Have you all heard of the Obama whistleblower protection policy?

[qh4dotcom]

It can be found on Obama's own website at change.gov



Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

Too bad Snowden and Greenwald are probably not aware of the whistleblower protection policy....they should be mentioning it in interviews, public statements and asylum requests.

[KEEF]

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/3570179929/0e3cbee82ca74ab43ecc3090fc573b3b_normal.jpegK J P‏@G_fasciatus (https://twitter.com/G_fasciatus)

@ggreenwald (https://twitter.com/ggreenwald) @EdSnowden (https://twitter.com/EdSnowden) Start citing Obama's own Protect Whistleblowers Plan found at http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ … (http://t.co/5UEOi8aWHL)

4:49 PM - 10 Jul 13

Retweet it HERE: https://twitter.com/G_fasciatus/status/355081480629788673

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, heard about Obama's policy. It's called throw everyone in jail!


In an initiative aimed at rooting out future leakers and other security violators, President Barack Obama has ordered federal employees to report suspicious actions of their colleagues based on behavioral profiling techniques that are not scientifically proven to work, according to experts and government documents.

The techniques are a key pillar of the Insider Threat Program, an unprecedented government-wide crackdown under which millions of federal bureaucrats and contractors must watch out for “high-risk persons or behaviors” among co-workers. Those who fail to report them could face penalties, including criminal charges.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?419215-Insider-threat-Program-urging-federal-workers-to-tattle-on-each-other-raises-concerns

[enhanced_deficit]

He was called hypocrite of the century in Irish Parliament recently by a divinish Irish lady.

[CPUd]

They will say it doesn't apply to Snowden because what they were doing was not illegal. And they will stand behind that claim as long as they can fight it in the courts.

[Dr.3D]

They will say it doesn't apply to Snowden because what they were doing was not illegal. And they will stand behind that claim as long as they can fight it in the courts.

I doubt it will ever get in the courts. They can violate the constitution all they want if they are never held accountable for it.

[Aratus]

He was called hypocrite of the century in Irish Parliament recently by a divinish Irish lady.

at least 85% of this century has yet to be, but he may have few challengers for at least 40 or 50 years

[CPUd]

I doubt it will ever get in the courts. They can violate the constitution all they want if they are never held accountable for it.


It's already begun, but this shit will take some time:


The Supreme Court’s Power To Hear In re EPIC

By Steve Vladeck
Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Wells blogged on Monday about EPIC’s new original filing in the Supreme Court, seeking mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari from the Justices to review Judge Vinson’s now-leaked FISA Court order with regard the section 215 request for Verizon’s “business records.” Needless to say, the merits of the section 215 question have received a lot of attention, and I don’t mean to relitigate that issue here. Instead, I thought I’d take this opportunity to fly my jurisdictional-nerd flag, and explain (below the fold) why I think that (1) the Supreme Court does have both constitutional and statutory authority to entertain such an “original” filing’; but (2) almost certainly won’t exercise it because EPIC could have at least tried to obtain similar relief from the FISA Court and/or FISA Court of Review.

I. The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Jurisdiction

Folks likely remember from their constitutional law classes that, under Marbury v. Madison, Congress lacks the power to expand the Supreme Court’s “original” jurisdiction (i.e., its power to hear disputes as a matter of first impression). Instead, that authority is limited to the cases expressly identified in Article III, section 2, clause 2 — “all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party.” But it’s equally well-established that, even when a particular suit is filed in the first instance in the Supreme Court, the suit only triggers the Court’s “constitutional” original jurisdiction if there is no lower court decision that the new suit seeks to overturn.

Put another way, Marbury interposes no bar to using an “original” action to collaterally attack a lower-court decision that is not itself directly appealable. As Justice Souter once put it, such a suit ”is commonly understood to be ‘original’ in the sense of being filed in the first instance in this Court, but nonetheless for constitutional purposes an exercise of this Court’s appellate (rather than original) jurisdiction.” [Coincidentally albeit tangentially, I recently co-authored an amicus brief in support of just such an application in the habeas context in the case of Georgia death row inmate Warren Lee Hill, Jr., whose execution is set for next Monday evening despite the conclusion of all seven of the mental health professionals to have examined him that he is mentally retarded, and therefore not eligible for capital punishment.]

Nor is there any question in this case that the original filing effectively seeks review of a lower-court decision. Unusual though it is, FISC is part of the Article III hierarchy, and its decisions are ultimately reviewable by the Supreme Court, albeit once an appeal has been taken to the FISA Court of Review. So it seems pretty obvious that there’s no constitutional defect in the Supreme Court’s power to entertain EPIC’s claims.
...


http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/the-supreme-courts-power-to-hear-in-re-epic/



New polls suggest that America is divided over the wisdom and the legality of the Obama Administration's newly revealed domestic surveillance programs. There are countless reasons for this, but one surely is that so many Americans are themselves divided, in their own minds, about what the rise of the surveillance state means for them, and what it portends for the future balance between "liberty" and "security" (whatever those words mean). Some people care deeply that the government is secretly sifting through phone records. Others care very little at all. And many are concerned but have neither the energy nor the will to do anything about it.

Part of this cognitive dissonance, let's face it, is in our collective DNA. Though we like to pretend otherwise, we are an easily distracted and contradictory people, full of hypocrisies and double standards that we are unwilling to admit to ourselves, let alone to each other. We say we cherish privacy, for example, but we fight for it only when its deprivation is so patent, so much an assault on our so-called "values," that we'd lose face by not objecting. Otherwise, in the name of security, or in the name of order, or even just in the name of expediency, we allow our cherished privacy, drop by drop, to be drawn from us.
...


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/a-q-a-with-the-aclu-on-its-lawsuit-over-nsa-surveillance/276875/

[Dr.3D]

It's already begun, but this shit will take some time:



http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/the-supreme-courts-power-to-hear-in-re-epic/




http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/a-q-a-with-the-aclu-on-its-lawsuit-over-nsa-surveillance/276875/

So even if it's found to be unconstitutional, those who decided to violate the constitution will not be punished. The most they will do is make them stop doing what they did. This is why they feel like they have nothing to lose when they do violate the constitution. There needs to be a mandatory punishment for violating the constitution.