Whistleblowers Uncover Illegalities, Not LEGALLY Secret Information
Why do American citizens pay for their employees to break the law and uncover LEGALLY collected information? Why must we rely on criminal foreign conspiracies like Wikileaks for protection at the same time as we taxpayers MUST pay for a massive and occasionally mind-numbing federal bureaucracy? It is absurd to laud Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden as American heroes, or even as mere whistleblowers, when they disclose LEGALLY-kept secret information to foreign entities simply because they want to for ideological reasons. It is wrong to idolize the would-be protectors of our Republic at Wikileaks from Sweden when they can't even follow our legal process to ferret out illegality. Republics work on two basic principles: representation of the voting public and rule of law. How can you break the law for your own ideological reasons and still claim you are protecting the Republic when "the Republic" thinks differently? It's a logical contradiction!
And when Manning and Snowden released OUR secret information, nothing improper was found and certainly nothing to justify the information release. The trial of Bradley Manning shows less about the value of the stolen information and more about the value we place on employees following the law even if they disagree with it. And I think justice was served by the Manning verdict because one employee disagreed with the law and will necessarily be punished for his crime in breaking it under unwarranted circumstances. "Due process" works in America, even for traitors.
Bradley Manning was found not guilty of aiding the enemy, perhaps a trumped up charge in the first place when one considers that simply reading Wikileaks for inside information about battlefield activities can hardly be considered intentional assistance to an unidentified enemy of the US who happens upon a website. He released it to Wikileaks and it then laundered the illegal documents for open viewing. But, random viewership does not constitute an illegal relationship between an American employee and an enemy. Though farfetched as a criminal allegation because of its indirectness, I wouldn't justify that information release either because other moles in the US can push the limits further by releasing information that directly harms US troops.
So what value do Americans get out of this relationship if there can be even more important information stolen, which could then be used to contribute to the deaths of more US employees? Both the weak information already stolen and the potentially damaging information yet to be taken are legally-kept secrets and taking them is a crime, so why do we have to trust third parties, like Wikileaks, that get donations to pick and choose from OUR information? Why do we have to trust the editorial abilities of Wikileaks when we have no say in their organization other than to give them donations? I'd prefer American democracy and rule of law over Wikileaks doing what it wants with OUR secrets. Do we want more secret information out of government extracted by foreigners to punish OUR government or do we want more of our employees to survive their jobs? I choose the later.
What Manning's conviction on the other counts shows is that the US is serious about its employees' conduct and the oath that they take when they agree to serve us. Manning was justifiably convicted of espionage and lesser charges because he knowingly collected top-secret information and disclosed it to Wikileaks, a foreign enterprise that traffics in illegal information. And its information is largely about the US because it believes that the sole superpower needs to be checked while growing powers like China deserve a pass. Perhaps I was taking liberties with Wikileaks' mission, but they can't gain any freedom of press in China (or Russia) so why the US is the main target mystifies me.
Whistleblowing is an Abstraction that Serves the Public Only when the Powerful ACTUALLY Break Laws
Wikileaks is not a journalistic outlet, it is simply a laundering website for stolen information. As I've written before, its only output is based on crime and therefore, it is an organized criminal entity because voluntary donors contribute money to continue stealing from the American people. Actual journalistic outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post do a further disservice to American taxpayers by abetting Wikileaks in theft. They "wash" the stolen secrets of their espionage and produce journalism of limited value. It is of limited value because the stolen information converted into news articles are legal secrets, the information taken has proven not surprising since its release, and though its content is controversial because of the larger ongoing political debate about privacy and government, the general topic is already subject to more fruitful debates among policymakers. So what's the big deal with journalists collaborating with government moles and a foreign criminal entity? Isn't a free and vibrant press more important than monitoring overseas activities? Well, the big deal is that allowing Wikileaks to continue laundering opens up a gaping wound in the services we pay for and it puts our secrets and our security in the hands voluntary donors, foreigners, and moles.
In fact, the NSA is a legal administration we pay for to protect our society's information from the less than nice actors across the planet. We also elect and pay representatives to represent our views, which have consistently given a mandate to continue a reasonable security administration to protect us from terrorist threats. Therefore, the NSA's data collection regime is quite legal despite disagreement as to whether it improperly affects our privacy. But any alleged invasion of privacy should be combated in the courts, taken to Supreme Court, where real experts determine the boundaries of national security and privacy. I do not want amateur and rather low-level zealots to interpret our laws or decide their constitutionality. I do not want ideologues to interpret the privacy abstraction for us when we pays millions of public employees to do better jobs.
