First, that's misleading --- again, unless the accusation is that the DOJ is lying in the indictment, which would be a bigger story than today's:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fgt8bg4fykz0b7x/Screenshot%202016-...

Second, whatever reasons he had for violating the NSA's process are besides the point. The lede of this story is that following NSA's internal procedures for blowing the whistle will result in NSA destroying your life. But as evidence for that argument, they marshall the story of Thomas Drake, where that is not at all what happened. It's critically important to the story that readers know that he did not simply follow protocol and then get punished for it. Instead, he followed protocol, was dissatisfied with its outcome, and then flagrantly and repeatedly broke protocol.

It's a very convenient strategy to try to hold my argument to account for what happened to Thomas Drake. But the point of my argument isn't Thomas Drake; it's the extraordinarily well-known and easily-acquired information about the Drake case that The Guardian not only left out but by repeated implication contradicted in writing this story. Just because the story lands on a conclusion you're comfortable with doesn't mean you should be comfortable with the story.

So let me see if I have this right. He repeatedly followed protocol, was shut down for doing so, and told to be a "good team player", and things continued as they were. Illegal activity on the part of the NSA and the suppression of this by the NSA and the government, AND the congressional staff this was communicated to. All kept quiet. All suppressed. And ILLEGAL. And so, when the system doesn't work and it is leaked to the press, at that point the ONLY way to get this information out to fellow US citizens, your position is that the key thing is that he didn't continue to play along with keeping all this secret? The whistleblower protocol failed and was co-opted by the very agency that was supposed to protect it. And it failed not once, but multiple times against multiple people who worked for the NSA and found these things out. The only other recourse was to talk to the press. You know, the one protected by the first amendment? Exposing how the government was violating the fourth amendment and lying about it and saying as well that any evidence of it was a national security secret?

And for you the key part is that, when the protocols fail and are subverted by the IG agency, Drake is in the wrong? Wow.

I think you summarized someone else's comment, and not mine.

Stopped reading at "unless the accusation is that the DOJ is lying in the indictment".

Do you seriously not understand how indictments work? Why would you use them as your source for an account of the events? The whole point of an indictment, which consists entirely of unproven allegations by design, is to throw everything possible at the target and paint the worst possible picture to make your case. It's not a finding of facts and it's not an impartial document.

Lying in an indictment would not be news in any way whatsoever. Not lying in an indictment would be news. But it's not really considered lying.

A better way to say "I stopped reading at" on HN is "I wanted to stop reading at". You read the whole comment, or you wouldn't have replied.

What part of what I said do you think is a DOJ lie? Based on things Drake has conceded elsewhere, your claim may be more or less rebuttable. You have to actually make the claim before we can discern that.

I in fact did stop reading there. Mostly because we have 3 debates going at once, and I can only debunk so many things at a time. When an indictment is cited as a primary source of the facts in favor of contradictory findings in the case that followed, that's an easy short-circuit.

So why did the DOJ drop most of the charges?

The DOJ argued that they should be able to prosecute for revealing classified documents without revealing what the documents were. When the judge prevented that, the case collapsed and they were forced to settle.

Because there was a negotiated guilty plea.

A guilty plea to one misdemeanor count of "exceeding the authorized use of a computer" after having been indicted on 10 counts, all of which were dropped.