




Introduce the proposition and state its relevance, and state your conclusion.
Present facts that support your conclusion.
Present data to support your facts.
Repeat your conclusion
Include your reference
Edwin Snowden leaked information about US surveillance programs to the British
newspaper, The Guardian.
Would you characterize Edwin Snowden as a whistle blower?
The Whistleblower Protection Act protects “any disclosure of information” by federal
government employees that they “reasonably believes evidences an activity constituting a
violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of
authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.” Edward Snowden
describes himself as a whistle-blower but was subjected to severe legal consequences by the
US government for his revelations. I would characterize Edward Snowden as a whistle
blower. In my opinion he should have been protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Our book characterizes a whistle blower as someone who breaks ranks with an organization
in order to make an unauthorized disclosure of information about a harmful situation after
attempts to report the concerns through authorized organizational channels have been
ignored or rebuffed.
Edward Snowden released unauthorized information. When he publicized the documents, he
broke ranks with his employer and US Intelligence Agencies. The definition of whistle
blowing requires that the disclosure is about a harmful situation. Snowden had concerns
about the legality of the NSA spying programs that was harming countless individuals’
privacy. The whistle blower must further have attempted to report the concerns through
authorized organizational channels, and the reports the whistle blower made, must have
been ignored or rebuffed.
During the time that Snowden spent working for the NSA, Thomas A. Drake, a NSA senior
executive, became concerned about an NSA program violating citizens’ privacy. Despite
Drake following all the steps prescribed by US law to make a protected disclosure he was
subjected to an FBI investigation that lasted for several years, they raided his house and
indicted him under the espionage act. The day before his trial the government dropped all
ten counts of indictment in return for Drake’s guilty plea to a single misdemeanor of
misusing the NSA’s computer system. By that time Drake had been financially devastated. He
lost his jobs at the NSA and a University teaching position and his pension and spent $82,000
on his defense.
Snowden knew about the consequences Drake had to live with as a result of his acting on his
concerns. After what happened to Drake, Snowden and anyone else who was concerned
about privacy breaches and illegal data collections perpetrated by US government agencies ,
had reason to believe that any complaint about the practices, particularly any complaint that
was irrefutable, because it was backed up by documentation, would entail serious
consequences for the originator of the complaint. Under those circumstances Snowden’s
options were limited. He could have chosen to do nothing, to remain silent as countless
other NSA employees did. Or he could have followed the path prescribed by the government
and made disclosure to an authorized audience, with likely the same consequences that
Thomas A. Drake had to endure. Instead, Snowden decided to protect himself and his assets
and leave his home. From the distance of Hong Kong, his choices to make a difference by
disclosing his documents were limited. But ultimately Snowden sacrificed his home and his
job to do what he believed was right.
The documents Snowden released revealed extensive citizens’ surveillance privacy breaches
that were perpetrated by not just the US intelligence agency, but by British and Australian
intelligence agencies as well. He did not just release private citizens data breaches but also
revealed NSA and military operation blueprints and exposed a huge gap in NSA data security.
Snowden’s actions precipitated an intense debate on privacy and warrantless domestic
surveillance in the US. From everything I read about this I conclude that there is a possibility
that he would have stayed in the country and revealed the transgressions of the NSA, if he
could have done it with legal protection. But it was clear that protection was not available
for him, and as a consequence, he decided to remove himself from the legal reach of the
United States.
The Whistleblower Protection Act was designed to protect the whistle blower. But if that
protection fails, who protects the whistle blower? And to what standards should a whistle
blower adhere, when the protection is not given? I get the impression that Snowden saw
himself removed from not just legal protection but also from other legal limitations, and that
might be the reason why he released more than would have been necessary to make his
point.
Ref.: …. All as accessed on 6/29/22:
https://oig.justice.gov/hotline/whistleblower-protection
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/leaks-and-the-law-the-story-of-thomas-drake14796786/
https://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/portraits/thomas-drake
Transcript of Sentencing Proceeding, United States of America v. Thomas A. Drake:
https://sgp.fas.org/jud/drake/071511-transcript.pdf
https://www.whistleblowers.org/faq/whistleblower-protection-act-faq/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/rieder/2013/06/12/rem-riedersurveillance/2415753/