Who is taking into consideration what exactly has motivated and
prompted this new generation? Who validates their utter belief -- without discrimination or reproach , that "no
one can be trusted" and that their very lives are at stake for telling the
Truth? What evolution of the laws can accommodate this growing sense of
distrust?
Broken Laws"of the Land
It is very important for National Security employees to know their
rights and to understand the laws , but what happens when
current avenues and laws essentially offer no guarantee of public disclosure of
the information or appropriate protection for the whistleblower?
Attorney Zaid says,
"The existing laws completely fail to adequately offer
protection in a meaningful or legitimate way, but that does not mean any individual
has the right to decide what is best for others. There is a process that does
exist and steps need to be taken to first try."
What happens when a potential whistleblower feels they cannot
trust anyone or their information involves those responsible for the very laws
they are expected to follow?
Zaid, who is known to have little compassion for those harboring
"conspiracy theories", says,
"It is often the case that a whistleblower cannot follow a
certain path of disclosure because the information that is of concern involves
those who one would normally report such concerns to. If that is the case,
there are other options outside their agency or office that they can turn to.
If an individual is so concerned about and suspect of everyone, then quite frankly
they generally have far greater problems than what they want to blow the
whistle on."
Or, what if the whistleblower simply feels traditional routes
will not allow for the information to become public enough to be worth having
blown the whistle and that otherwise no wrong will be made right?
According to Zaid,
"The whistleblower still needs to undertake certain minimal
efforts to try to bring the information to the attention of the right people.
Again, there is a significant distinction between an individual who has access
to classified information than one who does not."
It makes sense that a person would feel impotent in this
situation choosing another course of action, in this era, with that mind-set.
Who then can
they turn to? How then can they find a legal leg to stand on?
Media Does Matter
When -- if ever, is it OK for a whistleblower to go to the media
as Ellsberg did?
Zaid says, only as a "last resort" and that the main mistake of
both Manning and Snowden is that they went to the media as a "first resort"
instead of attempting to exhaust the legal channels available.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
