Slashdot Mirror


Where Whistleblowers End Up Working

HughPickens.com writes Jana Kasperkevic writes at The Guardian that it's not every day that you get to buy an iPhone from an ex-NSA officer. Yet Thomas Drake, former senior executive at National Security Agency, is well known in the national security circles for leaking information about the NSA's Trailblazer project to Baltimore Sun. In 2010, the government dropped all 10 felony charges against him and he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for unauthorized use of a computer and lost his livelihood. "You have to mortgage your house, you have to empty your bank account. I went from making well over $150,000 a year to a quarter of that," says Drake. "The cost alone, financially — never mind the personal cost — is approaching million dollars in terms of lost income, expenses and other costs I incurred."

John Kiriakou became the first former government official to confirm the use of waterboarding against al-Qaida suspects in 2009. "I have applied for every job I can think of – everything from grocery stores to Toys R Us to Starbucks. You name it, I've applied there. Haven't gotten even an email or a call back," says Kiriakou. According to Kasperkevic, this is what most whistleblowers can expect. The potential threat of prosecution, the mounting legal bills and the lack of future job opportunities all contribute to a hesitation among many to rock the boat. "Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, declared a war on whistleblowers virtually as soon as they assumed office," says Kiriakou. "Washington has always needed an "ism" to fight against, an idea against which it could rally its citizens like lemmings. First, it was anarchism, then socialism, then communism. Now, it's terrorism. Any whistleblower who goes public in the name of protecting human rights or civil liberties is accused of helping the terrorists."

9 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a very effective method at discouraging effective and functional resistance against status quo.

    Similar procedures were used against key people behind Occupy movement according to similar reports.

    1. Re:Nothing new by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The phrase "Freedom isn't Free" doesn't just apply on the battlefield.

    2. Re:Nothing new by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When is the last time the US military fought a battle for freedom? Hint: corporate profits != freedom.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Nothing new by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, that's the beauty of the Western system, as compared to for example Russia. There, if private companies dump dissidents, it's "oh noes government's fault".
      But in the land of the free? That's just private corporations exercising their freedom!

      The only actual difference? Slightly greater plausible deniability that works on people like you. Apparently. Because you see, there's no "conspiracy". There's simply the system that is set to encourage not employing those who resist status quo. Conspiracy implies secrecy, and there's there little secrecy about this issue, as you yourself point out.

  2. Exact Opposite of the Obama Campaign Message by nucrash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I remember correctly, before and after entering office, Obama vowed to improve government transparency and protecting whistle blowers. While in sections, such as with ARRA, government transparency was increased, the remainder of the government was obscured further.

     

    --
    Place something witty here
  3. Re:They are doing it wrong ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except the government is still going out figure out who it was. You just get to decide if you are the random unknown civilian who has a car crash during his morning commute or the famous whistle-blower barricaded in an embassy.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  4. Re:more info on Kiriakou by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amazing. Not only do we prevent them from working, we also prevent them from collecting food stamps so that they are further incentivised to resort to theft. Then if they get caught we put them in prison where they get the free food, clothing, and shelter we didn't want to give them before they resorted to theft.

  5. Re:Transparency by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Something happens between the election and the inauguration that changes a president's entire ethos.

    Makes you wonder what happens when they brief the incoming president on The Big Secret Stuff. Do you think they find out "holy shit there really are terrorists and/or aliens everywhere we're barely keeping at bay," or do you think a man with no name just hands the president a picture of JFK's head getting blown off from the perspective of the grassy knoll and says "here's your new talking points?"

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  6. Re:Obligatory quote/s by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just amazing, such an incredible two-faced attitude toward whistleblowers. Alexander Litvinenko was about as clear cut example of a whistleblower as you can get. He was an FSB officer who leaked the reports that the FSB had ordered the assassination of Boris Berezovsky. He was was arrested for his leaks, but acquitted - but the government continued going after him after his acquittal, so he fled to the UK and was granted asylum. In the UK, out of reach of the Russian government, he continued writing books and giving interviews leaking more information, including claims of the Russian government's involvement in the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the Russian apartment bombings that both solidified public resolve for Russia to re-invade Chechnya and helped bring Putin to power.

    And he was killed for that. By polonium. Traced straight back to a nuclear power plant in Russia via a British Airwaves jet from Moscow.

    Now, let's just say that Litvinenko was just speculating wildly or BSing about everything he said about Russia. That doesn't change the fact that for whatever reason, he was asssinated by polonium traced straight back to nuclear power plant in Russia via a British Airwaves jet from Moscow.

    But to you, a guy writing negative things about Putin makes him terrorist recruiter and that was justified? Seriously?

    --
    Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"