more on Whistleblower outs NSA's secret spy room at AT&T [Whistleblower Protection]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sheryl Coe - Reportica <web () reportica net>
Date: May 15, 2006 10:05:13 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
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 () farber net> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh () hserus net>
Date: May 15, 2006 3:49:05 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: Gene Spafford <spaf () cerias purdue edu>
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 () cerias purdue edu>
> 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 () reportica net
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 () reportica net

Reportica
www.Reportica.net
______________________

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/