NSA Inspector General George Ellard was promoted by himself and Edward Snowden's detractors as the safe, legal, responsible channel that Snowden was supposed to go through instead of leaking documents to the press.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1ee704978c1e44a1b80db2e1bfbf109a/nsa-watchdog-leave-whistleblower-case

NSA watchdog on leave in whistleblower case   
By DEB RIECHMANN 
Dec. 19, 2016 5:07 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — Allegations of retaliation against a whistleblower at the National Security Agency have left its top watchdog fighting for his job, according to an intelligence official and another individual familiar with the case.

The case could offer some credence to Edward Snowden's claim that he could not have reported the government's domestic surveillance program without facing reprisals.

George Ellard, the NSA's inspector general, was placed on administrative leave after he refused to give the whistleblower a certain job assignment. The Project on Government Oversight, an advocacy group, first reported last week that Adm. Mike Rogers, director of NSA, had placed Ellard on leave and recommended that he be terminated. Ellard is appealing that decision.  Ellard received attention in 2014 for remarks at Georgetown University Law Center criticizing Snowden, the former NSA contractor who had leaked secret documents about the surveillance program. Snowden says he went public because he feared retaliation from his superiors if he had raised his concerns with them. Ellard said at Georgetown that Snowden could have safely come to him.

Ellard's case is the first to move completely through a process created by President Barack Obama in 2012 to ensure that intelligence employees can effectively report waste, fraud and abuse while protecting classified information. The directive prohibits agencies from retaliating against them or taking away security clearances or an employee's access to classified information.

The case stemmed from a whistleblower's claims of financial misconduct by NSA officials involving a conference in Nashville, Tennessee.

The whistleblower, in a brief email to The Associated Press, said that after he raised his concerns, his name was disclosed to Ellard in violation of rules intended to protect government employees who want to report misconduct.

The whistleblower said his email response had been cleared by the NSA. The agency declined to comment independently on the case. Ellard's attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

It's not clear who revealed the whistleblower's identity to Ellard. But the whistleblower said that after Ellard learned who he was, "I was denied an assignment within the NSA inspector general's office of investigations because of my whistleblowing." He sent the email to the AP on condition of anonymity because the case is still active.

Rogers' decision to recommend Ellard's dismissal followed an eight-month investigation by a panel of inspectors general at the CIA, Treasury and Justice Department, according to an intelligence official, who was not authorized to disclose details about the case and spoke on condition of anonymity. The trio was empaneled in October 2015 and issued its decision in May.

The Justice and Defense departments declined to comment on the decision.

Louis Clark, director of the Government Accountability Project, said he was happy that the process set up by Obama's directive was finally being used, but expressed disappointment that it has taken so long for it to happen. "It was so slow because the intelligence agencies are extremely hostile to whistleblowing," he said.

The fate of Obama's directive is uncertain. It will be up to Donald Trump, after he becomes president, to decide whether to continue it. Trump has said he doesn't trust the intelligence agencies, but it's not clear if that would make him more or less likely to protect whistleblowers.

Timothy Edgar, Obama's first director of privacy and civil liberties for the White House national security staff, says there is cause for serious concern about the future of whistleblowers.

"What we're left with, I think, is probably primarily the integrity and bravery of people in the bureaucracy, who, despite those obstacles are willing to say 'no' if they are involved in activities that they think are serious violations of the Constitution," Edgar said.
___

Associated Press writer Eileen Sullivan contributed to this story.

Quote

But the whistleblower said that after Ellard learned who he was, "I was denied an assignment within the NSA inspector general's office of investigations because of my whistleblowing."

I'm not a fan of speculation amidst anonymous sources and ongoing investigation, and this just sounds really odd. I'm failing to see how this means the IG's office wouldn't be considered a "safe, legal, responsible" channel for whistleblowing. So the guy didn't get a job there; maybe he wasn't qualified, or there was some sort of conflict of interest clause? And even if the claim is factual, Snowden's leak was still morally dubious and ill-conceived now that he's living out a self-imposed exile/imprisonment in America's biggest intelligence rival instead of, say, being denied a certain job somewhere. Yeah, fuck a watchdog IG being petty against whistleblowers, but he's out of a job and the process is progressing.

This article goes a little bit more in-depth. Guess I kind of screwed up by not including it in the OP:

The closely held but unclassified finding against Ellard is not public. It was reached by following new whistleblower protections set forth by President Obama in an executive order, Presidential Policy Directive 19. (A President Trump could, in theory, eliminate the order.) Following PPD-19 procedures, a first-ever External Review Panel (ERP) composed of three of the most experienced watchdogs in the US government was convened to examine the issue. The trio -- IG’s of the Justice Department, Treasury, and CIA – overturned an earlier finding of the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG), which investigated Ellard but was unable to substantiate his alleged retaliation.
“The finding against Ellard is extraordinary and unprecedented,” notes Stephen Aftergood, Director of the Secrecy Program at the Federation of American Scientists. “This is the first real test drive for a new process of protecting intelligence whistleblowers. Until now, they’ve been at the mercy of their own agencies, and dependent on the whims of their superiors. This process is supposed to provide them security and a procedural foothold.”
“The case, which is still in progress, offers hopeful signs that the new framework may be working,” Aftergood added.
POGO learned of the decision against Ellard from sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. The information was later confirmed by government officials. POGO has been told that mention of the finding will appear in a semiannual report (SAR) of the Intelligence Community IG (ICIG) that should be released in the near future. It makes brief mention of the case without citing Ellard by name.

So we should be getting specifics in a public report sooner or later.

As for your post, though:

The whistleblower, in a brief email to The Associated Press, said that after he raised his concerns, his name was disclosed to Ellard in violation of rules intended to protect government employees who want to report misconduct.

This is a major violation of trust, considering the government claims to be whistleblower-friendly while using a broad interpretation of the Espionage Act to effectively prohibit a sufficient not-guilty defense in court. It's a different culture today than the one that ultimately let Daniel Ellsberg off the hook.

And now, I've never worked for the NSA in any capacity, but it's to my understanding that contractors move up the ladder by taking on assignments. Ellard used information that he wasn't supposed to have in order to effectively sabotage the whistleblower's career.

These kinds of actions do not paint the USG workplace in a positive light. I understand that they operate in shades of gray out of necessity, but oversensitivity to internal criticism and breaking their own rules are not conducive to worker morale or the effectiveness of an organization. And a justified perception of the system being untrustworthy and biased probably encourages whistleblowers to go public.

Also:

And even if the claim is factual, Snowden's leak was still morally dubious and ill-conceived

I'd say that lying under oath to Congress and violating the Fourth Amendment with unchallengeable legal theories in secret courts fits those descriptions decently well. Leaking to the press and destroying the encrypted physical evidence was probably a more reliable way of making changes happen, too.