DOCSLIB.ORG

Different Motivators for Whistleblowers and Leakers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Different Motivators for Whistleblowers and Leakers ! DIFFERENT MOTIVATORS FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS AND LEAKERS by Andrew Ghalili A research study submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Global Security Studies Baltimore, Maryland August 2020 "!2020 Andrew Ghalili All Rights Reserved ! ! ABSTRACT What are the motivating factors for U.S. Intelligence Community whistleblowers, and how do they compare to those of leakers? This study seeks to determine the motivators for an individual within U.S. national security, and more specifically within the IC, to whistleblow. Interviews with 12 whistleblowers or leakers were analyzed to determine the factors that motivate whistleblowers and whether they differ from those that motivate leakers. The factors that were coded for include Intention, Education on Whistleblowing, Perceived Personal Cost (PPC), Public Service Motivation (PSM), and Loyalty. The current study adds to the field of whistleblowing research by filling a gap in the existing research, especially as related specifically to U.S. national security. The study finds that whistleblowers express higher levels of PPC, loyalty to institution, and loyalty to law than leakers, while leakers express higher levels of PSM, loyalty to public, and loyalty to self. The implications of these findings on policy within U.S. national security and Intelligence Community organizations are discussed and analyzed, resulting in multiple policy recommendations. This study was read and reviewed by Michael Warner and Anthony Lang. ##! ! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!#! TABLE OF CONTENTS!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!###! INTRODUCTION!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!$! LITERATURE REVIEW!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!%! METHODS AND DATA!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!&! CODE DEFINITIONS AND HYPOTHESES!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!$'! FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!$(! CONCLUSION!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!%(! REFERENCES!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!%&! ###! ! ! INTRODUCTION In general terms, whistleblowing occurs when an employee of an organization notices unethical or criminal behavior within the organization and proceeds to expose the wrongdoing, often by notifying an authority. Notifying authorities of an unethical activity can be a drastically different process depending on the organization or industry, however. For this research, and within the Intelligence Community, whistleblowing is defined as “the act of reporting waste, fraud, abuse and corruption in a lawful manner to those who can correct the wrongdoing.”1 Intelligence community (IC) whistleblowers are those employees or contractors working in any of the 17 elements of the IC who reasonably believe there has been a violation of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; waste of resources; abuse of authority; or a substantial danger to public health and safety.2 Whistleblowers have existed in America for many decades and are an important part of American society. While whistleblower laws still need to be more clearly written and made more effective, there are existing mechanisms which intend to help an individual avoid retaliation for blowing the whistle on a government agency by reporting to an Inspector General’s office or the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.3 The purpose of this study is to investigate the motivations for whistleblowing, and to compare them with the motivations for illegally leaking classified information. This research is important because there is little to no qualitative research on motivations for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! $!U.S. Congressional Research Service. Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections (R45345; September 23, 1019), by Michael E. DeVine. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf 2 ibid. 3 See The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 https://www.sec.gov/eeoinfo/whistleblowers.htm ! $! ! whistleblowing within the Intelligence Community in America, and because of the consistent, inherent political importance of a national security whistleblower occurrence. Any discussion of prior research on whistleblowing must begin with a discussion of the definition of whistleblowing. While we have already established a definition, this discussion is still necessary both for a larger understanding of the cases that will be discussed and because only whistleblowers receive legal protections, not illegal leakers. For this study, the term “whistleblowing” will solely refer to whistleblowing within the United States government. This constraint is set due to the unique rules and regulations within the government, and the IC specifically, that allow for an individual to expose perceived unethical or illegal behavior. The legal process for a government employee to expose an agency’s wrongdoings is not extremely clear nor always effective, but there are mechanisms in place that are at least intended to enable a government employee to do exactly that. Individuals who choose to not even attempt to use those mechanisms, but rather steal documents or information and then illegally leak them to media or another entity, are classified as leakers, not whistleblowers. Interviews with twelve whistleblowers or leakers are analyzed to determine the factors that motivate whistleblowers and whether they differ from those that motivate leakers. The factors that will be coded for include Education on Whistleblowing, Intent, Perceived Personal Cost, Public Service Motivation, and Loyalty. The current study adds to the field of whistleblowing research by filling a gap in the existing research, especially as related specifically to U.S. national security. The research attempts to answer the following question: what are the motivating factors of U.S. national security whistleblowers, and how do they compare to those of leakers? This study intends to ! %! ! provide insight to intelligence officials and decision makers within the American government, and perhaps officials and decision makers in other democratic countries across the globe. One expected outcome of this research is a larger understanding of motivations for whistleblowing and conditions that lead to whistleblowing, which may inform policy makers of how to create the most trustworthy and ethical environment, encouraging individuals to report perceived wrongdoings internally within the system as opposed to leaking to the media. LITERATURE REVIEW Definitions and Theory In their seminal work, Marcia P. Miceli and Janet P. Near (1985), leading scholars on whistleblowing, defined it as “an activity of disclosure by organizational members for illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations who may be able to effect action” (p. 4). A broader definition has been suggested by other scholars to include whistleblowing by former members of an organization (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). For this research, and within the Intelligence Community, whistleblowing is defined as “the act of reporting waste, fraud, abuse and corruption in a lawful manner to those who can correct the wrongdoing.”4 In order to fully understand what actions a whistleblower takes, as opposed to someone illegally leaking information, let us briefly look at Edward Snowden. Snowden is an example of a leaker, not a whistleblower, because he stole millions of documents from the NSA and illegally transferred them to a journalist. Although Snowden may not !