The most alarming thing about the House Intelligence Committee's report is that the Committee is authorized to receive intelligence whistleblower disclosures. How can a body so misinformed and apparently hostile to whistleblowers be entrusted with whistleblower disclosures?
The House Intelligence Committee speciously conflates "whistleblowing" with "government protected whistleblowing." Cornell University's law school defines whistleblower as "An employee who alleges wrongdoing by his or her employer of the sort that violates public law or tends to injure a considerable number of people." The allegation does not have to be proven to qualify as whistleblowing. It need only be a good-faith belief that wrongdoing occurred. Unquestionably, Edward Snowden's activities qualify as a whistleblower in Cornell's definition of that word, a definition that is widely embraced.
"Whistleblower protection," as envisioned by the intelligence community deserves to be wrapped in scare quotes whenever the term is used. The approved channel forces a whistleblower to self-identify to managers who are thus enabled to orchestrate the whistleblower's removal through smears and retaliatory investigation. The new "whistleblower protection" scheme established by President Obama is basically the old scheme with a fresh coat of paint. That paint includes a new "appeal" process in which reviewers have authority only to suggest that a retaliating agency head reconsider approving a whistleblower's removal or security clearance revocation. Although inspector generals have a long history of aiding management retaliation, and agency heads can deny the IG access to documents and witnesses, Obama's plan relies on IGs to objectively investigate whistleblower reprisal claims. It is basically irrelevant, therefore, whether or not Snowden would have been able to avail himself of Obama's "whistleblower protection" process.
The experiences of numerous whistleblowers and simple logic argue against allowing the government define, adjudicate or otherwise control whistleblowing within the government. Government employees blow the whistle to prevent government officials from abusing the rights of citizens and the public welfare. In taking that action, the employee offers to defend the public interest. The public therefore should decide whether to accept that offer to serve as its representative -- via a jury, for example -- granting the whistleblower its protection and compensating him or her for expenses and losses. It makes no sense at all to allow the government to determine who qualifies to be represent the public's interests. That's like allowing someone you are suing or prosecuting to pick your attorneys. There is more folly in forcing a whistleblower to personally shoulder all of the legal costs of defending the public interest.
Resolution of these problems will occur only when citizens awake to their responsibility to come to the aid of whistleblowers, their champions and their eyes and ears to government abuses and corruption.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by trustkeeper.
The Snowden "is not a whistleblower" claim
The House Intelligence Committee speciously conflates "whistleblowing" with "government protected whistleblowing." Cornell University's law school defines whistleblower as "An employee who alleges wrongdoing by his or her employer of the sort that violates public law or tends to injure a considerable number of people." The allegation does not have to be proven to qualify as whistleblowing. It need only be a good-faith belief that wrongdoing occurred. Unquestionably, Edward Snowden's activities qualify as a whistleblower in Cornell's definition of that word, a definition that is widely embraced.
"Whistleblower protection," as envisioned by the intelligence community deserves to be wrapped in scare quotes whenever the term is used. The approved channel forces a whistleblower to self-identify to managers who are thus enabled to orchestrate the whistleblower's removal through smears and retaliatory investigation. The new "whistleblower protection" scheme established by President Obama is basically the old scheme with a fresh coat of paint. That paint includes a new "appeal" process in which reviewers have authority only to suggest that a retaliating agency head reconsider approving a whistleblower's removal or security clearance revocation. Although inspector generals have a long history of aiding management retaliation, and agency heads can deny the IG access to documents and witnesses, Obama's plan relies on IGs to objectively investigate whistleblower reprisal claims. It is basically irrelevant, therefore, whether or not Snowden would have been able to avail himself of Obama's "whistleblower protection" process.
The experiences of numerous whistleblowers and simple logic argue against allowing the government define, adjudicate or otherwise control whistleblowing within the government. Government employees blow the whistle to prevent government officials from abusing the rights of citizens and the public welfare. In taking that action, the employee offers to defend the public interest. The public therefore should decide whether to accept that offer to serve as its representative -- via a jury, for example -- granting the whistleblower its protection and compensating him or her for expenses and losses. It makes no sense at all to allow the government to determine who qualifies to be represent the public's interests. That's like allowing someone you are suing or prosecuting to pick your attorneys. There is more folly in forcing a whistleblower to personally shoulder all of the legal costs of defending the public interest.
Resolution of these problems will occur only when citizens awake to their responsibility to come to the aid of whistleblowers, their champions and their eyes and ears to government abuses and corruption.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by trustkeeper.
Submit a story now.