unlawful? And if that was the case, wouldn't Manning be obliged to disobey that order, since following an unlawful order is also a court martial offense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
It depends on the order. If the order is not to tell the inspector general, congress, or someone in his chain of command then it would be an unlawful order. If the order is to not give the secret to a foreign government or foreign national, then it would be a lawful order. You can't just stop at ordered to keep it secret. You have to include keep it secret from whom.
Under the uniform code of military justice, an order is lawful unless there is an exception written into the UCMJ. My understanding is that there is no exception allowing military personnel to leak classified documents of our governments constitutional violations to a foreign national or government.
Boojum
Boojum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
If Manning's being held by the standards of the UCMJ, those who are using it against him have not read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
He did the right thing and hopefully he will continue to think that over the years and know there are plenty of us out here that know what he did was right.
If you come across something that is bad enough to make you question whether or not you're a good person if you just stfu you should let the world know. There is no way in hell I could have just shut up if I came across the documents he did. The military is not above the law like they think they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
Boojum already covered this. Lawful is in accordance with the current laws, in this case the UCMJ, which his actions were not. He has the option to refuse to participate in transmitting data he felt represented an unlawful action, or to escalate to an authority on interpreting the "lawfulness" of the order... but neither would authorize him to proactively broadcast confidential data on the internet.
Even diehard proponents of whistleblowing (as I am) have to acknowledge it's not possible to give people free reign to determine how best to proceed and what un-ordered actions to take in a given situation when you have even the slightest hope of a successful and cohesive organizational structure, much less corporate or national security.
If I deposit a large sum of cash and the bank teller suspects I might be a drug dealer, and the bank president orders them to simply do their job... they do not have the right as a whistleblower to make a webpage with my personal info laden with accusations. There are appropriate and often legally established methods for objecting and attempting to expose corruption. Bradly Manning did what he did, HOW he did, for one reason... he wanted to be a counter-culture leet haxor hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Court Martial is not the same as Federal Court
One of his charges carries a possible death sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Four More Years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil law is different than military law
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_Of_Military_Justice
Everyone who enters the US military is made aware of the UCMJ. Manning knew the risks and lost. If he was standing up for his ethical beliefs, good for him, but he should also be willing to accept the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Civil law is different than military law
I agree with this even though it effectively countenances injustice, for many complicated reasons. And as near as I can tell, he is so willing. However there's no reason that we as citizens should be willing to allow him to accept the consequences.
Also, there's no reason he (or anyone) should be willing to accept his mistreatment prior to the trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are made aware they are now under the UCMJ, they are not made aware of their rights or what those laws are. Often the first encounter they have with the UCMJ, is an Article 15. No where there are they made aware of their rights either. Article 15s are punitive judgements usually made by the local commanding officer who is more interested that his authority not be eroded than he is out looking for a fair outcome.
Nor are those under UCMJ offered a look at the laws. Requesting to look at them will often bring you under a watchful eye looking for a reason to stomp the 'shithouse lawyer' before he gets the chance to stir up the troops with discipline an moral issues. You can see how that effects those under such laws by the treatment Bradley got while in an extended wait for court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is (or will be upon sentencing) a disgruntled whiner at best and a traitor at worst but not a whistle blower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ex-post-facto....maybe not, but something I need to say...
In short, since Bradley Manning has NOT been convicted and sent to prison yet, he is protected under the WBPA (Whistle Blowers' Protection Act).
I would like to note however that, like the Freedom of Imformation Act (signed by Bill Clinton), whistle blowing protection laws like this already existed at a civilian level. Bradley Manning was a Government Worker at the NSA, and until this law was signed, Government Workers' rights were never protected.
For those who were wondering, The Freedom of Information Act was the first law that involved Government Workers' rights. Aside from giving civilians the right to request classified documents by the government in case a project went wrong, it also allowed for declassification for insurance agencies and former government workers to get workers' compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ex-post-facto....maybe not, but something I need to say...
He had no choice to do what he did through the channels he chose. The reason behind this is simply that nobody in the Government would listen to him or believe him. In an agency where ethics are supposed to be upheld at the highest level, he saw numerous ethics violations beimg committed. He quite possibly used up all his resources before using the last ditch effort to get the message out that is the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ex-post-facto....maybe not, but something I need to say...
None of which is protected under the whistle blower law, which is what this article was about. The whistleblower law, and in this case the more important military whistleblower law, clearly delineate what they protect and neither the civilian nor the military laws protect someone giving information to a foreign national.
As the details of the case come out we may well see arguments as to what other options he had available. It won't stop the destruction of his military career... because he definitely violated the USMJ no matter how well intentioned he was or how few choices he felt he had.
And, of course, this raises another issue. It states that Bradly Manning clearly thought he was informing on illegal actions of the government. But what about the rest of the thousands of documents that didn't contain information on illegal actions of the government?
Let us say the chief of police in a city commits murder and covers it up.. and the documents are inside a computer at the police station. I can still get in trouble if I grab ALL the information in the police computer (including private information about officers and citizens) and give it to someone else instead of just what is needed to reveal what happened. Of the documents that Bradley leaked, many were embarrassing without showing illegal activity.
He had choices on how he released the information.. some of them might have seen less of a chance that the information gets out (such as reporting it to the inspector general or a congressman he trusted) but even if he did he chose to give ALL the documents to a foreign national. That's sort of the definition of espionage even if we feel that he was justified about telling someone about specific actions.
And Mesonoxian, please point to the part of the USMJ that says it's unlawful to order someone not to release classified documents to the public? You will find it allows you to reveal unlawful activities to Congress, your chain of command, and to the inspector general. I think you'll find that the people charging him DO know the USMJ... you just don't like what the USMJ says.
Boojum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ex-post-facto....maybe not, but something I need to say...
Manning is not convicted yet....and therefore covered by the new law which covers the USMJ as did the Freedom of Information Act has since its signing.
The embarrassment is in the eye of the beholder. The NSA has a tendancy to cite "embarrassment" a lot when it gets called out for illegal activities likely because they are, A) embarrassed of their own activities not showing ANY evidence of a suspect in general, B) Shows illegal activities and subsequently will cite "Embarrassment" as the reason for their legal issues, or C) Both A and B combined.
Either way, under the Freedom of Information Act, any illegal activity committed by a government agency which deams the documentation of said illegal activities are deemed declassified in USMJ and the US court of law. Since the illegal activities he discovered were in fact documented, deemed classified, and subsequently covered up, those documents, by law, are immediately declassified when a whistle blower releases the information to either an investigative committee or the public. The Freedom of Information Act nullified said classified documents in Manning's case. The WBPA extends his rights to be protected from any harmful or irreparable damage comes his way.
In short: Manning is COVERED by the Freedom of Information Act and the WBPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We had a case in Denmark where a former special force guy wrote a book about his experiences in Afghanistan. The case was blown up by Department of Defence who wanted it stopped. It ended up costing several jobs in DoD as they were caught fabricating evidence to support the opinion that the leak was dangerous.
Classification of data is a very dubious practice and it needs a timelimit to make it even tolerable from an oversight level. The crimes you can commit while under classification and NDA is endless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
The Constitution is getting the doormat treatment.
Coming soon -YOU getting the doormat treatment!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boojum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both end in Y I totally get the confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whistleblowers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whistleblowers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scam City
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning again
I don't think what he exposed was as embarrassing and possibly harmful as the "Pentagon Papers" were, and Daniel Ellsberg was a hero for exposing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning
As Einstein said, "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe".
Manning, to me, is a hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]