The Whistle Blower Act concerning classified information

Here is a link to the Non Disclosure Agreement that you must sign in order to gain access to classified information:

www.archives.gov... [this is a PDF]

For those too lazy or scared to click a link, here is it:

1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.

2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures. 3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b], title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation. 5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement. 6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement including, but not limited to, application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of information in breach of this Agreement. 7. I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which have, or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or that provided me access to classified information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of sections 793 and/or 1924, title 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.

5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement including, but not limited to, application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of information in breach of this Agreement.

continued

continued PDF pasting removed

Along with the above you are given a booklet of commonly asked questions to read:

fas.org...

Particularly:

Question 16: Does the SF 312 conflict with the "whistleblower" statute?

Answer: The SF 312 does not conflict with the "whistleblower" statute (5 U.S.C. sec. 2302). The statute does not protect employees who disclose classified information without authority. If an employee knows or reasonably should know that information is classified, provisions of the "whistleblower statutes" should not protect that employee from the consequences of an unauthorized disclosure.

In addition, Executive Order 12958, Sec. 1.8(a), specifically prohibits classification "in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) to restrain competition; or (4) to prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security." This provision was included in the Order to help prevent the classification of information that would most likely be the concern of whistleblowers.

Finally, there are remedies available to whistleblowers that don't require the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. There are officials within the Government who are both authorized access to classified information and who are responsible for investigating instances of reported waste, fraud, and abuse. Further, each agency must establish procedures under which authorized holders of information are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification of information that they believe is improperly classified or unclassified. These procedures must ensure that: (1) individuals are not subject to retribution for bringing such actions; (2) an opportunity is provided for review by an impartial official or panel; and (3) individuals are advised of their right to appeal agency decisions to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel established by section 5.4 of Executive Order 12958.


Again:

The statute does not protect employees who disclose classified information without authority. If an employee knows or reasonably should know that information is classified, provisions of the "whistleblower statutes" should not protect that employee from the consequences of an unauthorized disclosure.


If the Whistle Blower is disclosing classified information, they should expect no protection. They have other options for filing a complaint that does not involve unauthorized disclosure of said information.


This needs to be seen in light of the current events.

a reply to: RickinVa

If the Whistle Blower is disclosing classified information, they should expect no protection.

The Whistle Blower complaint was reviewed by the ICIG and then the DNI. It would be upon them to redact any classified information before forwarding the complaint.

a reply to: RickinVa

If the Whistle Blower is disclosing classified information,

"If."

Do we know that classified information was disclosed to unauthorized people?

consequences of an unauthorized disclosure.

Key phrase: unauthorized disclosure. If the information is disclosed to someone who is already legally privy to classified information and status, then it is not a unauthorized, and, therefore, not a violation.

I posted this in advance of the upcoming "open" hearings. This not directed at the current whistle blower, but as a reminder about what may be coming out in the future.

Leaks of classified information to journalists have been occurring and will likely to continue to occur throughout this administration.


Just something to keep in mind when you read the news.

addition, Executive Order 12958, Sec. 1.8(a), specifically prohibits classification "in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) to restrain competition; or (4) to prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security."


In addition to the whistleblower complaint having been thoroughly vetted, prior to its filing, by the ICIG,

The complaint itself involves content Specifically Exempted from the NDA statute by virtue of the above cited section of Executive Order 12958, which “specifically prohibits classification to conceal violations of law...”


Solicitation of a foreign government (Ukraine) to provide aid for the purpose of influencing a political campaign, is a “violation of law”, and formed the basis of the whistleblower’s complaint as it has been made public.

Again, as if it had not been explained sufficiently already, asking a foreign government for its assistance in countering corruption would have been fine.

But, when Trump made the request Specifically about investigating Biden, a political rival, who Trump mentions, by name, and Biden’s family, Trump “crossed the line” and appears to have violated the law.

By then authorizing the transfer of the transcript of that “unlawful” call to a “system” reserved for information of “National Security” importance, requiring special authority for access, both parts (1) and (4) of the above exemption are brought forth.

a reply to: Liquesence

Incorrect. I may have a higher level of clearance than you do, but you may be working with information that I am not privileged to know despite a higher clearance.

