[IP] whistle blowers, secrets, and privacy
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ross Stapleton-Gray <ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: January 12, 2006 12:31:13 AM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: whistle blowers, secrets, and privacy
At 05:01 PM 1/11/2006, David P. Reed wrote:
Bush, in his signing statement on Sarbanes-Oxley, also completely
gutted the protections that act afforded whistleblowers, by stating
that he would only enforce it in extremely narrow special cases (when
there was an active Congressional hearing already under way prior to
the whistleblowing).
I'm astonished that the Legislature and Judiciary don't slap down
these "signing statement" pronouncements; the Executive has only a
binary duty--sign or veto--when it comes to enacting laws, and then
they're obligated to follow them, with the Judiciary, and not the
Executive itself, given the ultimate responsibility to determine
legality and Constitutionality. But that's another topic...
A modest proposal, to address several current threads... There's
enormous power in symbols, and we've established a variety of symbols
to make certain functions universally recognized (for various values
of universal, e.g., nationwide). "9-1-1," for instance, as the
universally known, "Help, I have an emergency" number... my four-year-
old knows what 9-1-1 is for. (It may not be the best option... here
in Northern California, a cell phone 9-1-1 call goes to the
California Highway Patrol, and you're better off calling your local
police directly... but it's guaranteed to be a good bet.)
The Hatch Act is another, of sorts... it was readily apparent, when I
was a federal employee, that there were certain things I knew I
couldn't be obligated to do, vis-a-vis politics. The ERA was an
attempt to create one, re gender equity; we've muddled along without
that... on the other hand, we've got EEO as something of a symbol re
protections against discrimination on various fronts.
What I'd love to see the Congress do, in response to various recent
abuses, and confusions, is create a Legislative entity, to be a
Privacy, Secrets and Security Ombudsoffice (better, simpler names
welcomed!): it would be empowered to receive any and all inquiries
from citizens who are concerned about issues involving privacy,
secrecy and (theirs, or national) security... it would be the final,
best resort for whistleblowers, and a place for those frustrated by
Col. Flagg-caliber bamboozling ("If you tell anyone you've ever met
me, I'll have to kill you...") from intelligence or law enforcement,
to find an appropriately-cleared ear. They would specialize in the
full meaning of "need to know," which is a two-sided coin: while it
often is applied negatively ("You have no need to know, sorry"),
there are also aspects of "speaking truth to power"... more people
than did had a need to know that the WMD search was coming up empty.
If senators and congresspersons are resorting to socking away memos
about how they were concerned about Executive actions, but weren't
sure whom they could talk to about it, and what was appropriate to
say in dissent, then it suggests a desperate need for *one place* one
can know it's safe to go. And I'd feel safer if that was removed
from the Executive branch.
Ross
----
Ross Stapleton-Gray, Ph.D.
Stapleton-Gray & Associates, Inc.
http://www.stapleton-gray.com
http://www.sortingdoor.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/