Nick Thomas investigates whether political whistle-blowers are discouraged and treated more harshly now than they were in the past
The whistle-blower, the individual who ‘makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing’, can be both a public necessity and a public menace, depending on your perspective. For governments and the corporate establishment, they represent a dangerous disloyalty from within that must be prevented. Conversely, for the general public, they are an important balance to the power of bureaucratic government, revealing information regarding corruption or excesses that would otherwise remain secret. The recent treatment of whistle-blowers suggests that authorities in the hypersensitive post-9/11 security climate are taking the threat of internal leaks and whistle-blowers increasingly seriously. The tide has seemingly turned against these ‘champions of free speech’.
Daniel Ellsberg, famous for the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, has recently stated that there is "no chance" Edward Snowden would have received the fair legal proceedings he received in the wake of his information release
A recent spate of high-profile leaks has brought whistleblowing backing into the public eye. Julian Assange’s high-profile whistleblowing project Wikileaks, US soldier Bradley Manning’s massive release of diplomatic cables, and most recently Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks have plastered the front pages and news channels, ensuring both the moral ambiguities of whistleblowing and the treatment of whistle-blowers have has been widely debated. Daniel Ellsberg, famous for the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, has recently stated that there is "no chance" Edward Snowden would have received the fair legal proceedings he received in the wake of his information release. Public attitudes towards whistle-blowers, it seems, have seriously deteriorated, hence their protection from the government Leviathan has begun to fail. This has allowed current governments to pursue them with unprecedented vigour, with the issue entering the far more problematic realm of human rights.
In 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers that demonstrated 3 successive Presidential administrations had lied to the American public regarding the war in Vietnam, he certainly was not universally accepted as a hero. Ellsberg was forced into hiding for 13 days, and under the Espionage Act faced a maximum sentence of 115 years. Ellsberg, however, specifically states that in the two years he was under federal indictment, he was free to speak to the media and never considered leaving America.
In 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers that demonstrated 3 successive Presidential administrations had lied to the American public regarding the war in Vietnam, he certainly was not universally accepted as a hero. Ellsberg was forced into hiding for 13 days, and under the Espionage Act faced a maximum sentence of 115 years. Ellsberg, however, specifically states that in the two years he was under federal indictment, he was free to speak to the media and never considered leaving America.
In essence, in 1989, "public interest" in the United Kingdom became what the government declared it to be, not what a jury decides
Clive Ponting's 1984 release regarding the sinking of the General Belgrano outside the 'exclusion zone' during the Falklands conflict demonstrates milder British attitudes towards whistle-blowers during the late 20th century. Ponting fully expected to be successfully prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act and although the judge advised the jury to present a guilty verdict, the jury acquitted Ponting, agreeing with his defence that the release was in the 'public interest'. The British Government's reaction to this was the Official Secrets Act of 1989, which removed the 'public interest defence' that protected Ponting. In essence, in 1989, "public interest" in the United Kingdom became what the government declared it to be, not what a jury decides. This striking legislative reaction by the Thatcher government, ensuring removing crucial avenues for whistle-blowers to defend themselves against prosecution, clearly demonstrates the shift in official attitudes towards such whistle-blowers.
Since then we have seen 9/11 and the War on Terror. This has created enormous security fears of ‘the enemy within’, of enemies concealed within populations. As a reaction, we have seen a paradigm shift within security organisations, accompanied by a massive expansion in domestic surveillance and internal security. Both in the UK and America, multiple whistle-blower scandals have broken. Surrounding the Iraq War, we saw David Kelly in the UK and Joe Darby in the US. David Kelly publicly revealed his fears regarding '45-minute' claim in the Iraq Dossier and over Alistair Campbell's involvement in producing the dossier. David Kelly's identity was publicly release allegedly with approval from Tony Blair, and he subsequently committed suicide. Kelly's fears regarding the Dossier turned out to be true. In the US, Joe Darby exposed the treatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Gharib by his fellow soldiers. Although promised anonymity, Donald Rumsfeld named him during a Senate hearing, and he was accused of being a traitor by neighbours and forced to live in protective custody. Neither of these 21st century whistle-blowers were accorded the privacy they were promised.
The recent cases of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are more difficult to judge. Both are clearly in breach of US Espionage regulations; both released information that the public arguably had a right to know. In particular, Edward Snowden's release demonstrated that James Clapper, the director of the NSA, lied to Congress in denying the NSA did gathered data on "millions of Americans". Bradley Manning has been held without trial, at times in complete isolation in conditions described as “cruel, inhuman and degrading.” Julian Assange, a figure who has bitterly divided public opinion, has sought protection, within Ecuador's London Embassy, from Swedish rape charges he denounces as politically motivated. Edward Snowden has fled from Hong Kong to Moscow, and now seeks political asylum in any country willing to resist American extradition requests.