All conversations with the President are considered privileged automatically. Mostly to end any debate on their classification status before classification. So when you hear “The President said this on a phone call...” and you are not supposed to hear it, you supposed to interrupt he other person. Doesn’t matter if it was a discussion on planing a birthday party for Barron.

Obviously this Whistleblower demonstrates that things are not being done correctly. But the longer this goes on without full debriefing; the longer national security is at risk because we don’t know anything about the leaker or what all else has been leaked. What if it was a daily release of the launch codes from the football embedded in selfies on one of their off the books Facebook accounts?

Odds are low, but we don’t know for sure either way now do we?

a reply to: Ahabstar

I may have a higher level of clearance than you do, but you may be working with information that I am not privileged to know despite a higher clearance.

Only if the information disclosed is in itself classified, which insofar as we know nothing classified was disclosed to unauthorized persons; however, my point was if you and I both are cleared for classified information, it wouldn't be an unauthorized disclosure.

All conversations with the President are considered privileged automatically.

Privileged, but not automatically classified.

Obviously this Whistleblower demonstrates that things are not being done correctly.

Obviously the whistleblower followed procedure in raising his or her concerns.

the longer national security is at risk because we don’t know anything about the leaker or what all else has been leaked.

What leaker? The whistleblower is not a "leaker."

a reply to: Liquesence

Was the Whistleblower on the call or told about what transpired on the call?
Aka information leaked to the WB because they had no business knowing what transpired otherwise would have had the privilege of access to the conversation. Again, you cannot be told about Barron’s Birthday Party plans because it was privileged information. I thought I was pretty clear in that silly little example.

Your level of clearance might be limited to knowing what all the colors of the folders mean on the project of what new car the president is going to buy after his term(s) of office. I might know the evacuation plans for 50 different cities in the event of nuclear attack. I don’t need to know that blue folder means he is leaning heavy towards an Audi TT.

a reply to: Liquesence

...if you and I both are cleared for classified information, it wouldn't be an unauthorized disclosure.

Well maybe...if you are both cleared for the same level of classification, are both read-in, have a need to discuss said information, and (if need be) at an authorized facility.

Without that criteria being met, you both could be in violation.

As the OP stated, this is simply laying the ground work for the upcoming festivities. No specifics as of yet. As this goes on we can probably reference/re-visit this.

a reply to: ABNARTY


TS/SCI stands for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.


A project may have several compartments, most do. You are only allowed access to the information in the compartment you are read on for. If you are working in compartment A, you have no business discussing your work with someone who is working in compartment B.

The less people know about what each other is doing keeps the projects from being inadvertently compromised. Only the people at the very top of the food chain have access to all the compartments of a specific project.

a reply to: Liquesence

Only if the information disclosed is in itself classified, which insofar as we know nothing classified was disclosed to unauthorized persons; however, my point was if you and I both are cleared for classified information, it wouldn't be an unauthorized disclosure.

I love it when non-military or non-governmental people think they know anything about classified material.

First off, any conversation the President has with a head of state is automatically presumed to be the highest classification level.

Secondly, if you and I have a TS/SCI clearance and I talk to you about what I handled or learned that day in a non-secure area, I'm going to jail.

Third, if you and I have a TS/SCI clearance and we talk about TS/SCI information in a secure area and we are not part of the same team doing the same job, we both go to jail.

SCI stands for Secure Compartmentalized Information.

OPSEC makes sure that there are very few people that know the same thing... and even less people that know more than a part of it.

Hope that helped.

SCI = sensitive compartmented information.

When a person is granted a security clearance and access to specific classified information, that person is responsible to protect that information and use and store it in accordance with the handling procedures of that caveat. It is the responsibility of the person in legal possession of the information to ascertain the security clearance, "tickets" (compartments authorized), and need-to-know of any recipient (person) of that information before the info changes hands.

Any person who signs a nondisclosure agreement in order to be granted a clearance and accesses--and then later discloses protected/classified information to unauthorized recipients--is not only a criminal, but also a liar.

National security is based on trust. Yes, there are all kinds of additional protections (SCIFs, inbriefs and outbriefs, secirity compartments, need-to-know, etc.), but it really comes down to trusting the individual with the information. Break that trust--and you cannot be trusted. You're not a cultural hero or the voice of a generation. You're a liar.

I worked in the business for 35+ years.

a reply to: RickinVa

Agreed. I was just trying to keep the response in English.