Rather bizarre placement for this Emily Wax piece, and some interesting omissions. In the section on Thomas Drake’s case (involving the TRAILBLAZER fiasco at NSA), there’s this gem:

The former top spokesman for the Justice Department, Matthew Miller, later said the case against Drake may have been an “ill-considered choice for prosecution.”

The judge in Drake’s case, Richard D. Bennett, was far harsher in his assessment:

I don’t think that deterrence should include an American citizen waiting two and a half years after their home is searched to find out if they’re going to be indicted or not,” Judge Bennett said. “I find that unconscionable. Unconscionable. It is at the very root of what this country was founded on against general warrants of the British. It was one of the most fundamental things in the Bill of Rights that this country was not to be exposed to people knocking on the door with government authority and coming into their homes. And when it happens, it should be resolved pretty quickly, and it sure as heck shouldn’t take two and a half years before someone’s charged after that event.

The Surveillance State Repeal Act (HR 2818) includes a provision that makes it a termination offense for any federal official who retaliates against a whistleblower for filing a complaint regarding waste, fraud, abuse or criminal conduct.

What Drake should receive is 1) an in-person apology from President Obama, 2) complete expungement of his misdemeanor conviction, which was bogus, 3) full back pay, and (if he wants it) 4) reinstatement to his previous position at NSA. Additionally, every one at DoJ responsible for bringing the bogus case against him should, if they are still employed by DoJ, be fired. And in a just world, all of those things would happen.