“A lot of whistleblowers complain to the wrong entity,” Radack notes. National security and intelligence whistleblowers go to the Office of Special Counsel, which does not offer protection to national security or intelligence whistleblowers.

If you’re implying that OSC is the “wrong entity” to receive whistleblower disclosures, this is incorrect. There is no limitation on OSC receiving a disclosure of any kind from any federal employee. See 5 U.S.C. 1213.

A watchdog’s ability to receive disclosures is different from its ability to process a whistleblower’s complaint for retaliation and get that whistleblower relief (reinstatement, a stay to stop the retaliation, damages, etc.) The latter is what is referred to as “protection.”

Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou, for instance, could have gone to OSC and submitted their disclosures confidentially, even if that is the extent of what OSC could have provided them. It might have been enough, in the case of Thomas Drake, to make sure he got heard without triggering a criminal prosecution or other reprisal.

Seriously, Kevin, this is a basic journalistic question of “what are the facts?”. The law is clear and OSC is on record as saying it can accept classified disclosures. The only one who is mudding the waters is Radack. I understand you enjoy access to her, but that cannot trump your obligations as a journalist to conduct a basic fact check.

I have great respect for Jesslyn. I follow her on twitter and read all of her work.

There are things you may not know about her, but she has an issue with her eyesight. Just recently during the rape stories, I found out that she is also a rape victim.

Manning tried to go to his superiors and other officers outside his specific unit.

However, the most important thing I can add to Kevin’s piece regarding Jesslyn’s report is this:

Manning is not just being prosecuted by the Military
The DOJ is very closely involved and is aiding the military prosecution
The Assange Grand Jury Prosecution is also prosecuting Manning via document and witness denial to his defense.

Manning is not so far getting what he is due in regards to fair and timely trial. PERIOD!

My problems with Radack are ones that anyone on FDL who follows these stories should be concerned with: she says things are are demonstrably false and doesn’t correct them when challenged. Given the position that she occupies and how she holds herself out as a champion of whistleblowers, I can’t respect that.

I understand what you are saying.

I think Manning had gained a HUGE deal of distrust of the government and it’s agencies through the documents and facts that he saw first hand. He knew that his mates and superiors were ignoring this and after his attempts to go up the chain of command were stopped, he had no other outlet aside from media.

FWIW, I fact check her and her employer’s statements here:

http://mspbwatch.net/tag/jesselyn-radack

and

http://mspbwatch.net/category/fact-check

I don’t expect anything to change anytime soon but there it is, for the record.

Radack exploits foolhardy souls as Drake and Kiriakou and justifies it by saying “GAP is my client” because GAP’s business model depends on its “looking other way” at 35 years of gov’t lawbreaking at U.S. Office of Special Counsel and 35 years of enabling lawbreaking at U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board – which has, as one expected result, patriots at Drake and Kiriakou risking for the public good and becoming poster children for GAP’s shameless fundraising –shame on her and GAP.

I challenge her or anyone at GAP to file a professional misconduct complaint against me with TN Board of Engineering if they consider my claims untruthful or non-objective. See http://www.broken-covenant.org for extensive detail. J

Joe Carson, PE
Knoxville,TN

For the record:

Both Joe Carson & MSPB Watch (David Pardo) have personal vendettas against Jesselyn Radack. Pardo has taken emails from conversations with her, sent them to me and hoped I would turn them into some kind of story where I exposed Radack as a fraud or someone who has no idea what she is doing. I did not choose to make a story out of these emails. I do not understand the problem that a few who sometimes comment here have with Radack.

Pardo has contributed some good posts to FDL, but he has also used them to fuel some kind of conflict with the Government Accountability Project and Radack, which I do not support.

Kevin,

You would do well to look at issues on the merits and not engage in a motive analysis.

Was anything I said false? Did you even fact check it?

One could lay the same vendetta charge on you based on the targets of your work, both persons and institutions. You expect to be taken seriously, on the merits, and not dismissed so casually.

So to see you impose such a double standard is disappointing.

Kevin, you quoted this just yesterday:

“Instead of focusing on the message, it was simply what would compel a person to do this absent the message,” [Thomas Drake] explains.” Similarly, in Manning’s case, “The focus becomes the person. The focus becomes the messenger. And so you just get painted and anything you can find that puts you in a negative light they will use because what it’s designed to do is question your integrity. It’s designed to question your motives. It’s actually designed to question your intentions. It’s actually designed to question fundamentally who you are and, if there’s any reason to suspect that you might be unstable or that you might be susceptible or that somehow you don’t fit the norm or that you’re outside the norm,” they seize upon it.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/03/20/nsa-whistleblower-thomas-drake-all-doubts-dispelled-bradley-mannings-a-whistleblower/

And now you do the same instead of focusing on what I have to say, which is that Radack misleads the public and GAP is a veal pen institution. It is your boss Jane Hamsher that coined that term, right?

Unless this logic doesn’t apply if you have dinner with people who run the veal pen?

Again, I await proof of whatever allegations you are making against Radack.

