As a member of Congress in 1998, I sponsored the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act to ensure that current or former employees could petition Congress, after raising concerns within their respective agency, consistent with the need to protect classified information.We need to keep this distinction in mind.
Exercising one's rights under this act is an appropriate and responsible way to bring questionable practices to the attention of those in Congress charged with oversight of intelligence agencies. And it works. Government employees have used statutory procedures — including internal channels at their agencies — on countless occasions to correct abuses without risk of retribution and while protecting information critical to our national defense.
On the other hand, those who choose to bypass the law and go straight to the press are not noble, honorable or patriotic. Nor are they whistleblowers. Instead they are committing a criminal act that potentially places American lives at risk. It is unconscionable to compromise national security information and then seek protection as a whistleblower to forestall punishment.
१० फेब्रुवारी, २००६
Whistleblowers and the whistleblower law.
CIA Director Porter Goss has a NYT op-ed:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१८ टिप्पण्या:
I certainly don't know the full circumstances of why Risen's sources came to Risen. Nor do I know that they didn't first go to the Congress or to their employers. It would be interesting to find out.
But um, seeing how the Republicans are in control of all three branches of government, and BOTH branches of Congress, seeing how hard it is for the President to call for a special prosecutor even when there is a clear conflict of interest, seeing how the President knowingly said he was against leaks all the while knowing that Cheney gave authorization for Libby to disclose classified materials to the press JUST to smear Wilson, seeing how the administration has serially smeared many other former administration officials that tried to state what was happening in the administration, and knowing how outrageous the illegal wiretapping was as can be seen that it caused the forced removal of Comey and even caused John Ashcroft, JOHN ASHCROFT! to say no to the program, seeing as how the Administration had testified that FISA was working well and had worked to oppose the changes they LATER said were necessary all while secretly violating FISA, well, given all that we do know, and all that you do not know, I am certainly not ready to agree with Porter Goss that:
On the other hand, those who choose to bypass the law and go straight to the press are not noble, honorable or patriotic. Nor are they whistleblowers. Instead they are committing a criminal act that potentially places American lives at risk.
Instead it seems to me that they are quite possibly very honorable whistleblowers taking the steps they felt necessary to shed light on this program. If they broke the law, they may have to deal with that as an act of civil disobedience. I am willing to both thank them for their efforts as well as putting them before a jury of the peers.
Are you Professor Ann Althouse, ready to call for a special prosecutor in the wiretapping case? If not, what would it take for you to look for an independent investigation?
So, quxxo,
1. I suppose you were similarly against the prosecution of Libby in the Plamne case, inasmuch as revealing that classified information was just a kind of whistleblowing.
Or is it only acceptable when done by people or causes you agree with?
2. If the Democrats end up supporting continued covert surveillance of terrorists, as I suspect they will, would you agree that further episodes of "whistleblowing" then constitute treason?
3. Is the US permitted to keep secrets in a time of war?
Really, sir, your ideas are reprehensible and defeatist. To suggest we cannot spy on those trying to kill us is suicide.
Whether the law is strong enough (in your opinion) or not is not the issue. The law is what it is. And it is pretty clear.
The leakers - regardless of motivations - broke the law. Their opinions that they were doing the right thing for the best of intentions are irrelevant. What they thought might be harmless may have endangered others. See the Snepp opinion from SCOTUS.
Why do you think the protection is illusory? Did any prior leakers go to Congress or their agency and were then subjected to reprisals?
The law is the law. Politics is politics. No one will be prosecuted. We don't believe in our own system of laws enough any more. The world is full of quxxos who think that breaking the law is fine, as long as you can justify it to yourself.
The problem with bypassing the law here and going straight to the press with the argument that the law is ineffective in this case, is that without going through the procedures provided by the law, how are we to know that they would have been ineffective?
In particular, note that part of the procedures provided include notification of the Intelligence Committees of Congress. This implies at least some Congressional oversight.
Let me again point out the final scene in the Clancy movie, "Clear and Present Danger", where Ryan (then DDI) goes before such a body as a whistleblower.
