Today's Washington Post contains an op-ed from my colleague Tom Devine laying out exactly why whistleblower protections are needed for national security whistleblowers, like Thomas Drake, the former National Security Agency (NSA) official who has the dubious distinction of being the fourth person in history to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for whistleblowing stemming from Drake's alleged contact with the media:
Whistleblowers have no other viable option in the current system.
The prosecution of Thomas Drake seems even more surreal given the recent indictment of 11 alleged Russian secret agents who lived a double life as American suburbanites and members of a Russian espionage ring scheming to infiltrate the government and obtain and hand over U.S. secrets to Russia.
National security whistleblowers have exposed the biggest government abuse of power scandals in recent memory. Without whistleblowers like Joseph Darby, who disclosed the explosive photos of clearly illegal torture at Abu Ghraib, Tom Tamm, who helped Bush's clearly classified and clearly illegal warrantless wiretapping program, and Mary McCarthy, who "leaked" information to a reporter about clearly classified and clearly illegal "black site" secret prisons in Eastern Europe, the public would be completely in the dark about our government's secret, illegal behavior.
Devine's op-ed hammers home the incontrovertible benefits of providing protections for national security whistleblowers - for national security, the federal government, and whistleblowers:
. . . whistleblowers have been valuable in exposing governmental abuses, regardless of party or ideology. National security employees and contractors were critical to making the public aware of indiscriminate, warrantless surveillance begun in the aftermath of Sept. 11. While such disclosures enraged the NSA, they have been America's best line of defense against threats to freedom from our own government.
However, instead of protecting Thomas Drake, who dedicated his career to public service including ten years in the Air Force and over seven years at the NSA, the Justice Department indicted him under the Espionage Act of 1917, a law intended to stop spies, not silence whistleblowers.
And, judging from the recent charges against 11 alleged Russian secret agents, there is no shortage of spies to target. Contrast their alleged behavior (living a double life as covert Russian agents to implement an elaborate plot to infiltrate American institutions and reveal American secrets to the Russian government) with Drake's behavior (after reporting the NSA's waste of hundreds of millions of dollars internally and to Congress and having his complaints ignored, allegedly contacting a newspaper). Drake was not even indicted for unauthorized disclosure of classified information to the newspaper, rather he has been indicted for "willful retention" of classified information.
If for no other reason, Congress must pass the legislative reforms outlined in today's op-ed so that future national security whistleblowers will not have to fear ending up like Thomas Drake: facing decades in prison for choosing to follow his conscience.