The executive order that Obama mentioned in this speech is a bit misleading(from what I can tell). First, it doesn't protect those individuals from being charged with a crime, it only protects their job. Here are a few thoughts on this executive order[1] which are my own thoughts though I'm not a lawyer and my interpretation could be wrong.<p>Here is the opening paragraph for Section A:<p>"Any officer or employee of a Covered Agency who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any Personnel Action, shall not, with respect to such authority, take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a Personnel Action with respect to any employee serving in an Intelligence Community Element as a reprisal for a Protected Disclosure. "<p>And here is what a "Personnel Action" is defined as:<p>"The term "Personnel Action• means an appointment, promotion, detail, transfer, reassignment, demotion, suspension, termination, reinstatement, restoration, reemployment, or performance evaluation; a decision concerning pay, benefits, or awards; a decision concerning education or training if the education or training may reasonably be expected to lead to an appointment, reassignment, promotion, or performance evaluation; a decision to order psychiatric testing or examination; and any other significant change in duties, responsibilities, or working conditions."<p>Which means, Snowden couldn't be fired, however, he could still be charged with crimes, nothing about that. But the next sentence can really invalidate all of that:<p>"The term "Personnel Action• does not include the termination of an employee pursuant to section 1609 of title 10, United States Code."<p>There are more caveats to "Personnel Action" but this first one is what caught my eye. Looking up 10 USC § 1609[2]:<p>"(a) Termination Authority.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense may terminate the employment of any employee in a defense intelligence position if the Secretary—
(1) considers that action to be in the interests of the United States; and
(2) determines that the procedures prescribed in other provisions of law that authorize the termination of the employment of such employee cannot be invoked in a manner consistent with the national security. "<p>The first section of § 1609 is what really gets me: this is basically a get out of jail free card for terminating the person who blows the whistle.<p>Even then, the disclosure process is absolutely ridiculous and designed to keep the public uninformed. Obama even said himself that if Snowden had gone the "proper" route, then "we would most likely be in the same place now" but he wouldn't have "put lives in danger". Except that the public wouldn't have known about this invasion of privacy and it would have most likely been shot down by higher ups instead of actually being fixed.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/ppd/ppd-19.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/ppd/ppd-19.pdf</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1609" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1609</a>