So, if someone working for an intelligence agency, goes through the required whistleblower provisions, including notifying Congress, and is still unhappy, then maybe he can make an argument that the procedure is effective - and pay the consequences. Before that, though, he needs to exhaust his administrative rememdies, which this person apparently did not.
Spot on, Bruce. There are people arguing the protections are ineffective but we can't know that because they were not tested. I would actually be sympathetic to the argument if procedure had been followed and then the person went to the press. (He'd still be breaking the law, but I'd be a lot more willing to listen to arguments then.)
But again, the leaker(s) could very well have caused additional damage to programs or persons they were not aware of. That is why this behavior is so problematic. Which is why SCOTUS ruled as it did on Snepp even though even though the CIA agreed that his book itself did not reveal any secrets.
Pogo said...
So, quxxo,
1. I suppose you were similarly against the prosecution of Libby in the Plamne case, inasmuch as revealing that classified information was just a kind of whistleblowing.
Pogo, how was leaking Plame's identity whistleblowing? (Especially in light of recent revelations that Cheney knew the Niger claims were bogus BEFORE he started up his campaign to discredit Wilson's claim that the Niger claims were bogus. Where was the whistleblowing?
PatCa, The world is full of quxxos who think that breaking the law is fine, as long as you can justify it to yourself. You are either misinterpreting what I have said, or just plain lying. I have never said any such thing. Show me the money or bug off.
whis·tle·blow·er or whis·tle-blow·er or whistle blower (hwĭs'əl-blō'ər, wĭs'-) pronunciation
n. One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority:
What wrongdoing was Cheney/Rove/Libby revealing?
What was their intention behind their revelations?
What did Wilson do wrong? Conceptually, he attempted to undermine the foreign-policy-making authority of constitutionally-appointed foreign policy makers. This is highly unethical.
As a private citizen what he was doing was exercising his freedom of speech. What he was doing was trying to shed some light on the manipulations of the Administration. That is a brave and highly moral act. Nothing unethical about it.
He was criticising the administration in a public, fair fight. The administration in turn used covert leaks in an attempt to not engage in that argument, but to discredit Wilson. That my friend, is the only unethical behavior present.
Did he break any laws? His op-ed probably did not go through proper clearance channels.
And I am guessing that if had broken any laws, they would have been filed against him by now. If his paper wasn't cleared, his clearance would have been revoked. Since I have heard of none of this, I am left to conclude that he broke no laws and his op-ed required no clearance.
He was insubordinate.
You would make insubordination illegal?
He certainly made the first substantive move in the chain of events that ended up causing his wife's name to be a seni-household name.
Officer, he testified that I was lying, so it was his fault that I had to shoot him.
what law did Libby or Cheney break?
Illegal disclosure of classified information, specifically the outing of Valerie Plame, a covert agent.
According to Jack Shafer at Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2089249/
IIPA would apply iff:
1) That the individual has or had "authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent.
2) That in addition to having had authorized access to the information
about the covert agent, the individual must have "intentionally" disclosed it to an individual not authorized to receive classified information.
3) That the individual knew he was disclosing information that identifies a "covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.
If the leaker was Libby, with Cheney's permission, in an intentional
attempt to discredit Wilson AFTER Cheney knew the niger claims were bogus,
and if Fitzgerald is saying that Plame was covert, than doesn't that
pretty much cover points 1, 2, and 3 above?
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_02_05_firedoglake_archive.html#113951829426170407
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/
HOW IS WHAT RISEN AND HIS SOURCES HAVE DONE ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT NOVAK AND HIS SOURCES DID?
Risen's sources exposed what they felt were the illegal, dangerous, wasteful, and ineffective operations of the administration, people that had vast amounts of power to be able to keep their illegal actions secret. By exposing the illegal actions, Risen's sources have protected the Constitution and our United States and her people at great personal risk to themselves. Their actions were patriotic.