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4U.S. Congressional Research Service. Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections (R45345; September 23, 1019), by Michael E. DeVine. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf ! &! ! have committed treason, he did illegally obtain and release classified government documents. If Edward Snowden’s true goal was just to make the American public aware of the NSA’s surveillance operations, he could have first tried to use the aforementioned mechanisms. He would have found at least some support in congress, where Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon had warned the American public in 2011, “when the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.”5 Nonetheless, Snowden showed no intention to work with congress, nor did he limit the documents he released to ones that deal specifically with NSA surveillance, or with programs that were illegal at all. Furthermore, he did not read all of the documents he stole and sent to journalists, therefore it is implausible that he knew all of the information he was releasing. There is no prior research that analyzes the factors effects on whistleblowers in relation to its effects on leakers. All prior research mentioned in this literature review is referring to both “leakers” and “whistleblowers”,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case 6:12-Cv-01354-MC Document 1 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 8
    Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 1 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 8 FILED 26 JUL '12 t3rl31JSDG·OR£ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION Diane Roark, Plaintiff v. Violations of Constitutional Rights Return ofProperty, Rule 41(g) United States, Defendant. ... oOo ... COMPLAINT Parties 1. Plaintiff Diane Roark, filingpro se, resides in Stayton, Oregon and is a citizen of the United States. 2. The Defendant is the United States, due to actions and omissions by the National Security Agency (NSA), headquartered at Ft. George G. Meade, Maryland, and the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), each headquartered in Washington, D.C. Jurisdiction 3. Plaintiffs property was seized by the FBI from her residence in Stayton, Oregon, in Marion County, which falls under jurisdiction of the Eugene Division. Plaintiff was removed for improper venue from a Rule 41 (g) lawsuit filed by five parties in the United States District Court of Maryland, and was notified that the proper venue in her case is the United States District Court of Oregon. Wiebe et al. v National Security Agency et al., Roark v U.S. 1 ( Case 6:12-cv-01354-MC Document 1 Filed 07/26/12 Page 2 of 8 Civil Case No. RDB-11-3245. Facts 4. Plaintiff was employed at the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and was responsible for oversight ofNSA's operations and budget for the five years before her retirement in April, 2002. Plaintiff was suspected of providing classified government information about "warrantless wiretaps" to the New York Times (NYT), and to NYT reporter James Risen for a book on the same topic, published in December 2005 and January 2006 respectively, and/or to the Baltimore Sun.
    [Show full text]
  • A Public Accountability Defense for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers
    A Public Accountability Defense For National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Yochai Benkler, A Public Accountability Defense For National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers, 8 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 281 (2014). Published Version http://www3.law.harvard.edu/journals/hlpr/files/2014/08/ HLP203.pdf Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12786017 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP A Public Accountability Defense for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers Yochai Benkler* In June 2013 Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Barton Gellman be- gan to publish stories in The Guardian and The Washington Post based on arguably the most significant national security leak in American history.1 By leaking a large cache of classified documents to these reporters, Edward Snowden launched the most extensive public reassessment of surveillance practices by the American security establishment since the mid-1970s.2 Within six months, nineteen bills had been introduced in Congress to sub- stantially reform the National Security Agency’s (“NSA”) bulk collection program and its oversight process;3 a federal judge had held that one of the major disclosed programs violated the
    [Show full text]
  • The Abu Ghraib Convictions: a Miscarriage of Justice
    Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal Volume 32 Article 4 9-1-2013 The Abu Ghraib Convictions: A Miscarriage of Justice Robert Bejesky Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bpilj Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Robert Bejesky, The Abu Ghraib Convictions: A Miscarriage of Justice, 32 Buff. Envtl. L.J. 103 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bpilj/vol32/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ABU GHRAIB CONVICTIONS: A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE ROBERT BEJESKYt I. INTRODUCTION ..................... ..... 104 II. IRAQI DETENTIONS ...............................107 A. Dragnet Detentions During the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.........................107 B. Legal Authority to Detain .............. ..... 111 C. The Abuse at Abu Ghraib .................... 116 D. Chain of Command at Abu Ghraib ..... ........ 119 III. BASIS FOR CRIMINAL CULPABILITY ..... ..... 138 A. Chain of Command ....................... 138 B. Systemic Influences ....................... 140 C. Reduced Rights of Military Personnel and Obedience to Authority ................ ..... 143 D. Interrogator Directives ................ ....