Since then we have seen 9/11 and the War on Terror. This has created enormous security fears of ‘the enemy within’, of enemies concealed within populations. As a reaction, we have seen a paradigm shift within security organisations, accompanied by a massive expansion in domestic surveillance and internal security. Both in the UK and America, multiple whistle-blower scandals have broken. Surrounding the Iraq War, we saw David Kelly in the UK and Joe Darby in the US. David Kelly publicly revealed his fears regarding '45-minute' claim in the Iraq Dossier and over Alistair Campbell's involvement in producing the dossier. David Kelly's identity was publicly release allegedly with approval from Tony Blair, and he subsequently committed suicide. Kelly's fears regarding the Dossier turned out to be true. In the US, Joe Darby exposed the treatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Gharib by his fellow soldiers. Although promised anonymity, Donald Rumsfeld named him during a Senate hearing, and he was accused of being a traitor by neighbours and forced to live in protective custody. Neither of these 21st century whistle-blowers were accorded the privacy they were promised.
The recent cases of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are more difficult to judge. Both are clearly in breach of US Espionage regulations; both released information that the public arguably had a right to know. In particular, Edward Snowden's release demonstrated that James Clapper, the director of the NSA, lied to Congress in denying the NSA did gathered data on "millions of Americans". Bradley Manning has been held without trial, at times in complete isolation in conditions described as “cruel, inhuman and degrading.” Julian Assange, a figure who has bitterly divided public opinion, has sought protection, within Ecuador's London Embassy, from Swedish rape charges he denounces as politically motivated. Edward Snowden has fled from Hong Kong to Moscow, and now seeks political asylum in any country willing to resist American extradition requests.
Whistle-blowers now seek asylum in anti-American countries with questionable human rights records, rather than face legal proceedings in their own countries, countries that claim leadership on the matter of human rights
Arguably, the whistle-blower is more fiercely persecuted by the establishment now than at the time of Daniel Ellsberg and Clive Ponting. Whistle-blowers now seek asylum in anti-American countries with questionable human rights records, rather than face legal proceedings in their own countries, countries that claim leadership on the matter of human rights. Edward Snowden clearly feels, and Daniel Ellsberg agrees, that he would not be treated fairly, and rightly fears the treatment accorded to Bradley Manning.
Yet we must remember that the whistle-blower has an extremely important role to play, and should be protected by us, the public. We should not seek to defend all whistle-blowers as public champions. Critics that suggest whistle-blowers often act out of self-interest narcissism rather than in the public interest are convincing: the actions and personality of Julian Assange, for example, has bitterly divided opinion. Furthermore, by leaking information whistle-blowers do often act illegally. They should have to face independent judiciaries and be judged for their actions. Yet, although whistle-blowers break espionage and privacy laws, sometimes that which they reveal far outweighs their own crimes, and brings attention upon legislation that is over-mighty and even draconian. The Patriot Act in America and comparable anti-terror legislation passed in many Western countries, are designed to combat the threat of terrorism that has defined 21st century geopolitics. They are widely criticised for their draconian qualities and are arguably loosely interpreted, even abused, by our own security organisations aiming to extend their own reach and power, in spite of massive privacy concerns. Whistle-blowing brings attention upon such legislation that attacks individual freedoms, and upon the activities of our governments that are often accepted as a necessary evil in the War on Terror.
Yet we must remember that the whistle-blower has an extremely important role to play, and should be protected by us, the public. We should not seek to defend all whistle-blowers as public champions. Critics that suggest whistle-blowers often act out of self-interest narcissism rather than in the public interest are convincing: the actions and personality of Julian Assange, for example, has bitterly divided opinion. Furthermore, by leaking information whistle-blowers do often act illegally. They should have to face independent judiciaries and be judged for their actions. Yet, although whistle-blowers break espionage and privacy laws, sometimes that which they reveal far outweighs their own crimes, and brings attention upon legislation that is over-mighty and even draconian. The Patriot Act in America and comparable anti-terror legislation passed in many Western countries, are designed to combat the threat of terrorism that has defined 21st century geopolitics. They are widely criticised for their draconian qualities and are arguably loosely interpreted, even abused, by our own security organisations aiming to extend their own reach and power, in spite of massive privacy concerns. Whistle-blowing brings attention upon such legislation that attacks individual freedoms, and upon the activities of our governments that are often accepted as a necessary evil in the War on Terror.
The public must remember that they stand between the government and these whistle-blowers
In the face of such legislation and surveillance, whistle-blowers are a crucial route by which the public can discover when our own governments are overstepping their authority, straying past legal protection towards invasive surveillance. The public must remember that they stand between the government and these whistle-blowers: to judge the implications of their evidence, and to ensure they receive their legal rights in court, rather than face solitary confinement for long periods of time. Every whistle-blower deterred, as their fears of persecution outweigh their moral obligation to reveal what they know, represents another instance of corruption or wrongdoing that goes unquestioned by public opinion.