Libby, Rove, and Cheney illegally used their power to discredit the accurate statements of a private citizen in a quest for revenge and a continuance of their power. They did so by outing an expert in WMDs, and by outing her, so outed her networks as well as all other covert agents that worked at her same front company. Libby, Rove, and Cheney had ample opportunity and ability to confront and answer Wilson in a head on attack. But they chose not to, and instead falsely claimed they were exposing a corrupt CIA agent that had had her own husband hired, and how that husband, incompetent in this analysis had gone to Africa and done nothing and found nothing. Not a single point of this ended up to be true. All of this were the lies of Libby, Rove and Cheney. Their acts were cowardly and clearly damaged national security.
Thank you for playing, are you aware that a MACHO is a great big nothingness in space? Yes, I think that fits you QUITE WELL!
Hey Ann, ready to call for that special prosecutor yet?
Ann, you certainly attract the best and the brightest....
Hey Macho Man, you've got a funky walk about you, and I really dig your chains.
Hey! Hey! Hey, hey, hey!
But have you even read Wilson's report?
He was a private citizen. He was paid for his airfare and expenses but not his time. There was nothing secret or classified about his trip or travels.
Did you read Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby?
FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.
So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.
I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.
Body, its so hot, my body,
Body, love to pop my body,
Body, love to please my body,
Body, don't you tease my body,
Body, you'll adore my body,
Body, come explore my body,
Body, made by God, my body,
Body, it's so good, my body
So tell me Macho Man, which one were you? Cowboy, Indian or Construction Worker?
Uh, yeah, I guess you won alright.
Well I figured out who you are at any rate. Not Indian, Construction Worker or Cowboy, but Internet Race Boy.
Here's your prize for winning then, Internet Race Boy!
"I am willing to both thank them for their efforts as well as putting them before a jury of the peers." So, it was okay for them to break the law, correct? Now call me a retard, too.
The post was not about Plame. It's about the whistleblowers on your side, whom you wish to thank for their efforts.
As Bruce said, if they did not complain to their agency and to Congress, they did not exhaust their lawful remedies and broke the law by going to the papers. My speculation is that they did this because they could get political mileage out of it and know they will NOT be prosecuted.
Jim, I agree with you about political crimes and Libby and Ollie North, but they got caught and were tried. Maybe they didn't suffer enough for some tastes, but they faced the music. I believe the current whistleblowers will not, given our timidity about "protest." I hope you can prove me wrong one day.
"I am willing to both thank them for their efforts as well as putting them before a jury of the peers." So, it was okay for them to break the law, correct? Now call me a retard, too.
Did IQs suddenly drop while I was away?
I certainly don't think most of the commenters here are as stupid as you and Patty, and I apologize to Illudium Pew-36 and SlipperyCheese if that's what they take away.
I did come here with half my brain tied behind my back, which I thought made for a fair fight when debating the Seven brained Macho Man.
If I seem disappointed in your offering here today, well, I am.
But click on those links I posted and you just might larn sumpin'
Wow...I was all set to post some well-thought out rejoinders to quxxo's posts, but then realized what a waste of time that would be given that he/she gets more shrill and petulent in response to the stimuli provided by the other bloggers...reminded me that I loathe outspoken liberals these days because they can't make a good argument, and they tend to respond by raising their voices to an increasingly higher pitch all the while not saying anything of substance...NANNY-NANNY-BOO-BOO!!
"I am willing to both thank them for their efforts as well as putting them before a jury of the peers."
Sorry, Puck...I mean, quxxo, that's an rationalization--like agreeing with Muslim cartoon rage but stopping short of condoning the resulting violence.
Dragging Plame into it doesn't change the fact that the law was broken. Last I heard "he did it first" was not a valid legal argument.
On the Plame issue, I will say that I am very uncomfortable with someone being charged with lying about a crime in which the underlying crime itself has never been charged.
Also regarding the Plame issue, a potentially dangerous precedent has now been set by the proceedings in that now reporters have been forced to disclose sources. So in effect, the drive from the left to assign blame in the Plame matter may have actually decreased civil liberites.
Unintended consequences happen, don't they?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा