C
Chibibar
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1
It is an interesting read.
It is an interesting read.
- Status
To be protected under the whistleblower protection act, "Whistleblowers may file complaints that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."
The complaints may be made internally (within the structure of the organization itself) or externally (media, watchgroups, etc)
However, the whistleblower act does NOT protect one from violations of national security and secrets.
As an example, it may be an abuse of power to send spies to Africa to see if one's spouse is cheating on them. However, that does not mean that releasing the names of the undercover spies is not treasonous - they may be re-assigned, but if their cover is blown they are suddenly useless as spies, possibly becoming targets, and our overall ability to carry out our security detail is weakened.
So there's a balance that has to be maintained between releasing enough information, to the right people, to stop the waste, fraud, and abuse, but not so much that it weakens our ability to carry out or national security needs or provide information to other countries that put us at a disadvantage.
The court case will hinge on whether the information truly showed areas of abuse/waste/fraud/illegal activity, and whether the informant released more information than was necessary to get the agency to change for the better, or released information that was too sensitive to release to the press, and puts the agency at a disadvantage.
Added at: 12:31
It's important to note that it's "gross" mismanagment and waste of funds, and "substantial and specific" danger to the public.
So if it's illegal or a violation of the rules/regulations, he's better protected.
If it's wasteful and/or dangerous, though, it has to be very wasteful or dangerous.
I only read the first page (long article is long, and the writer isn't making it very compelling), so I don't know what the complaints were, but the case could come down to "where's the line between waste and gross waste" if it's not illegal, etc.
The complaints may be made internally (within the structure of the organization itself) or externally (media, watchgroups, etc)
However, the whistleblower act does NOT protect one from violations of national security and secrets.
As an example, it may be an abuse of power to send spies to Africa to see if one's spouse is cheating on them. However, that does not mean that releasing the names of the undercover spies is not treasonous - they may be re-assigned, but if their cover is blown they are suddenly useless as spies, possibly becoming targets, and our overall ability to carry out our security detail is weakened.
So there's a balance that has to be maintained between releasing enough information, to the right people, to stop the waste, fraud, and abuse, but not so much that it weakens our ability to carry out or national security needs or provide information to other countries that put us at a disadvantage.
The court case will hinge on whether the information truly showed areas of abuse/waste/fraud/illegal activity, and whether the informant released more information than was necessary to get the agency to change for the better, or released information that was too sensitive to release to the press, and puts the agency at a disadvantage.
Added at: 12:31
It's important to note that it's "gross" mismanagment and waste of funds, and "substantial and specific" danger to the public.
So if it's illegal or a violation of the rules/regulations, he's better protected.
If it's wasteful and/or dangerous, though, it has to be very wasteful or dangerous.
I only read the first page (long article is long, and the writer isn't making it very compelling), so I don't know what the complaints were, but the case could come down to "where's the line between waste and gross waste" if it's not illegal, etc.
C
Chibibar
I understand that. So far (story can be view as one sided) that the document he possess vs what given to media could make a difference. The "government" said the 5 document he possess contain classified info (which he didn't think it did).
C
Chibibar
Can things be "retro" classified? I mean we heard stories of backdated papers.
No, what they usually do now is just label anything and everything classified to prevent Freedom of Information searches. As a result, we usually only hear about things 30+ years after they happen unless someone whistleblows.
Necronic
Staff member
I read the entire article (which I suggest anyone do before they comment) and that's a travesty. Period. The inconsistency of prosecution (Sun vs Times vs all other leaks), the severity of the NSAs mistakes, the lack of punitive action against the NSA for these mistakes....
I appreciate that we need secrecy and security, I truly do. But this guy being the example? Yeah I don't think so. He didn't leak anything that secret, it was a huge problem that needed to be outed, it WAS outed to the Inspector General, and compared to the leaks in the Times it was insignificant.
These seems to me like a punitive action against the one guy that was (and he was) dumb enough to go on record discussing all of his misdeeds.
I appreciate that we need secrecy and security, I truly do. But this guy being the example? Yeah I don't think so. He didn't leak anything that secret, it was a huge problem that needed to be outed, it WAS outed to the Inspector General, and compared to the leaks in the Times it was insignificant.
These seems to me like a punitive action against the one guy that was (and he was) dumb enough to go on record discussing all of his misdeeds.
- Status