anything that is politically advantageous. Her positions change with the political winds, hence camp weathervane.

But Sanders didn't say that Snowden had special protections either, did he? Nope.

It helps to explain why he would have gone to prison had he made public the details of the NSA's illegal surveillance.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Defense_Whistleblower_Program#DoD_Whistleblower_Program_Today

it is a mirroring statute with like disclosure protocols.

ICWPA applies to employees like Snowden, but includes no protections against retaliation, just a process for raising concerns. With respect to Presidential Policy Directive 19 (PPD-19) things get less clear, but on the most natural reading PPD-19 does not protect employees of businesses that contract with the NSA. Some legal experts have debated that point, but Snowden would certainly have had no basis for predicting that a court would decide that he was protected by PPD-19.

Thanks for the thread, pinebox.

Snowden had 3 ways to avail himself of Whistleblower protections:

1) Disclose the information to his immediate supervisor;

2) Disclose the information to the Inspector General

3) Disclose the information to a member of Congress.

He chose not to do any of these actions; therefore, he had protections had he availed himself of them before disclosing the information to Greenwald.

I don't see what protections against retaliation he would have been granted.

seem to be pretty meaningless. Whistleblowers almost invariably loose their jobs. Sometimes wind up in jail. Snowden would be a fool to return to this country.

though I will agree, whistleblowers DO tend to lose their jobs, and are often untrusted for other employment opportunities.

That's three. The article at the link below is also instructive.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/obama-has-sentenced-whistleblowers-to-31-times-the-jail-time-of-all-prior-u-s-presidents-combined.html

The notion of "whistleblower protection" that you must avail yourself of is something of a red herring. If people can't call out businesses or governments on wrong-doing without being punished, there's something very, very wrong.

Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou, or Chelsea Manning, disclosed the information to their chain of command, the Office of the Inspector General, or a member of Congress, before turning the disclosure over to a "journalist"?

That is the protocol prescribed by the law ... and there is a reason for that.

wrong-doing on the part of your government is invariably punished.

It feels as if every week here in NM I read about some whistle-blower who has been fired from the job. It doesn't really happen quite that often, but it's amazingly common. And in the cases I'm reading about, they have disclosed to the chain of command. Then they get harassed on the job, fired, and then go to the media.

"Whistleblower protection" appears to be the greatest oxymoron ever.

trying to come up with the answers they think people want to hear .If she gave the impression she spoke from her heart people wouldn't be so distrustful of her.

She is consistently surrounded by the worst hacks, those are her people and her responsibility not some half assed excuse for why she is wrong, reactionary, and needs to "evolve" so often as the winds change.

law.