That includes people who work in the military, for government agencies like the CIA,

包括在軍隊工作的人，為中情局等政府機構工作的人。

or for private companies hired by those agencies.

或為這些機構僱用的私營公司。

Let's say you are one of those people.

比方說，你就是這樣的人。

And you learn something that bothers you.

你就會學到一些困擾你的東西。

Because this is your job, you know that the laws around classified information are serious.

因為這是你的工作，你知道圍繞機密信息的法律是嚴肅的。

But let's say the thing you learn is really bad.

但是，假設你學的東西真的很差。

Maybe a government program is wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.

也許一個政府項目正在浪費數十億納稅人的錢。

Or a federal agency is spying on millions of ordinary Americans.

或者一個聯邦機構正在監視數百萬普通美國人。

Or, the head of your government is making shadowy deals with foreign leaders for personal gain.

或者，你的政府首腦為了個人利益，與外國領導人進行暗中交易。

You have a decision to make.

你要做個決定。

A sort of “choose your own adventure.”

一種 "選擇自己的冒險"。

But behind each door is a different set of risks.

但每一扇門背後都有不同的風險。

If you decide to expose what you've learned, that's called whistleblowing.

如果你決定揭發你所瞭解到的情況，這就叫告密。

And in the US, it's often regarded as a brave, patriotic thing to do.

而在美國，這往往被認為是一件勇敢、愛國的事情。

There are laws to protect it.

有法律來保護它。

But the reality, for the 3 million people who work with classified information,

但現實中，對於300萬與機密信息打交道的人來說。

is much more complicated.

要複雜得多。

What would you do?

你會怎麼做？

This is Daniel Ellsberg, an American military analyst in the 1960s.

這是丹尼爾-埃爾斯伯格，美國60年代的軍事分析家。

Ellsberg learned that the US government had lied to the public about why the US was at war in Vietnam,

埃爾斯伯格得知美國政府在美國為何在越南開戰的問題上對公眾撒了謊。

and about how deadly the war was.

和關於戰爭是如何致命的。

In 1971, he gave 7,000 classified documents that exposed those lies to the New York Times,

1971年，他提供了7000份機密文件，將這些謊言暴露給了《紐約時報》。

and then to 20 other newspapers.

然後再到其他20家報紙。

Ellsberg took door #1: leaking your evidence of government wrongdoing, directly to the media.

埃爾斯伯格採取了第一道門：把你的政府不法行為的證據，直接洩露給媒體。

His leak became known as the “Pentagon Papers.”

他的洩密事件被稱為 "五角大樓文件"。

Three years later, the US pulled out of the war.

三年後，美國退出了戰爭。

But leaking classified information to the media is illegal.

但向媒體洩露機密資訊是違法的。

And in Ellsberg's case, the government made him a target.

而在艾爾斯伯格的案子裡，政府把他當成了目標。

“We've got to keep our eye on the main ball, the main ball is Ellsberg.

"我們得盯著主球，主球是埃爾斯伯格。

We got to get this son of a bitch.”

我們得把這個王八蛋抓起來。"

The federal government charged Ellsberg under the Espionage Act, a law from 1917,

聯邦政府根據1917年頒佈的《間諜法》指控埃爾斯伯格。

originally written to go after spies working with foreign governments.

原本是為了追捕為外國政府工作的間諜而寫的。

But Ellsberg got lucky.

但艾爾斯伯格很幸運。

It turned out that the government had broken the law by spying on him, and a judge threw out the charges.

原來政府監視他是犯法的，法官把罪名推翻了。

He was free to go.

他可以走了

But other leakers haven't been so lucky.

但其他洩密者就沒有這麼幸運了。

Chelsea Manning, an American soldier, leaked classified documents to Wikileaks in 2010,

切爾西-曼寧，一名美國士兵，在2010年向維基解密洩露了機密文件。

including evidence that the US had committed war crimes in Iraq.

包括美國在伊拉克犯下戰爭罪的證據。

She went to prison for 7 years.

她在監獄裡呆了7年。

In 2013, the cybersecurity expert Edward Snowden leaked evidence

2013年，網絡安全專家愛德華-斯諾登洩露了證據。

of a massive government surveillance program to international newspapers.