As for GAP, I won’t disagree that they engage in work that sometimes is of the veal pen. There have been press releases with Tom Devine’s name on them where he gives moves by Obama more credit than deserved. But, has Radack been this weak? Has she acted like someone in the veal pen?

I really don’t care what GAP does. I am not trumpeting the work of the entire GAP organization nor am I covering everything they do with great zeal. They make some good contributions to the cause of whistleblowing, but no doubt there are aspects of what they do that I would say could be more strongly executed.

Okay. I’ll prep a list of misstatements by Radack, with quotes and links. I won’t ask anyone to hunt around.

Okay. You have the proof in your inbox, as you know.

You said you would not censor me when I post comments here about this topic, but that you will be “informing readers every time of the context of your vendetta or personal campaign.” I note that you said this before receiving my evidence, and without indicating whether you would interview both sides to hear them out before concluding that I am engaging in a “vendetta or personal campaign.” That is also useful context, should I or others conclude that the Dissenter is a PR arm of GAP and Jesselyn Radack. Readers can decide that for themselves, with full knowledge of the facts.

MSPB Watch and jpcarson are making some interesting claims and assertions in response to the article as well as attacking Jesselyn Radack and the Government Accountability Project (GAP).

A little history is in order and I am only summarizing, but it’s clear that MSPB Watch and jpcarson do not understand the specifics of my case and are mischaracterizing GAP and GAP’s representation of me.

I am a former senior executive with the National Security Agency from 2001-2008.

While there I became aware of massive multi-billion dollar fraud, waste and abuse, the incalculable loss of critical intelligence as well as government illegality involving egregious violations of the Constitution.

I checked the regulations and statutes at that time regarding the best course of action I could take as a whistleblower and ended up making my protected communications disclosures to Congress and the intel committees under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) due to the specific nature of my disclosures involving intelligence operations and national security.

I did not go to OSC (after I had checked) because my particular disclosures were best handled by the jurisdiction of Congress and the intel committees, where I was also called as a material witness for two 9/11 Congressional investigations during the December 2001 through the Summer of 2002 timeframe.

I was also called as a material witness for a Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) audit/investigation conducted at NSA for almost three years based on a DoD IG Hotline Complaint submission in September 2002. NOTE: I was the unnamed senior official in that complaint.

During the 2001-2006 timeframe, OSC was not in a position to properly process the very sensitive (and even highly classified disclosures I made to Congress and later to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General) involving intelligence activities and programs at the NSA. In addition, OSC had no jurisdiction regarding those particular disclosures.

However, Congress and the DoD OIG did and more importantly were the best protected communications channels for the disclosures I made during that time.

My criminal prosecution and indictment was based on the government alleging that I had retained classified information in an unauthorized manner for the purposes of disclosure as well as obstruction of justice and making false statements. Fact remains that the information I had retained (and later seized during an FBI raid) was actually unclassified and submitted in whole or in part as material evidence for the two 9/11 Congressional investigations as well as the DoD OIG audit/investigation at NSA.

I also categorically reject the assertion that I am a “foolhardy” soul or claims that I am a “poster” child for GAP.

GAP began to represent me shortly after I was indicted on 10 felony counts by the US Department of Justice on 14 April 2010 and after I had contacted GAP for whistleblower advocacy and support.

With criminal defense lawyers in the court of law before the District Court judge and GAP led by Jesselyn Radack in the court of public opinion while enabling critical support across the civil liberties and rights communities, I was able to prevail and remain a free man after a 5 year excruciating ordeal, in which at one point I was threatened by the chief prosecutor with spending the rest of my life in prison, if I did not cooperate with the DoJ national security investigation.

GAP also represented me pro bono.

I am aware that GAP is funded by others including private donations and foundations for the express purpose of funding GAP so they can represent government and corporate whistleblowers like myself who are more often than not blacklisted, bankrupted and broken from the ordeal.

It is a caricature to say that I am a victim of GAP. GAP was simply instrumental in my public defense across the board – from the President, to the Executive Director, to their General Counsel and the National Security & Human Rights Program led by Jesselyn Radack.

In addition, I have had direct contact with the highest levels of OSC since my criminal case concluded and they reaffirmed that the path I took for making the particular disclosures I did under the mantle of the ICWPA and its protected communications channels was the best and proper disclosure route for me to take at that time.

Given the more recent leadership changes at OSC, their ability to process disclosures from any government employee (including classified disclosures) and make proper referrals where they do not currently have jurisdiction, my own direct communication with their leadership, and the changes already in progress I am encouraged by their direction and engagement, while also recognizing that there is much history requiring attention and restoration of the rights and protections we must afford and provide federal employees, including those who become whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers suffer enough and I bear testimony to the high price paid as well as others (like John Kiriakou) who end up in jail for speaking truth to power.

There is absolutely nothing that I said about Mr. Drake’s ordeal that is in tension with any of this, with one exception below. I have always accounted for the fact that OSC may not have been in a practical position to accept classified disclosures in the time frame Mr. Drake mentions. That does not change the fact that OSC, under the law, was and is authorized to accept classified disclosures (and making referrals when appropriate).

