[IP] more on Whistleblower outs NSA's secret spy room at AT&T [Whistleblower Protection]
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sheryl Coe - Reportica <web@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 15, 2006 10:05:13 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Whistleblower outs NSA's secret spy room at
AT&T [Whistleblower Protection]
Many do not know that intelligence employees are excluded by law from
whistleblower protection under the Patriot Act and previous law as well.
Until we have slogged through the fine print, we just don't know what
is legal anymore. Whistleblowers have had a very hard time being
'seen' by congressional committees. Whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds
are treated like hot potatoes until they leak to the press and a
groundswell of concern forces congress to invite them into a closed
session. And then... not much happens. That's just where we find
ourselves in 2006 in America...
This is one key to the popularity of the relatively new blogger Glenn
Greenwald (author of new book, see his site below). He's just one
person, but he tries to do the legwork to actually read the laws,
such as the Patriot Act, that our 'lawmakers' pass without reading.
He's just one person, but that's the work that needs to be done.
- Sheryl Coe
Glenn Greenwald, of Unclaimed Territory
Original: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/no-need-for-
congress-no-need-for.html
(2) The legal and constitutional issues, especially at first glance
and without doing research, reading cases, etc., are complicated and,
in the first instance, difficult to assess, at least for me. That was
also obviously true for Qwest's lawyers, which is why they requested
a court ruling and, when the administration refused, requested an
advisory opinion from DoJ.
But not everyone is burdened by these difficulties. Magically, hordes
of brilliant pro-Bush legal scholars have been able to determine
instantaneously -- as in, within hours of the program's disclosure --
that the program is completely legal and constitutional (just like so
many of them were able confidently to opine within hours of the
disclosure of the warrantless eavesdropping program that it, too, was
perfectly legal and constitutional).
Government Accountability Project
Original: http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?
press_id=446
CIA Leaks Investigation Highlights Need for Whistleblower Law Reform
Washington, D.C. – Today, the Government Accountability Project
proclaims that the CIA's public efforts to crackdown on leaks of
classified information demonstrate the need for Congress to approve
meaningful whistleblower protections for employees who decide to
disclose classified evidence of government wrongdoing, misconduct and
illegality. http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?
press_id=446
From Russell Tice via DemocracyNow:
Original: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?
sid=06/04/04/1420212&mode=thread&tid=25
And the intelligence community, all of the whistleblower protection
laws are -- pretty much exempt the intelligence community. So the
intelligence community can put forth their lip service about, 'Oh,
yeah, we want you to put report waste fraud abuse,' or 'You shall
report suspicions of espionage,' but when they retaliate you for
doing so, you pretty much have no recourse. I think a lot of people
don't realize that.
From by Mike Whitney at Znet:
original: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6848
Intelligence reform has been a stealth-project from the get-go. [...]
Instead of addressing the underlying issues, the new bill eviscerates
what's left of the Bill of Rights and hands over more power to Bush.
Now, Bush is free to hand-pick the men he wants for top-level
Intelligence positions without Senate confirmation - an invitation to
create his personal security apparatus without congressional
interference. The bill also decreases Congress' powers of oversight.
The new Intelligence Director can exempt his office from "audits and
investigations, and Congress will not receive reports from an
objective internal auditor." In other words, Congress has limited its
own access to critical information of how taxpayer dollars are being
spent. They've simply given up their role of checking for
presidential abuse.
The bill "eliminates provisions to ensure that it (Congress) receives
timely access to intelligence, and it also allows the White House's
Office of Management and Budget to screen testimony before the
Intelligence Director presents it to the Congress." So, now Bush can
either stonewall Congress entirely or just cherry-pick the tidbits he
doesn't mind handing over. The Congress is just paving the way for
even greater secrecy.
Needless to say, all the whistle-blower protections have been removed
from the new bill. In this new paradigm of Mafia-style governance the
only unpardonable offense is reporting the crimes of one's bosses.
Now, the Bush Fedayeen can purge the entire intelligence apparatus
and no one will be the wiser.
On 5/15/06, David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 15, 2006 3:49:05 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gene Spafford <spaf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Whistleblower outs NSA's secret spy room at
AT&T
Spaf and Dave, I was watching CNN where they were interviewing a
former CIA head, who was talking about the CIA whistleblower who was
fired a few months back.
He pointed out that while leaking any classified information to the
press is a definite no no, there are plenty of avenues for whistle
blowers, such as approaching the senate / congressional committees
that have oversight over Intelligence. He also mentioned another
internal grievance handling channel that could have been used.
These committees are bilateral, and do take action more often than
not - according to what I heard on CNN (and based on what I have read
about these committees and how they work)
suresh
David Farber wrote:
> From: Gene Spafford < spaf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Anyone with a security clearance, a military commission, or
> Federal office swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and the
> laws of the United States. If that person observes activity that
> he/she judges to be violations of the Constitution committed under
> color of authority, then how can the oath be upheld without
> possibly disclosing information? Given a choice between upholding
> the Constitution or being compliant with orders intended to cover
> up violations of law seems to be clear although potentially
> fraught with personal danger.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as web@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
--
Sheryl Coe
web@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reportica
www.Reportica.net
______________________
-------------------------------------
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/