    [Show full text]
  • My Name Is Samuel Provance and I Grew up Williamsburg, Virginia
    p~ãìÉä=gK=mêçî~åÅÉ= mêÉé~êÉÇ=pí~íÉãÉåí= My name is Samuel Provance and I come from Greenville, SC. I enlisted in the United States Army in NVVU and sought a specialization in intelligence in OMMO. I was drawn to the Army by the professional training and good life it promised, but also because it provided me an opportunity to serve my country. The Army has stood for duty, honor and country. In wearing my country’s service uniform and risking my life for my country’s protection, it never occurred to me that I might be required to be a part of things that conflict with these values of duty, honor and country. But my experience in Iraq and later in Germany left me troubled by what has happened to the Army. I saw the traditional values of military service as I understood them compromised or undermined. I am still proud to be a soldier and to wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I am concerned about what the Army is becoming. While serving with my unit in Iraq, I became aware of changes in the procedures in which I and my fellow soldiers were trained. These changes involved using procedures which we previously did not use, and had been trained not to use, and in involving military police (MP) personnel in “preparation” of detainees who were to be interrogated. Some detainees were treated in an incorrect and immoral fashion as a result of these changes. After what had happened at Abu Ghraib became a matter of public knowledge, and there was a demand for action, young soldiers were scapegoated while superiors misrepresented what had happened and tried to misdirect attention away from what was really going on.
    [Show full text]
  • News Opinion National Issues Best Countries Cartoons Photos the Report
    Pre-Snowden Whistleblower Thomas Tamm Faces Misconduct Charges, ... http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/pre-snowden-whistle... News Opinion National Issues Best Countries Cartoons Photos The Report Ken Walsh's Washington Decision 2016 The Run 2016 The Chase Washington Whispers At the Edg Thomas Tamm exposed the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Fellow Justice Department whistleblower Jesselyn Radack, right, waited a decade for a misconduct complaint against her to be dismissed. By Steven Nelson Jan. 27, 2016, at 2:42 p.m. + More A whistleblower who sparked intense public debate about warrantless surveillance nearly a decade 1 of 6 4/11/2016 10:03 AM Pre-Snowden Whistleblower Thomas Tamm Faces Misconduct Charges, ... http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/pre-snowden-whistle... before Edward Snowden now faces ethics charges that could result in his disbarment. Thomas Tamm, a former Justice Department attorney, told reporters in 2004 about the Bush administration bypassing standard legal procedure for intercepting Americans’ international phone calls and emails, and publicly outed himself weeks before President Barack Obama took office. Tamm’s tip helped New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau win a Pulitzer Prize in 2006. And under Obama, who had criticized the program, the Justice Department in 2011 announced it would not bring criminal charges against him. But on Tuesday, the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel – which prosecutes disciplinary matters involving members of the D.C. Bar – unveiled ethics charges against Tamm that could result in his disbarment. The charges allege Tamm “failed to refer information in his possession that persons within the Department of Justice were violating their legal obligations to higher authority within the Department” and “revealed to a newspaper reporter confidences or secrets of his client, the Department of Justice.” [RELATED: NSA Water, Electricity Supply Safe as 'Off Now' Push Fizzles] The D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagnosing and Analyzing Flawed Investigations: Abu Ghraib As a Case Study
