The path to Truth-telling is supposedly laid clear for those who
wish to pursue it. The National
Whistleblower's Center has even produced a handbook that can be found in libraries
across the country.
There are two main types of whistleblowers, "Corporate" and
"Federal".
Both have unique points to ponder for the one blowing the
whistle, as well as for those representing him or her in the aftermath.
The laws differ, as do the available protections however few.
Mark
Zaid, a Washington, D.C. attorney who regularly represents
national security whistleblowers and intelligence cases tells us,
"There are very few realistic protections for whistleblowers.
The situation is even worse for those in a national security environment where classified information is
involved. In order to establish legal whistleblower status there are
requirements with respect to the type, manner and method of disclosures that
are made. For national security whistleblowers the statute does not protect a
disclosure "prohibited by law' or "specifically required by Executive
order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or
the conduct of foreign affairs.' This means that the individual cannot simply
decide to disclose classified information to an unauthorized third-party, such
as the media, regardless of whether they are a whistleblower or not. Not only
do they lose any legal protections they might otherwise have had, but they will
have violated various criminal laws of the United States."
Typically -- for both "Corporate" and "Federal" cases one must
do the right things in order to have any hope of protection or exoneration of
wrong-doing. Although there are no guarantees, Zaid cautions that all legal
avenues must be explored saying,
"For all whistleblowers, the usual efforts are - and this will
be obviously fact specific to particular situations and can change accordingly
- to bring to their supervisor/chain-of-commands attention whatever the issue
might be. The individual would also have higher level officials available to
them. They can always go to their agency ombudsman if one exists, as well as
any number of Offices of Inspector General. If criminal conduct is involved
they also have the Dept. of Justice or, where appropriate, the military
criminal investigative agencies to approach. Of course, disclosing information
to Congress -- whether an oversight Committee or an individual member, would
constitute a protected disclosure as well. There are other potential avenues
beyond all of these. And, of course, there is no specific order required. These
approaches can all be pursued at the same time if desired."
But, not all whistleblowers follow the same legal path
for protections and ultimately [hopefully] justice. In fact, some -- like those
today, do not follow legally accepted protocol at all and Zaid
says of those like Manning and Snowden,
"It is the national security whistleblower who has a legal
obligation to stay within channels or face prosecution. As far as I am
concerned, national security whistleblowers have a moral and legal obligation
to pursue all available options before crossing the line into criminality."
Whistling a Different Tune
There appears to be a new breed of whistleblower. Those that
were children or very young adults when 9/11 happened. Those who've grown up in
an atmosphere of increasing government infringement, questionable wars and
extensive media induced propaganda.
Few also take into account that technology has played a large
role in molding the minds of this newer generation. A world
were citizens are finally waking-up and seeing things that had previously gone
unseen or at the very least had been overlooked. Call it a post 9/11 mind,
where righteous opinion and an abundance of information meet to become a
perfect storm for malcontent heroism.
As Judge Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia said in 2009
as part of the Franklin espionage case,
"Whistleblowing in itself is not an adequate rationale for
leaking classified information. Simply because you believe that something
that's going on that's classified should be revealed to the press and to the
public, so that the public can know that its government is doing something you
think is wrong, that doesn't justify [publicly disclosing] it.... Noble motives
don't erase the violation. However, you may want to go ahead and do it
[anyway], but you have to stand up and take the consequences."
Unfortunately, as society's capabilities and corruptions have
evolved, the laws and "acceptable" avenues for whistleblowers have
not. Daniel Ellsberg 's
1969 and even Coleen Rowley 's 2001 offered far less
technology and connectivity than Manning or Snowden's world of today and it has
an impact.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