Can't we just pay our public employees to do their jobs without having to worry about would-be heroes undermining their legitimate effort?
Are Manning, Snowden, and Wikileaks really striking a blow for "Democracy"??
(NO. Absolutely the opposite is the case)
How do you strike a blow for whisteblowers everywhere if the place you are fleeing to makes their own whistleblowers disappear? How can you value democracy, exposure of the truth, and rule of law when you flee from the vastly more fair due process of the United States to the authoritarianism of Russia or China? How can you claim asylum from torture when the place you are fleeing to actually tortures domestic dissidents? What evidence is there that a CIVILIAN contractor accused of espionage will be treated as foreign enemy combatant when his crime took place in the US, where torture is banned expressly by order of President Obama, civilian courts have a long tradition of handling these types of trials, and they are available because there is not the required warzone exception to close them and open a Guantanamo-style military tribunal (see. Ex. Part Milligan)?
So, there is no evidence that Snowden faces anything other than fair due process, at least the process that the rest of the citizens he seeks to protect also have to face. And Manning's trial and partial acquittal because of allegations his treatment was harsh shows that a MILITARY trial can be quite fair for both the defendant and for the public as it seeks justice. A sentencing judge will determine if his treatment while in custody is worthy of further scrutiny and if military misconduct occurred on the part of his captors, they will go to jail for their crimes. And private contractor Edward Snowden will receive a CIVILIAN trial if he ever returns.
Why expose "the truth" to help "democracy" if you are going to a country that oppresses it?
In many of Snowden's supposed host countries where he would seek refuge from the awful "terror and injustice" of the US criminal justice system, there is no comparable legal process for whistleblowing, at least in an open way that allows for protections of the accuser against their bosses. For example, in Russia, Sergei Magniztsky exposed alleged corruption in his own country. He discovered the largest known tax-fraud in Russian history. Yet, he was found murdered in jail and then tried after his death for tax evasion. What abstraction could a government use to do this after his death other than an authoritarian one, an abstraction far removed from democracy, and one that actually twists the truth for its own ends. The data trawling NSA program to legally collect phone numbers from foreigners calling into the US is NOT comparable to prison murder and posthumous show trials of actual whistleblowers. In the NSA case, US government officials emphasize national security with minimal invasion of privacy as opposed to the Russian government using violent repression to stifle those who speak out. Russian authorities likely did this just to sully his reputation and prevent his martyrdom.
In the US, there are whistleblower protections in almost every facet of government and even in private enterprise. That means there are clear rules to report misconduct and lawbreaking that avoid show trials, secret police, and indefinite detention in a non-combat area. There is the Whistleblower Reprisal Program and its hotline that allow Defense Department employees the ability to report without fear of retaliation from their bosses. If Bradly Manning actually found anything illegal at the Defense Department, he might have done this instead of collaborating with a foreign illegal enterprise, Wikileaks, that seeks to undermine and defraud American taxpayers of covert services they pay for.
Of course the Obama Administration prosecutes more whistle-blowers, but Shouldn't we have a hearing or a trial to determine if their whistle-blowing was justified, and if not, don't we want to remove the criminals from government?
Whistleblowing should be invoked only in the case of CLEAR ILLEGALITY, DECEPTION, or ABUSE of authority. Most reports of Manning and Snowden's leaked information show that it was embarrassing, but not the most secret or valuable secrets. What is also clear is that none of three criteria have been met to justify giving them a whistleblower label, meaning the information should have remained secret, and the two government employees who accessed the information criminally released it.
Claiming the title of whistleblower does not absolve the accused of potential criminal penalties and that is rightly so. And yes, many critics correctly point out that the Obama administration has lead the way in the conviction of whistleblowers. Claiming you're a whistleblower is fraught with peril and you must have a convincing case of illegality. Yet, the Federal government has the right under our law to present a case for prosecution so that the "people's interest" is defended. Do critics of the number of prosecutions want the government to abandon its duty to seek justice for the American people and simply clap for employees who release any information they want? There are serious consequences for trying to ferret out corruption if you have taken an oath to serve the American people.
