Slashdot Mirror


How the Pentagon Punished NSA Whistleblowers (theguardian.com)

10 years before Edward Snowden's leak, an earlier whistle-blower on NSA spying "was fired, arrested at dawn by gun-wielding FBI agents, stripped of his security clearance, charged with crimes that could have sent him to prison for the rest of his life, and all but ruined financially and professionally," according to a new article in The Guardian. "The only job he could find afterwards was working in an Apple store in suburban Washington, where he remains today... The supreme irony? In their zeal to punish Drake, these Pentagon officials unwittingly taught Snowden how to evade their clutches when the 29-year-old NSA contract employee blew the whistle himself."

But today The Guardian reveals a new story about John Crane, a senior official at the Department of Defense "who fought to provide fair treatment for whistleblowers such as Thomas Drake -- until Crane himself was forced out of his job and became a whistleblower as well..." Crane told me how senior Defense Department officials repeatedly broke the law to persecute whistleblower Thomas Drake. First, he alleged, they revealed Drake's identity to the Justice Department; then they withheld (and perhaps destroyed) evidence after Drake was indicted; finally, they lied about all this to a federal judge...

Crane's failed battle to protect earlier whistleblowers should now make it very clear that Snowden had good reasons to go public with his revelations... if [Crane's] allegations are confirmed in court, they could put current and former senior Pentagon officials in jail. (Official investigations are quietly under way.)

Meanwhile, George Maschke writes: In a presentation to a group of Texas law students, a polygraph examiner for the U.S. Department of Defense revealed that in the aftermath of Edward Snowden's revelations, the number of polygraphs conducted annually by the department tripled (to over 120,000). Morris also conceded that mental countermeasures to the polygraph are a "tough thing."

15 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Who will watch the watchers? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Official investigations are quietly under way.

    But who will watch (or protect) the watchers? Crane started blowing the whistle in 2002, so if there was an effective process for investigating his reports, you'd think it'd have concluded 14 years later...

    If the assistant inspector general supervising the whistleblower unit can't figure out how to safely be a whistleblower without getting hammered, then who can? Ironically, the image of a whistleblower is that the whistle immediately alerts everyone to an issue. How's that worked out for folks?

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    1. Re: Who will watch the watchers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It has ALWAYS been this way and ALWAYS will be. You simply can't trust an organization to investigate itself or correct itself. It's a fundamental conflict of interest, isn't it? Hey bankrobber, some people tell me you've been robbing banks. Why don't you investigate yourself? OK. I just did. Nope, clean as a whistle!

    2. Re:Who will watch the watchers? by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > when the revolution comes (and yes, its coming, no doubt about it; just don't know WHEN) these assholes will be up against the wall.
      I would buy a ticket to such an event, btw.

      ...

      > I hope we can change before the mob justice stuff happens. I don't really want to be around when the shit hits the fan. it won't be fun for anyone.

      If you've ever wondered why people don't take you seriously ...

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re: Who will watch the watchers? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't matter. And better a clear example that using, say the police. They are largely self-policed, and see no problems with anything they do. the initial finding on Walter Scott was that it was justified, though that's effectively been redacted, once the 3rd party video was found, they "always" thought it was a bad shooting. Had there not been video, even with witnesses, it would have been a justified shooting. They all are. Except when there's video. Then, they are unjustified. But only then.

      But bringing up the police gets people with all sorts of unrelated opinions to latch onto unrelated items. So to avoid problems with that, you might as well use robbers, or the mob as an example of self-policing.

    4. Re: Who will watch the watchers? by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The NSA, CIA, and FBI aren't intended to be criminal organizations. They were built to help the people of the US. The hope of the public at large is that this draws honorable people to those organizations, and that at worst, only a few bad apples will exist.

      I really wish people would stop using this expression.

      Have you ever left a bad apple in a bunch of apples? If you had, you'd know exactly what happens: the whole bunch turns bad very quickly. That's where the expression came from, and that's why it's invalid to say "only a few bad apples": there is no such thing as a few bad apples!!! When you have a bad apple, whether it's an apple or a cop in a police department, unless it's removed quickly, pretty soon they're all bad. Which is why the expression is apt for police, except that everyone keeps forgetting about what really happens with bad apples. Does no one keep bunches of apples any more?

    5. Re:Who will watch the watchers? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure that a lot of French and Russian people thought that "mob "justice"" wouldn't be dangerous to them, but that didn't really turn out to be the case. See: French Revolution (1789), Russian Revolution (1917).

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re: Who will watch the watchers? by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The hope of the public at large is that this draws honorable people to those organizations, and that at worst, only a few bad apples will exist. In this environment, self inspection and whistleblowing works.

      Except for the fact that it doesn't. There are plenty of "honorable" people that believe the ends justify the means, and I believe that's largely what we have here. Too many people think that peoples' safety is more important than their freedom, and it's acceptable to break the law "if it saves the life of just one child".

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    7. Re:Who will watch the watchers? by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Official investigations are quietly under way

      The keyword there is quietly. Condemnation of critics is loud. Affirmation of critics is quiet.

    8. Re:Who will watch the watchers? by tburkhol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not "scapegoating" if they are the ones that really broke the law in a major fashion leading to major consequences, is it? So yes, it really does matter who they are and what they did.

      I think the point of this story is that you will never know which ones really broke the law. You will only have a good story about laws broken, and people within the organization can manipulate the release of information in order to assure that they choose the identity of the criminals. Treasonous spies within the organization who leak state secrets and endanger the lives of committed service men and women overseas. People like John Crane and Thomas Drake.

