I've spent about the last 35 years working in the federal government, both in the military and civilian government, and have never met a whistleblower. But, as a citizen, I'd like to think I have benefited from the risks they were willing to take.
This site has some dedicated diarists and commenters who are advocates for whistleblowers and who also are detractors of the Obama administration for "going after" them. They believe sincerely that the issues whistleblowers like Brad Manning and Thomas Drake have made public override any legal maneuvers that have been brought to bear against them.
My experience with anyone who goes against the system is that it's very hard to beat the system, even when there are supposed safeguards in place to protect them. I would hope whistleblowers know this before starting down a righteous path. The bureacracy doesn't care if it's right or wrong. It only cares about its own survival. They circle the wagons, and boy do they have big wagons.
In general, from what I've observed over the years, if a whistleblower is able to get the ear of Congress and it also becomes a matter of extreme public interest, then that is the whistleblower's best form of protection. But this is very hard to achieve.
A whistleblower who comes to mind is A. Ernest Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald was a systems analyst for the Air Force in 1968 who had written reports critical of the cost overruns in the C-5A transport plane. He was asked to testify as explained here:
At the height of the Vietnam War, cost overruns and waste were business as usual in the industries that manufactured the arms of war. As a top-ranking civilian Air Force manager, A. Ernest Fitzgerald would not put up with business as usual. In 1968, Senator William Proxmire instituted hearings on the C-5A, an immense and costly cargo plane built by the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. Fitzgerald was a logical choice to testify, since for two years he had reported cost overruns of 2 billion dollars to his superiors. They pressured him not to testify. He did, truthfully and without concern for any consequences to himself.
Fitzgerald paid for his "mistake":
It was a decision that cost Fitzgerald dearly, and immediately. He was stripped of his duties as an overseer and shunted to trivial projects, including a trip to Thailand where he was to study cost overruns on a bowling alley. Within two weeks of his testimony, he was told that his promised civil service tenure was a computer error, and his department was restructured to eliminate his position. It took four years and nearly a million dollars in legal fees to win reinstatement to his office.
Fitzgerald eventually retired in 2006 as comptroller of the Air Force. Fitzgerald is an unusual case, but he built allies in Congress and elsewhere. His actions also brought about whistleblower legislation, which appears to be in need of some additional provisions in light of recent cases.
Another example from years past is Christopher Pyle:
In January of 1970, a young man named Christopher Pyle uncovered evidence that the U.S. Army Intelligence Command had over 1,500 officers in the United States commissioned to spy on any known protests or demonstrations with more than 20 participants. His complaint caught the eye of Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC) and Senator Frank Church (D-ID), each of whom launched committee investigations into warrantless government surveillance of civilians.
Getting Congress to take an interest in a whistleblower's urgent matter seems to be highly important. But it would be very problematic for Congress to get involved if any of its members or staff believe crimes have been committed by the whistleblower.
I think what has happened recently is that government employees actually believed the whistlblower laws, spawned by bold men like A. Ernest Fitzgerald, would protect them and they haven't. It is still - and always will be - essential to get someone powerful in Congress to take up your case.
Like I said, I've never met a whistleblower. They certainly know how to tell their side of a story. But the best arbiter of the facts is not the government nor is it always the whistleblower. It's Congress, if you can get its ear.