The Guardian Published an article entitled "Snowden Calls for Whistle-Blower Shield" by Spencer Ackerman and Ewan MacAskill. The implication is that the country may have been spared the embarrassment of the exposure of the classified documents he released, if there had been a good, protected process for whistle-blowing that would have protect him from retaliation and actually do a serious investigation into the accusations. John Crane, a former pentagon IG investigator also revealed that he thought the whistleblower protections were also not effective. He revealed a specific example of Thomas Drake who blew a whistle, and then was retaliated against.
I'm skeptical if Snowden would have actually used a whistle-blower channel, even if it did protect him, and initiate an effective investigation. However I do agree it it VERY difficult for someone to report a problem. It is particularly difficult for someone with enhanced security clearances. When someone is briefed into a particular security compartment, only a very few people are allowed to know that secret. So, from a security standpoint, it would be a violation (subject to fine and imprisonment) to tell anyone outside of that small group of compartment-briefed individuals about fraud, waste, or abuse related to that compartment.
Also, if a contractor (as Snowden was), the whistleblower would not be just risking retaliation to him/herself, but would also be putting the contractor's whole company at risk. In the "best case" result for a whistleblower in a classified program, the individual would "only" lose a security clearance. However, in reality, that would kill the person's career in the Government and/or with the contractor. And it would probably prevent the person from ever being hired again. That is a terrible price to pay for doing, what should be considered to be, a public duty. There were several times in my military career, and also while working as a contractor, that I firmly believed I could have (should have?) reported waste or abuse concerning programs, but, at the time, I thought that someone at a higher level of command must have, from a higher perspective, saw justification of some sort in continuing what appeared to me to be an unnecessary plan of action. In hindsight, it is clear that in several of those cases, my concerns were shown to have been valid, and programs were cancelled--but not until immense amounts of money had been spent/wasted.
This article also pointed out the problem of retaining documentation that substantiates the fraud waste or abuse. Whistleblowers are told to hang on to documentation of the problem, but then could be accused of inappropriately handling classified information. If whistleblowers concerns are found to be true, the individual could still be retaliated against for mishandling the material...even if it wasn't made public!
I do believe that NSA had exceeded their authority in spying on Americans. Snowden was probably correct and it was appropriate for him, or someone else to report the violations. James Clapper did, in fact, lie to congress in the hearings. But, as he said, he was in a very difficult position. The "government" was, and still is, monitoring the phone calls, emails, and physical location (metadata) of suspects at all levels of government, not just the Federal government. The Federal Government is aiding city, state, and county agencies and police in doing it with license plate readers, cell phone "stingray" systems, and other devices. While using those systems, the government(s) inadvertently collect similar information about millions of "non-suspects" at the same time. While the agencies may not use or catalog that information, it has been collected and could be used against a citizen. A huge amount of the information that is collected, seems to be in support of our Government's war on drugs. That whole war could be considered another form of fraud, waste, and abuse. And I still think it is being waged to line the pockets of the many who believe they are helping our country, but who are also earning a lot of money from the "war" as currently being waged.
I've often thought that the Government needed a separate agency to act as an overall inspector-general to whom whistleblowers could make secret reports without fear of retaliation. However would it be part of the administration? part of congress? or part of the Judiciary branch of government? None of those options sound like they would work! The best we have is the "4th branch" -- or dedicated corps of journalists!