    C A R D O Z O L AW R EVIEW de•novo • Featured Item • DIAGNOSING AND ANALYZING FLAWED INVESTIGATIONS: ABU GHRAIB AS A CASE STUDY Keith Rohman* We think of investigation as a road to truth, and truth as the goal of an investigation. Yet time and again, high- visibility investigations of public scandals not only fail to uncover the truth, they seem to redirect the focus in the wrong direction. The Department of Defense‘s (DoD) investigations of the detainee abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison are a recent example of this. With the departure of the Bush Administration, there is renewed interest in examining both the Abu Ghraib scandal and other aspects of the administration‘s interrogation policies. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, has proposed a truth commission along the lines of the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission.1 Others have called for Congressional hearings,2 criminal investigations,3 * Keith Rohman is president of Public Interest Investigations, Inc. and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Loyola Law School of Los Angeles. His practice focuses on human rights and civil rights investigations. He is the lead investigator for plaintiffs‘ attorneys representing torture victims from Abu Ghraib in Saleh v. CACI et al, and related litigation, and has interviewed torture victims, as well as former soldiers and private contractors who worked at the Abu Ghraib prison. This article would not have been possible without the assistance of Molly Kort, Patrick J. Burke and Jack Rohman. The author thanks them and others for their assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Activiteitenverslag 2013.Indb
    RAPPORT D’ACTIVITÉS 2013 ACTIVITEITENVERSLAG 2013 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ? est une série de publications qui a pour objectif de stimuler une discussion approfondie quant au fonctionnement, aux compétences et au contrôle des services de renseignement et de sécurité et du travail de renseignement. Cette série reprend notamment des études scientifi ques, les rapports d’activités du Comité permanent R et des rapports de colloques. Rédaction Comité permanent de contrôle des services de renseignements et de sécurité, rue de Louvain 48, boîte 4 à 1000 Bruxelles (02 286 29 88). Déjà parus dans cette série 1) D. Van Daele, en B. Vangeebergen, Inlichtingendiensten en strafprocedure in Nederland, Duitsland en Frankrijk, 2006, 166 p. 2) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2006, 2007, 147 p. 3) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2007, 2008, 87 p. 4) Belgian Standing Committee I (ed.), All Source Th reat Assessments in the Fight against Terrorism – Fusion Centres throughout Europe, 2010, 220 p. 5) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2008, 2009, 131 p. 6) W. Van Laethem, D. Van Daele en B. Vangeebergen (eds.), De Wet op de bijzondere inlichtingenmethoden, 2010, 298 p. 7) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2009, 2010, 127 p. 8) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2010, 2011, 119 p. 9) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2011, 2012, 134 p. 10) W. Van Laethem et J. Vanderborght, Regards sur le contrôle. Vingt ans de contrôle démocratique sur les services de renseignement, 2013, 565 p. 11) Comité permanent R, Rapport d’activités 2012, 2013, 127 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Schuchardt V. Obama
    Case 2:14-cv-00705-CB Document 19 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ELLIOTT J. SCHUCHARDT, CIVIL DIVISION individually and doing business as the Schuchardt Law Firm, on behalf Case No. 2:14-cv-00705-CB of himself and all others similarly situated, COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, v. CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BARACK H. OBAMA, in his capacity as President of the United States; JAMES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED R. CLAPPER, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence; ADM. MICHAEL S. ROGERS, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service; and JAMES B. COMEY, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, Elliott J. Schuchardt, individually and doing business as the Schuchardt Law Firm, files this Amended Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated. Parties 1. The Plaintiff, Elliott J. Schuchardt, is an attorney having an office located at United States Steel Building, Suite 660, 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. 2. Defendant Barack H. Obama is President of the United States. As such, he has ultimate authority over the actions of the United States federal government. President Obama maintains an address at The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20500. Case 2:14-cv-00705-CB Document 19 Filed 11/24/14 Page 2 of 30 3. Defendant James R. Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”).