的大規模政府監控計劃，向國際報。

He fled the United States to avoid being prosecuted for espionage.

他為避免因間諜罪被起訴而逃離美國。

Leaking classified information to the media is one common kind of whistleblowing.

向媒體洩露機密資訊是常見的一種舉報方式。

But it's also illegal, so it's treacherous for those that risk it.

但這也是違法的，所以對於那些冒險的人來說，這是很奸詐的。

Fortunately, in the US there's another option: to go through official, internal channels

幸運的是，在美國，還有另一種選擇：通過官方的內部管道

for coming forward with a complaint.

為前來投訴。

This is door #2: legal whistleblowing.

這是第二門：法律舉報。

In 1998, the US created a process for people who work with classified information to file complaints:

1998年，美國為從事機密信息工作的人設立了一個投訴程序。

First to an inspector general, and then to the director of national intelligence, and

首先是監察長，然後是國家情報局局長，和

then on to Congress.

然後再到國會。

This is someone who worked in national security at the time.

這是當時在國安工作的人。

His name is Thomas Drake.

他叫托馬斯-德雷克

Shortly after September 11th, Drake learned that the National Security Agency was part

9月11日之後不久，德雷克瞭解到國家安全局的一部分。

of an unprecedented program inside the federal government, called “Stellar Wind.”

聯邦政府內部的一個史無前例的計劃，叫做 "恆星風"。

The program collected emails, phone conversations, financial transactions, and the web activity

該程序收集了電子郵件、電話交談、金融交易和網絡活動。

of millions of American citizens, without a warrant.

數百萬美國公民的，沒有搜查令。

What are we doing violating the Constitution?

我們在做什麼違反憲法的事情？

I knew that if I remained silent that I would be complicit in a crime.

我知道，如果我保持沉默，我將成為犯罪的同謀。

Drake considered taking what he knew to the press, but knew it would put him at risk.

德雷克考慮過把他所知道的事情告訴媒體，但他知道這會讓他面臨風險。

I knew that that was fraught with enormous peril.

我知道那是充滿了巨大的危險。

I was extremely familiar what happened to Daniel Ellsberg.

我對丹尼爾-埃爾斯伯格的遭遇極為熟悉。

Luckily, he had a legal route he could follow.

幸運的是，他有一條合法的路線可以走。

He brought his concerns to his supervisor, to his own agency's inspector general's office,

他把自己的擔憂帶給了他的上司，帶給了自己機構的監察長辦公室。

and eventually to Congress.

並最終進入國會。

But his agency told him that no matter what the Constitution said,

但他的機構告訴他，不管憲法怎麼說。

the White House said the program was legal, and that that was good enough for them.

白宮說這個項目是合法的，這對他們來說已經足夠了。

"I could feel the hair standing up on the back of my neck, because I was thrown back to the 70s, and Nixon.”

"我能感覺到我脖子後面的頭髮都豎起來了，因為我被扔回了70年代，還有尼克松。"

Drake's next problem was that the 1998 law he had been following

德雷克的下一個問題是，他一直遵循的1998年的法律。

didn't do anything to protect him against retaliation.

沒有做任何事情來保護他免受報復。

Drake's identity became public within his agency, and he was gradually pushed out of his job.

德雷克的身份在他的機構內部公開了，他也逐漸被推掉了工作。

I was increasingly isolated.

我越來越被孤立。

They finally removed me from all positions, all responsibilities, all programs.

他們終於把我從所有的崗位、所有的職責、所有的項目中撤走了。

There's no recourse, and no penalty if the agency decides to retaliate against you.

如果機構決定對你進行報復，沒有追索權，也沒有懲罰。

Finally, after Drake's complaints went nowhere, he chose a different path.

最後，在德雷克的投訴無果後，他選擇了另一條路。

He went to the media.

他去找媒體。

And because he remembered what happened to Ellsberg,  he chose to share unclassified information,

因為他想起了艾爾斯伯格的遭遇，所以他選擇了分享非機密信息。

which meant it was legal.

這意味著它是合法的。

But then, in 2010, the Obama administration accused him of violating the Espionage Act,

但後來，在2010年，奧巴馬政府指控他違反了《間諜法》。

the same as Ellsberg, who had leaked classified information.