And the aggregate number of prosecutions is less meaningful compared to the actual CONTENT of what the leakers released or disclosed. We have laws that state expressly that some activities of government employees must remain secret. If you break that law, you may be convicted and punished because we believe in the rule of law abstraction. Federal workplace confrontations between employees and those in power should always be scrutinized in a careful way. But, Snowden and Manning are not whistleblowers and therefore simply raising Obama's prosecution number of actual whisteblowers is a red herring to cover for two non-whistleblowers who will be brought to justice. What bosses acted improperly toward Snowden or Manning? How does the legal NSA program compare to whistleblowers in the army who fight their commanders over sexual harassment? They don't. Snowden and Manning are simply ideologues who committed a crime in the name of ideology.
And media figures also raise the issue of the World War I-era Espionage Act that is used to try many of these whistleblowers as if the age of law negates any utility for the public. But, we shouldn't age discriminate even against laws. Heck, the 1st amendment dates from the 18th century, yet we still debate the freedom of the press abstraction. There might just be some good things we can get out of an old law that new ones can't do any better. Besides even if there is a better law available to combat espionage, we still have to follow the laws on the books right now and follow the process to change it.
And according to General Military Law 10 U.S.C. 2011, it is illegal for any military personnel to restrict a public employee from communicating with a member of Congress. Therefore, rather than trouncing around Russia and Latin America, Snowden could have contacted any number of NSA critics in Congress who can use proper, legal, AMERICAN channels to seek a solution that fits his ideological vision. I wish this debate were about simply changing old pieces of legislation like the Espionage Act because that would conform to the rule of law abstraction instead of journalists abetting theft by accepting Snowden as a whistleblower.
Look to Congress and you'll find a wide array of opposition to the NSA and to government encroachment on "privacy." Tea Party and Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the collection of data by the government and they didn't need Snowden or his information in order to express that criticism. Then with the right argument and the right support, Snowden could have helped change the Espionage Act and incorporated his improvements so we all benefit legally. In fact, current amendments to the defense appropriation bill would limit the reach of the NSA and have repeatedly threatened to end NSA use of metadata (See Watkins). This would be an actual legal way to stop the NSA program and they didn't need Snowden or political asylum in a less democratic country to do it.
Russia Offers Asylum to a US Spy who Escaped Fair Due Process, the US Supported an Actual Whistleblower Beaten to Death in Russian Federal Prison.
The Whistleblower Protection Act is the legal means for government employees to disclose misconduct, illegality, and generally bad behavior. It is not an umbrella protection for ideologues who think the US government is collecting too many phone numbers or because it keeps secrets about the necessarily secret activities of its paid employees across the world. Why do we pay government employees to do their job if a handful of employees can undermine that work simply because they are disloyal to what they view as a corrupt administration and do not believe as their superiors do? If the real power of this country, the mass of voters, do not like something, let them show their displeasure by electing officials to represent their point of view. Even then the responsibility of governing this nation, and all of the responsibilities that the US performs worldwide that other countries won't, must be placed with the public servants chosen by voters and not with the disloyal.
American laws are not supposed to interpreted by lone zealots deciding for the American people what is best for them, their security, or privacy. Instead, if the public is really going to be served best, we must strengthen legal systems to detect and destroy corruption while bringing justice to those who use their positions of power for illegal aims. We do NOT have a federal workforce of individual ideologues interpreting our laws and our democratic-Republic themselves regardless of what the voters and their public servants have decided.
Say no to a government of dictatorial ideologues!
Sources:
"Dictionary.com" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic?s=t
Mattingly, Phil and Nichols, Hans. "Obama Pursuing Leakers Sends Warning to Whistle-blowers " http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-18/obama-pursuing-leakers-sends-warning-to-whistle-blowers.html
Nuemen, Scott. "Death And Tax Evasion: The Strange Case Of Sergei Magnitsky"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/11/201120083/death-and-tax-evasion-the-strange-case-of-sergei-magnitsky
Office of the Inspector General. "Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations." http://www.dodig.mil/programs/whistleblower/wri.html
-------------------------------------. "Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory personnel actions." http://www.dodig.mil/Resources/PolicyReferences/whistleblower/10_USC_1034.pdf
Starr, Barbara "Snowden did not access 'crown jewels' of NSA intel, official says." CNN http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/22/politics/snowden-intel
Supreme Court. "Ex Parte Milligan." http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/2/case.html
Timesleader. "Congress-debating-reach-of-NSA's-power." http://www.timesleader.com/news/news/698345/Congress-debating-reach-of-NSAs-power
Watkins, Ali. "Skeptical Congress Turns Its Spycam on NSA Surveillance." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/17/196962/skeptical-congress-turns-its-spycam.html#.Ue_n-KxnAR4