    [Show full text]
  • Food Riots, Food Rights and the Politics of Provisions
    2Aworldinprotest Sara Burke Introduction During the time period covered by the Food Riots and Food Rights project, 2007-2012, the world registered a dramatic eruption of protests on many issues, includingfood. The protests were largely non-violent, but during these years episodes reported as "riots" and "violent protests" also occurred. These spiked to historic levels in 2008, 2011 and 2012 in response to price hikes for basic commodities necessary to life: fuel, water and especially food. Protests for subsistence have not been well understood, as they were not well covered in international news due to systematic biases in professional media organizations, which tend to ignore nonviolentprotests — or the nonviolent parts of protests — and also fail to distinguish between acts that harm lives and those that harm property, as well as labeling "violent" both riots and protests violently repressed by the state. This chapter aims to show how the historical eruption of protests throughoutthe period can be understood as a response to the stormy political economy 1 of the time. To many critics of the dominant economic paradigm, that time is best understood as the forseeable outcome of neoliberalism, what classical politicaleconomists Gérard Dúmenil and Dominique Lévy's 2011 book The Crisis of Neoliberalism characterizes as a globalized system of "free-market economics, free trade, and the free mobility of capital", literally a "new liberalism" and correspondingsocial order in which fmancialization propels a managerial apparatus that disciplines
    [Show full text]
  • The Criminalization of Whistleblowing
    THE CRIMINALIZATION OF WHISTLEBLOWING JESSELYN RADACK & KATHLEEN MCCLELLAN1 INTRODUCTION The year 2009 began a disturbing new trend: the criminalization of whistleblowing. The Obama administration has pursued a quiet but relentless campaign against the news media and their sources. This Article focuses on the sources who, more often than not, are whistleblowers. A spate of “leak” prosecutions brought under the Espionage Act2 has shaken the world of whistleblower attorneys, good- government groups, transparency organizations, and civil liberties advocates. The Obama administration has prosecuted fi ve criminal cases 1. Jesselyn Radack is National Security and Human Rights Director at the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a non-profi t organization dedicated to promoting corporate and government accountability by protecting whistleblowers, advancing occupational free speech, and empowering citizen activists. Kathleen McClellan is National Security and Human Rights Counsel at GAP. 2. Espionage Act of 1917, Pub. L. 65-24, 40 Stat. 217 (June 15, 1917). 57 58 THE LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW FORUM [Vol. 2:1 under the Espionage Act, which is more than all other presidential administrations combined.3 These “leak” prosecutions send a chilling message to public servants, as they are contrary to President Barack Obama’s pledge of openness and transparency.4 The vast majority of American citizens do not take issue with the proposition that some things should be kept secret, such as sources and methods, nuclear designs, troop movements, and undercover identities.5 However, the campaign to fl ush out media sources smacks of retaliation and intimidation. The Obama administration is right to protect information that might legitimately undermine national security or put Americans at risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Eyewitness to History in Devolution of Democracy and Constitutional Rights Following 9/11 Thomas Drake Walden University
    Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2017 Eyewitness to History in Devolution of Democracy and Constitutional Rights Following 9/11 Thomas Drake Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Walden University College of Social and Behavioral Sciences This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Thomas Drake has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. George Larkin, Committee Chairperson, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Dr. Ron Hirschbein, Committee Member, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Dr. Tanya Settles, University Reviewer, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.D. Walden University 2017 Abstract Eyewitness to History in Devolution of Democracy and Constitutional Rights Following 9/11 by Thomas A. Drake Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Public Policy and Administration Walden University May 2017 Abstract Many researchers and political experts have commented on the disenfranchisement of the citizenry caused by irresponsible use of power by the government that potentially violates the 4th Amendment rights of millions of people through secret mass surveillance programs. Disclosures of this abuse of power are presumably protected by the 1st Amendment, though when constitutional protections are not followed by the government, the result can be prosecution and imprisonment of whistleblowers.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting to Ground Truth Investigating U.S
    Getting to Ground Truth Investigating U.S. Abuses in the “War on Terror” September 2004 About Us For the past quarter century, Human Rights First (the new name of Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) has worked in the United States and abroad to create a secure and humane world by advancing justice, human dignity and respect for the rule of law. We support human rights activists who fight for basic freedoms and peaceful change at the local level; protect refugees in flight from persecution and repression; help build a strong international system of justice and accountability; and make sure human rights laws and principles are enforced in the United States and abroad. Acknowledgements This report was written by Deborah Pearlstein, Director of the U.S. Law and Security Program at Human Rights First. Others who contributed to the report are: Eric Biel, Cynthia Burns, Avi Cover, David Danzig, Andrea Evans, Kenneth Hurwitz, Elisa Massimino, Priti Patel, Michael Posner, and Jill Savitt. This report is available online at www.HumanRightsFirst.org. For more information about the report contact: Human Rights First Communications Department at Tel: (212) 845-5245 Printed in the United States. © 2004 Human Rights First. All Rights Reserved. New York Headquarters Human Rights First 333 Seventh Avenue 13th Floor New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 845-5200 Fax: (212) 845-5299 Washington, DC Office Human Rights First 100 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Suite 502 Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 547-5692 Fax: (202) 543-5999 www.HumanRightsFirst.org Getting to Ground Truth Investigating U.S. Abuses in the “War on Terror” September 2004 Table of Contents I.
    [Show full text]