There is nothing in the law that I have seen that states that OSC did not and does not possess jurisdiction to accept disclosures of any type. In the case of “foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information,” OSC refers the information to Congress and the National Security Advisor. That has been the law since 1978, currently codified in 5 U.S.C. 1213(j).

OSC had a troubled history, and it is only now reforming itself after 35 years of disserving whistleblowers. It therefore serves no one for Ms. Radack and GAP to make continuing statements in the present day that suggest that national security whistleblowers have no where to go, as they did in an amicus brief in the NDAA litigation in the Second Circuit, as well as other comments elsewhere. Mr. Drake’s second-to-last paragraph admits as much. Here is a summary of the amicus that contains the false statement: http://mspbwatch.net/2012/12/19/fact-check-gap-legal-filing-falsely-claims-intelligence-workers-lack-external-avenues-to-blow-the-whistle/

That is the crux of my complaint with Ms. Radack. She is simply incorrect about the law, and is doing so in a manner that closes doors, rather than opens them, to people in Mr. Drake’s position. Her incorrect/false statements persist after being confronted with evidence of their falsity.

Moreover, what Mr. Drake doesn’t seem to realize is that his suffering isn’t solely due to lack of explicit whistleblower protections, but also to the fact that a broken system persists in agencies across government, not just the NSA, where retaliation and corruption take root and flourish. This is entirely avoidable. An agency created after Watergate was given the explicit mandate of reporting to Congress “whether the public interest in a civil service free of prohibited personnel practices is being adequately protected.” Basically, to tell Congress whether the government is sick or healthy. This agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board, has never answered this question. It was designed to be the “conscience of the civil service.” It has jurisdiction to review the NSA in this regard, even if Mr. Drake cannot file an appeal there to contest his retaliatory termination.

The reason why I bring this up is because Mr. Carson’s long-term efforts — and my shorter-term efforts — to get GAP to direct its attention to MSPB’s failure are met with excuses, evasions, and platitudes. GAP doesn’t just represent clients. It is also the pre-eminent legislative advocacy organization on the Hill. It is the 800 pound gorilla. It has no reasoned principles behind its excuses, just ad hominem and platitudes about foxes guarding hen houses.

Finally, to say that corporate-funded foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, Soros) give hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars “for the express purpose of funding GAP so they can represent government and corporate whistleblowers” is, one, conclusory, and two, a little naive.

GAP’s arbitrary and capricious behavior in response to Mr. Carson’s and my concerns about this broken system speaks volumes about its agenda. It does not act in the public interest, at least not where its private agenda conflicts with the public interest.

One more thing. Mr. Drake said the following:

During the 2001-2006 timeframe, OSC was not in a position to properly process the very sensitive (and even highly classified disclosures I made to Congress and later to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General) involving intelligence activities and programs at the NSA. In addition, OSC had no jurisdiction regarding those particular disclosures.

Putting aside semantics over “jurisdiction” versus “accepting” versus “referral,” which plagued an earlier conversation I had with him, the fact is that OSC was not practically capable of carrying out its job in 2001-2002, denying him (or someone in his position, so to not get bogged down in the individual nuances of one’s case) the benefit of the law.

The Special Counsel between 1998-2003 was a Clinton-appointee, Elaine Kaplan, whom Obama recently nominated to become a judge of the Court of Federal Claims.

So this Special Counsel failed to ensure that OSC was abiding by the law and was a safe haven for people like Mr. Drake. When she left office in 2003, GAP gave her an award for having ” served the highest ideals of public service.”

Let’s be clear: GAP was around then, and could have conducted accountability (what the “A” in its name stands for) to make sure OSC was a safe haven at the time.

There is absolutely no reason why OSC is becoming a safe haven now and was not then, other than who the leadership is composed of. There is no new law that was passed that made this happen.

And here Mr. Drake is standing up for GAP rather than asking questions about its commitment to its own mission statement and to the plight of whistleblowers.

Maybe Mr. Drake is a more charitable and forgiving person than I am. But I have seen very little by way of GAP’s behavior to assure me that “yes, this time we will take accountability seriously.” The last go-around, involving the passage of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, in 2012, showed an ugly side of GAP: mercenary, dishonest, imperious. My FDL diary is replete with examples. I can be persuaded, though. Here’s a list of needed reforms: http://mspbwatch.net/reform.

If GAP were to tell the whistleblower community that it is serious about giving whistleblowers a seat at the table, rather than speaking for them behind closed doors, that would be a good faith gesture that could end a lot of acrimony (and no, I would not be angling for it).

But for the time being, my zealous oversight of GAP and other related institutions will continue, even if the ad hominems continue.

There is a difference between “leaking” and “whistleblowing.” Leaking is “done for no other purpose than to destroy someone or to take them down,” she argues. “Whereas, whistleblowing is done for the greater good or the public interest.

No one takes a backseat to me in my respect and admiration for Ms. Radack, but I disagree with her. I don’t believe all leaking is malificent; I think it can be beneficent as well, to submarine a bad policy or decision that may otherwise skate through. I agree with her that whistleblowing is inherently benificent.

Book Salon up with Jon Wiener’s How We Forgot the Cold War: A Historical Journey Across America hosted by Arthur Goldwag