Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

How the Pentagon Punished NSA Whistleblowers

posted by CoolHand on Monday May 23 2016, @12:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the wrist-slapping dept.

takyon writes:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers

[There] is another man whose story has never been told before, who is speaking out publicly for the first time here. His name is John Crane, and he was a senior official in 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. His testimony reveals a crucial new chapter in the Snowden story – and 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.

During dozens of hours of interviews, Crane told me how senior Defense Department officials repeatedly broke the law to persecute 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. 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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
How the Pentagon Punished NSA Whistleblowers | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 31 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday May 23 2016, @08:27PM

    by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Monday May 23 2016, @08:27PM (#350012) Journal

    That's bullshit. Maybe your reasoning would work on some thread where Runaway was actually espousing these ideas you oppose, but your first reply to Runaway's first comment was offtopic flamebait. It is plain to see when viewing the thread in Oldest First (Ignore Threads) mode [soylentnews.org]. Thanks for derailing my (hastily submitted) story.

    is it flamebait to point out how he's wrong, for the sake of the more or less captive audience exposed to it? [...] I don't go looking for Runaway's posts specifically, but if one pops up and it's full of shit, I point it out. If you've seen our history you'll notice I've actually upmodded several of his posts in the past.

    If you were really being selective about how you deal with Runaway's posts, including agreeing with some or modding some of them up, then why did you derail the thread? You could have waited all of 4 minutes and blasted his Chelsea Manning related post.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 23 2016, @08:35PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday May 23 2016, @08:35PM (#350016) Journal

    I didn't even see that one until having finished with the first one. His output is truly prolific, much like the result of overindulgence in "dried plums."

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...