[iwar] [fc:Security.bill.bars.blowing.whistle]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-06-22 21:10:27


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4879-1024805374-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 22 Jun 2002 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13886 invoked by uid 510); 23 Jun 2002 04:09:31 -0000
Received: from n5.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.89) by all.net with SMTP; 23 Jun 2002 04:09:31 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4879-1024805374-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Jun 2002 04:09:35 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 23 Jun 2002 04:09:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 11999 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2002 04:09:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Jun 2002 04:09:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 2002 04:09:33 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g5N4ASK14297 for iwar@onelist.com; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 21:10:28 -0700
Message-Id: <200206230410.g5N4ASK14297@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 21:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Security.bill.bars.blowing.whistle]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.2 required=5.0 tests=RISK_FREE,FREE_MONEY,DIFFERENT_REPLY_TO version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: ***

Security bill bars blowing whistle
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

     A provision in the bill seeking to create a Homeland Security
Department will exempt its employees from whistleblower protection, the very
law that helped expose intelligence-gathering missteps before September 11.
     The legislation now before Congress contains a provision allowing the
director of the proposed agency to waive all employee protections in Title
V, including the Whistleblower Protection Act. The act protects government
employees from retaliation or losing employment for speaking out on waste,
fraud and abuse.
     FBI Agent Coleen Rowley blew the whistle on her agency for mishandling
a probe of terrorist suspect Zacarias Moussaoui, who has been indicted by a
federal grand jury on six counts of conspiracy in the September 11 attacks.
Mrs. Rowley testified before a Senate panel earlier this month that a
"climate of fear" prevented an aggressive investigation of the man whom
authorities believe was to be the 20th hijacker.
     As the 21-year veteran testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
President Bush proposed the new Cabinet position in a prime-time televised
address.
     The protection exclusion has concerned members of Congress and
civil-liberties activists. "I don't think we want to just let a provision
like that sail through without taking a close look at it," says Rep. Bob
Barr, Georgia Republican.
     "If you look back at recent history, it has been a very, very important
aspect of ferreting out the truth regarding government actions. Much of what
we know that went wrong in the White House in the '90s was initially
highlighted by special agent Aldrich." The reference is to Gary Aldrich, who
wrote "Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House."
     Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, sent a letter Wednesday to
Tom Ridge, White House homeland security adviser, asking that the
administration guarantee full application of the act to employees of the
proposed department. "Whistleblowers are key to exposing a dysfunctional
bureaucracy," Mr. Grassley says.
     Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World
Trade Center, government agencies have placed a greater emphasis on secrecy
and restricted information for security reasons, he says. "With these
restrictions come a greater danger of stopping the legitimate disclosure of
wrongdoing and mismanagement, especially about public safety and security.
Bureaucracies have an instinct to cover up their misdeeds and mistakes, and
that temptation is even greater when they can use a potential security issue
as an excuse."
     The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service last month was required
to pay back wages and cancel suspension and demotion orders for two Border
Patrol agents who told a newspaper about security problems along the
U.S.-Canadian border.
     The agents, assigned to the INS field office in Detroit, were
recommended for discipline after they told the Detroit Free Press that
Michigan's border lacked the resources to adequately protect the country
from terrorists. Agents Mark Hall and Robert Lindemann said the 804 miles of
shoreline border were guarded by 28 field agents, one working boat, several
damaged electronic sensors and one broken remote camera. They were cited for
not following instructions not to talk to reporters and recommended for
90-day suspensions and one-year demotions.
     The exclusion of the whistleblower law is also opposed by the American
Civil Liberties Union, which says protections against retribution for those
such as Mrs. Rowley would not exist in the new agency.
     "It's very scary. The public needs to know what the government is
doing," says Tim Edgar, legislative counsel for the ACLU. "Sometimes, it
hurts Democrats; sometimes, it hurts Republicans, but it's always
informative and even more necessary to protect whistleblowers in homeland
security than any other government agency. It's not just tax dollars spent
wisely, but doing what we need to do to keep people safe."
     Other elements of the plan are long on secrecy and short on
accountability, Mr. Edgar says.
     The department would not be required to release information under the
Freedom of Information Act. This would eliminate the agency's responsibility
to answer questions from the public. Advisory committees that normally
include public input would be immune, and the Cabinet secretary would have
veto power over inspector general audits and investigations.
     "We need to know real facts, and not just spin from the agency," he
says.
     € Jerry Seper contributed to this report.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free $5 Love Reading
Risk Free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2003-08-24 02:46:33 PDT