3 ms·

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 only provides protection for government employees which Snowden was not and it also doesn't apply to intelligence agenc

by tssva 7y ago

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 only provides protection for government employees which Snowden was not and it also doesn't apply to intelligence agency at least when classified material is involved. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 is the applicable law here and applies to government employees and contractors. It specifies the process of reporting waste,fraud or abuse when classified material is involved and provides protection if the process is followed. Snowden choose not to follow the provided process and therefore is protected under the law.

cwkoss 7y ago
Snowden repeatedly attempted to follow internal processes and was stonewalled. The most fundamental responsibility of his job was to uphold the US constitution. His bosses deserve to be charged with treason, which is why they are working so hard to attack him.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > Snowden repeatedly attempted to follow internal processes and was stonewalled. There is no evidence of this.
  - cwkoss 7y ago
    The only parties who could provide this evidence are govt agencies who are clearly not pleased with Snowden. Seems kind of silly to expect them to provide evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of contrary evidence, we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications and thats the only account we have of the situation.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications That's a low bar. He didn't forge any of the documents he released. He did, however, repeatedly lie about what the documents contained and to corroborate hid interpretation, he wildly exaggerated what he was able to do while at the NSA.
      - cwkoss 7y ago
        Could you give an example of his wildest exaggeration? I've seen zero evidence backed claims that he misled the public.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail.” None of his leaked documents showed that capability. People complain about Clapper for getting a question wrong about whether phone metadata collection collected data about Americans after a line of questioning about whether the NSA creates dossiers on Americans, and he rightfully should be held to a high standard in Congressional testimony, but Snowden just straight-up lied repeatedly.
    - tssva 7y ago
      Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act process involves bringing the matter and any evidence to the Department of Justice. The DoJ then has a fixed time to either investigate or decide not to investigate. If they decide not to investigate the whistleblower can bring their complaint and evidence to the staff of the Senate Intelligence committee for the committee to decide if further investigation by the committee is warranted. If the DoJ does investigate they have to notify the Senate Intelligence committee of the investigation. If Snowden had attempted to follow the lawful procedure there would be evidence of it at the DoJ, the Senate Intelligence committee and Snowden himself would have evidence due to his correspondence with the DoJ and Senate Intelligence committee.

by tssva 7y ago

cwkoss 7y ago

Snowden repeatedly attempted to follow internal processes and was stonewalled. The most fundamental responsibility of his job was to uphold the US constitution. His bosses deserve to be charged with treason, which is why they are working so hard to attack him.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> Snowden repeatedly attempted to follow internal processes and was stonewalled. There is no evidence of this.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  The only parties who could provide this evidence are govt agencies who are clearly not pleased with Snowden. Seems kind of silly to expect them to provide evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of contrary evidence, we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications and thats the only account we have of the situation.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > we should take Snowden at his word because none of his releases have been discredited as fabrications That's a low bar. He didn't forge any of the documents he released. He did, however, repeatedly lie about what the documents contained and to corroborate hid interpretation, he wildly exaggerated what he was able to do while at the NSA.
    - cwkoss 7y ago
      Could you give an example of his wildest exaggeration? I've seen zero evidence backed claims that he misled the public.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail.” None of his leaked documents showed that capability. People complain about Clapper for getting a question wrong about whether phone metadata collection collected data about Americans after a line of questioning about whether the NSA creates dossiers on Americans, and he rightfully should be held to a high standard in Congressional testimony, but Snowden just straight-up lied repeatedly.
  - tssva 7y ago
    Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act process involves bringing the matter and any evidence to the Department of Justice. The DoJ then has a fixed time to either investigate or decide not to investigate. If they decide not to investigate the whistleblower can bring their complaint and evidence to the staff of the Senate Intelligence committee for the committee to decide if further investigation by the committee is warranted. If the DoJ does investigate they have to notify the Senate Intelligence committee of the investigation. If Snowden had attempted to follow the lawful procedure there would be evidence of it at the DoJ, the Senate Intelligence committee and Snowden himself would have evidence due to his correspondence with the DoJ and Senate Intelligence committee.