      Maybe, with electronic distribution of vast data troves, we are beginning to see those whistleblowers find a public voice. Still, 53% of Americans think Snowden should face charges. Only 30% think he should be pardoned or avoid prosecution. Snowden has been pretty well defined as the person who broke the law in a major fashion.

      Meanwhile, even within his documentation, the identities of actual decision makers who set all of the excesses in motion are fuzzy. They're gradual, creeping extensions, with no one person to point at and decry as evil. And there is not such a person: the nature of a bureaucracy is to obscure and protect the individual. So, even if the organization has to sacrifice some loyal soldiers, the selection of those individuals is largely arbitrary and constructed from and for propaganda.

  2. Not to mention astroturfing their propaganda by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When TPTB strikes, they make sure they cover everything

    Not only they throw the book on the whistleblowers, they also make sure that those patriotic whistleblowers get their reputation totally ruined by releasing their 'wu mao' teams astroturfing their propaganda at online forum, such as this one on /. calling the whistleblowers 'traitors' and such

    What TPTB of the United States of America is doing is getting closer and closer to that of the Chinese Communist regime

    I came from China, I know how terrible fascism is, and unfortunately I am seeing the same thing happens here, more and more

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  3. They brought Snowden on themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what a lot of people don't get. Snowden had only two real choices: Go outside the system to reveal injustice, or keep his mouth shut.

    The whole whistle-blower problem was brought to our attention decades ago. The powers that be promised "whistle blower protection". Some people accepted that... and still got screwed.

    Snowden had to have know the history of all that. He knew he had two choices. Be a mobster, or turn "states evidence" to the only state that won't screw him: The public at large.

  4. Would be nice if it shut up the snark by rbrander · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but I have few hopes it will. It would be nice if those who utter all that stuff about:

    * "real heroes don't run away to hide behind foreign powers"

    * "he's a coward for not standing on his rights and facing justice"

    * "he should have worked through the system and not broken the law, he's a criminal" ...would now shut up and even apologize. When the entity you are blowing the whistle on, itself breaks the law - fraudulently and unlawfully uses the colour of authority to protect itself from embarrassment rather than serving the public trust - then you can no longer depend on the justice system. They have more access to its levers than the whistleblower, so the justice system is not neutral, not blind, in his case.

    They are captured, in effect, by the prestige of the institution, and the numbers. What is the court supposed to believe about a complex internal matter, the one whistleblower, or the Secretary, three Undersecretaries, four generals and five lawyers, all insisting that you are a crazed, grudge-bearing criminal?

    Nothing prevents a large bureaucracy from abusing the simple fact that courts trust them, except the bureaucracy's own members' obedience to the law and fear of eventual exposure. That works, mostly, for the local Roads department, or even the State environmental department. With the NSA, it will never, ever happen; the NSA brass need fear no exposure, ever. Clapper's brazen perjury before Congress (without consequences) is proof that Snowden had to run.

    1. Re:Would be nice if it shut up the snark by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Had Snowden stayed and tried to "work through the system," nobody would have ever heard of him or of the revelations he brought to light. He would have been hushed up and then arrested on some trumped up charges. This would not only scare off other whistle blowers, but would seed doubt in the minds of anyone who actually did hear what he had to say.

      Snowden gave up his life in America along with any chance to see his family and friends ever again. (He shouldn't believe any claims of getting a "fair trial.") He risked being captured and imprisoned for life. All so he could tell the world about the NSA's illegal spying program. He's a hero in my book.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Would be nice if it shut up the snark by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't have many heros.

      but I would count snowden as one.

      I hope the youth, today, grows up and thinks the same thing. it would be horrible if the authoritarian spin gets planted in the next generation's minds.

      a free internet will prevent that. oh right, this IS the issue; we are at risk of losing the free part (freedom) of the internet. it may very well be that we go all 1984 on ourselves and head down a darker path instead of fixing the problems.

      it could go either way. that's the scary part.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  5. The U.S government is CORRUPT and VIOLENT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I came from China, I know how terrible fascism is, and unfortunately I am seeing the same thing happens here, more and more"

    The U.S. government has killed an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war. Often contractor companies do the violence, or arrange more violence so that they can make more money and so the managers can get promotions. It's killing for profit.

    Why the Vietnam war? The CIA and Vietnam. "... from June, 1954 to June, 1963, that is, until two years after Dulles left office (August, 1961) the CIA was absolutely and exclusively dominant in creating and carrying out the policies which led eventually to the Vietnam War."

    "To the CIA too must go the credit for the creation of the secret police forces of Diemâ(TM)s brother Ngo Dinh Nhu which prevented dissent within Vietnam until it was too late to change things."

    The intention of the U.S. financial community to profit from corrupt practices was well known long before the crash in 2008. In the Berkshire Hathaway 2002 Annual Report (PDF), Warren Buffett said this on page 14: "I can assure you that the marking errors in the derivatives business have not been symmetrical. Almost invariably, they have favored either the trader who was eyeing a multi-million dollar bonus or the CEO who wanted to report impressive 'earnings' (or both). The bonuses were paid, and the CEO profited from his options. Only much later did shareholders learn that the reported earnings were a sham."

    The Iraq war made huge amounts of money for the Bush family and Dick Cheney: Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War. That destruction will continue for decades: The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End.