和洩露機密資訊的埃爾斯伯格一樣。

"Thomas Drake is charged with violating espionage laws."

"托馬斯-德雷克被控違反間諜法"

"Prosecutors claimed that Drake had betrayed his country."

"檢察官聲稱，德雷克背叛了他的國家。"

Drake's case was only the fourth time in history that the Espionage Act

德雷克的案件只是歷史上第四次出現《間諜法》。

had been used to prosecute a whistleblower.

曾被用來起訴一名舉報人。

But since the Obama administration, it's become a lot more common.

但自奧巴馬政府以來，這種情況變得更加普遍。

Eventually the case collapsed because Drake did nothing illegal.

最終，這個案子因為德雷克沒有做任何違法的事情而告吹。

But his career in the government was over.

但他的官場生涯已經結束了。

Today, he works at an Apple Store.

如今，他在一家蘋果商店工作。

The price is enormous.

價格是巨大的。

I have no retirement.

我沒有退休。

That's gone.

消失了

You lose your entire social network, in terms of work.

你失去了整個社交網絡，在工作方面。

There's people who lost their jobs because of their association with me.

有人因為和我的關係而失去了工作。

Those are burdens that I will carry with me the rest of my life.

這些都是我餘生都要揹負的負擔。

In August 2019, an officer in the CIA filed a whistleblower complaint

2019年8月，中情局的一名官員提出了舉報投訴。

saying that President Trump was trying to pressure Ukraine to investigate one of his political rivals.

說，特朗普總統正試圖向烏克蘭施壓，調查他的一個政治對手。

Just like Drake, the officer followed the process laid out in the law.

就像德雷克一樣，這位警官也是按照法律規定的程序進行的。

He took the complaint to the inspector general.

他向監察長提出了申訴。

The inspector general took it to the director of national intelligence.

監察長把它交給了國家情報局局長。

Then it stopped.

然後就停了下來。

The director of national intelligence never brought it to Congress.

國家情報局局長從來沒有把它帶到國會。

So the inspector general went over his head.

於是，監察長就在他的頭上。

"Deeply disturbing, what we read this morning."

"今天早上讀到的東西，令人深感不安。"

"I'm announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry."

"我宣佈，眾議院正在推進正式的彈劾調查。"

Testimony from witnesses in the impeachment investigation has backed up almost everything

在彈劾調查中，證人的證詞幾乎支持了所有的事情。

laid out in the whistleblower complaint.

在舉報人申訴中提出的。

And whistleblower protections were updated in 2012 with more explicit language,

而2012年更新了對舉報人的保護，措辭更加明確。

saying the government can't retaliate against a whistleblower the way they did against Thomas Drake.

說政府不能像對托馬斯-德雷克那樣報復告密者。

So the whistleblower should be protected.

所以舉報人應該受到保護。

But where the laws still fall short is whether it's a crime to reveal a whistleblower's identity to the public.

但法律仍有不足之處，就是向公眾透露舉報人的身份是否構成犯罪。

That's what the president and his allies are hoping to do next.

這也是總統和他的盟友們希望接下來要做的事情。

"There's no law that prevents me from mentioning the name of who's been said to be the whistleblower."

"沒有法律規定我不能提誰的名字，據說是舉報人。"

"The whistleblower...

"舉報人... ...

...should be revealed."

.......應該被揭穿。"

The parts of the government that deal in secrecy are also the least accountable to the public.

政府中處理祕密的部分也是最不對公眾負責的。

And whistleblowers in those agencies are some of the only ways wrongdoing there might ever come to light.

而這些機構中的舉報人是那裡的不法行為可能被曝光的唯一途徑。

But the system fails them.

但系統卻讓他們失望了。

And every retaliation sends a clear message.

而每一次報復都會傳遞出一個明確的資訊。

If both leaking, and legal whistleblowing, leave government whistleblowers vulnerable,

如果既要洩密，又要依法舉報，讓政府舉報人處於弱勢。

this system will push more and more people who know something's wrong, into door number three:

這個系統會把越來越多知道不對勁的人，推到三號門。

doing nothing at all.

什麼都不做