On Wikileaks: I Wish the Leaker Had Come to POGO

Over the past thirty years, POGO has wrangled with whistleblowers who want to disclose classified information—not 92,000 pieces of information, mind you—but I keep wondering what we would have done if the individuals who shared the classified raw field reports from Afghanistan and Pakistan had come to us.

One thing we would have done differently is that we would have first warned them that disclosing classified information, if it was genuinely worth disclosing, would likely put them in jail, and therefore it would be important to try to find a safe and legal channel for disclosing that information.

We have countless times endeavored to protect the public interest and the whistleblowers in this quandary, and it is much harder than it sounds. National security whistleblowers have essentially no protections at all, and military whistleblower protections amount to no more than a paper tiger. Nonetheless, we would have arranged for the whistleblowers to brief Members of Congress who have demonstrated both an interest in oversight of the war as well as a willingness to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. Sometimes this approach has worked to address wrongdoing, but sometimes it hasn’t.

Another approach we have taken, especially post-9/11, is to work with policymakers in the relevant executive branch agencies, who are surprisingly often inclined to address the problem—motivated no doubt because they know if they don’t act, it is possible the wrongdoing will become public.

So then we would be faced with two ultimate questions: Is the information so essential to the public interest that it is worth any potential harm that could come from the release of the information? And if it is, is the whistleblower willing to take the personal risk by going public?

It appears that Wikileaks went straight to that nuclear option with some consideration for the first question, but little consideration for the second. The full answers to these essential questions are not yet known. However, with regards to the question of potential harm caused by the leak, there is no doubt Wikileaks has matured from its original approach that all secrets should be made public into a more nuanced approach which included redacting names and working with news outlets that vetted the information. However, the national security establishment has claimed there is “blood on the hands” of Wikileaks because of the disclosures. This pronouncement could be hyperbole—but what if it isn’t?

Wikileaks claims to be a “public service designed to protect whistleblowers,” but Private Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have provided Wikileaks with the now-infamous helicopter video from Iraq and who investigators are now "looking at closely" as they try and determine the source of the case of the Afghan War Diaries, is now detained at Quantico Marine Base. Until whistleblowers are given real protections, it is incumbent on organizations that purport to protect potential whistleblowers, as Wikileaks does, to provide that safe channel and help guide them through the maze of traps that lie ahead for whistleblowers.

There is no doubt this episode also exposes the ridiculous problems created by the overclassification of government information. The Administration cannot have it both ways—they claimed that there was nothing important in the 92,000 documents, then also claimed that this was a terrible breach of national security. There is no doubt that the release produced a better-informed populace about one of our most important public policy issues, the ongoing war in Afghanistan. But at what cost?

One thing I am sure of: If there were safe channels for national security and military whistleblowers, leaks of classified information would be far less likely. Given that, POGO will continue to do everything we can to ensure passage of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and protections for all whistleblowers. Safe channels for disclosure of wrongdoing and authentic whistleblower protections are strong anti-leak policies. At the end of the day, the latest Wiki-leak is a stark reminder that it’s the real balance between national security and the public’s right to know that are missing in action.

-- Danielle Brian

Comments

[Elizabeth]

I sit here and wonder how we must look to the World. We have all of this material "Leaking" and threats of more of it and I wonder why the leaker is not arrested for treason. I live and wonder who would protect us if a foreign power decided to declare war on this nation, when all of our soldiers are dying in a war that is not even about our soil. We barely have armed forces to handle natural disasters and to me, the federal government is a place in Washington, where my hope has died for anything to change. The only way that we could really get a nation like the one the founders had in mind is to replace all of the "Old boys club" with fresh blood and brighter minds. We can blog and they will fog up all that they keep on doing to hurt this nation and its citizens.

[Laser Haas]

One thing for sure; the military & Gov muscle will crucify this man.

What we must do is not let his sacrifice be in vain.

Outside of the US - the world banter on this subject rages the gamut vastly.

The fact of the matter is - what is the meat - within the documents; where we can assure ourselves that we must Unite against the bad faith documented within!

[Captain Dan Hanley]

Given the massive number of federal whistleblowers who have unsuccessfully stepped forward intending to expose corruption within business and our government with only a 2% probability of success, is it any wonder why our country finds itself in the mess we are in right now?

Why would anyone dare to speak out given those odds of success under current federal laws? Better yet, what does Kit Bond have to hide that he is currently blocking this important legislation?

Why doesn't the Congress hold hearing to inquire as to why Bond is blocking this tax-saving legislation? Are there too many skeletons being hidden in far too many congressional closets?

Demand hearings to be held in search of the truth! Allow past and current whistleblowers voices to be heard vice the voices of congress who wish to bury this important legislation.

It's our government and not Bond's and the other 534 members of congress. It is Leona Helmsley's "We the Little People" who pay the taxes and not those who wish to shelter their tax-free 'income' at Bradley Birkenfeld's UBS. Speak out people!

Captain Dan Hanley
National Public Spokesperson
Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association

[A Nonnie Mouse]

I am not sure that this statement is fair:

"And if it is, is the whistleblower willing to take the personal risk by going public?...It appears that Wikileaks went straight to that nuclear option with some consideration for the first question, but little consideration for the second."

I really don't think we know how Wikileaks counseled the leaker. They might have counseled him to tell no one...and he did not do that. The whistleblower outed himself. We do know that the head of Wikileaks is obsessive about secrecy...so I would be surprised if the whistleblower had not been counseled.

That said, part of the analysis POGO would do is and analysis of the whistleblower: what is their motive and emotional state?

What this whistleblower wanted was attention...there are varying reasons about why, but this has not been fully explored.

[Robert MacLean]

Until federal whistleblowers are given genuine protections and incentives, they will less likely go to Wikileaks or the media, like I had to.

Please go to this webpage to send a pre-can letter to your two U.S. Senators. It tells them the importance of passing the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009 (S. 372) before it dies AGAIN before January:

http://j.mp/c1rgPE

[John Smith]

One thing you'd tell the leaker is that leaking is, or at least can be illegal. Wow, what a revelation. You say that this approach is different than Wikileaks' approach. How so? I mean, how do you know that wikileaks did not inform the informant about this fact /and/ that the informant did not already know that leaking is illegal? There are a lot of presumptions in the start of your article, and this is a carrying trend throughout the article. I'd say, do your research from scratch because you're not really making sense.

[Anthony]

The biggest concern I believe is that the leaks include names of Afghanistan citizens who secretly provided intelligence information to NATO/American forces.

This puts their lives in jeopardy. It is similar to revealing the names of informants to the DEA or local police.

Has Wikileaks gone through these documents to ensure that the names of informants are not shown online? I would safely conclude they could not care less about the lives of the informants' families.