ACLU: Edward Snowden is a Whistleblower

[ProSense]

72. No, he isn't

Congress passed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act in 1998, but it is no more than a trap. It establishes a procedure for internal reporting within the agencies and through the Inspector General to the congressional intelligence committees, but it provides no remedy for reprisals that occur as a result. Reporting internally through the ICWPA only identifies the whistleblowers, leaving them vulnerable to retaliation. The examples of former NSA official Thomas Drake, former House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark and former CIA officer Sabrina De Sousa show too well.

This lack of protection means that when intelligence community employees and contractors – who take an oath to defend the Constitution – see government illegality they must turn the other way, or risk their careers and possibly even their freedom. The people we trust to protect our nation from foreign enemies deserve legal protection when they blow the whistle on wrongdoing within government.

The ACLU continues to advocate a position that isn't supported by law, and the last two paragraphs indicate Snowden isn't a whistleblower.

Human Rights Watch (and this is from a piece critical of whistleblower protections - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023187207) :

The federal Whistleblower Protection Act exempts from its protections whistleblowers in the intelligence community, including defense contractors. The most legal protection on which such employees can rely is the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which provides a channel for whistleblowers to take matters of “urgent concern” first to the inspector general of the Department of Justice and then to a congressional intelligence oversight committee. However, this law does not provide any legal right of action for such whistleblowers to protect themselves against retaliation for reporting their concerns in these ways, and in practice, even continuing access to congressional committees can be thwarted by agency heads, who usually can identify the whistleblower concerned.[11]In October 2012, the Obama administration released a Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-19) intended to bolster protection for national security whistleblowers; it requires agencies to establish a process by which whistleblowers can seek review of prohibited retaliatory actions. The directive was widely criticized as window-dressing, however, because it explicitly denies whistleblowers the ability to obtain legal enforcement of any rights or procedures set forth under the directive.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/18/us-statement-protection-whistleblowers-security-sector#_ftnref5

He has no protection under the WPA, and failed to use the channel available to him. Even if Snowden wasn't exempt from the WPA, his actions would still be called into question.

Also, when Greenwald made his "worst nightmare" comment (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023259203), he bascially confirmed that Snowden stole information unrelated to the goal of the leak, validating the felony theft charge against him.

Those advocating Snowden's status as a whistleblower completely ignore the fact that he released U.S. state secrets to other countries. They try to focus completely on Snowden's domestic claims. Still, even with that focus, the defense of Snowden relies on excuses and attempts to redefine the criteria for whistleblowing.

Snowden has no crediblity, and deserves no thanks.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023288332