House Hearing on National Security Whistleblowers
House Subcmte. hearing on "National Security
Whistleblowers in the post-9/11 Era: Lost in a Labyrinth
and Facing Retaliation by Security Clearance Revocation"
2/14/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 4 hr. 51 min.
===================================
News results for House Hearing on National Security
Whistleblowers
Antiwar.com Blog
The hearing on National Security Whistleblowers by the
House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats & International Relations (Chairman: ...
HTTP://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2641 - 17k
- Feb 16, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result
National Security Whistle-Blowers Allege Retaliation
... separate House Armed Services subcommittee hearing
devoted to Able Danger. ... "Whistleblowers in critical
national security positions are vulnerable to ...
HTTP://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0215-12.htm
- 18k - Feb 16, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove
result
Goss Preempts Congressional hearing on National Security
...
... congressional hearing by the House Subcommittee on
National Security, ... Did you mean to say that these
national security whistleblowers may end up ...
HTTP://justacitizen.com/articles_documents/NSWBC-Op-ed-Goss-Feb10-06.htm
- 21k - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result
HTTP://www.GovExec.com - Hearing on protections for
national security ...
National security whistleblowers boycott upcoming
hearing (11/28/05) ... A House Government Reform
subcommittee announced Tuesday that an upcoming hearing
...
HTTP://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1105/113005c1.htm -
20k - Feb 16, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove
result
Committee on Government Reform
Hold February 14th Hearing on Protecting National
Security Whistleblowers in the ... National Security
Subcommittee to Hold October 31st Field Hearing: ...
HTTP://reform.house.gov/NSETIR/ - 36k - Cached -
Similar pages - Remove result
Government Accountability Project: Whistleblower Support
2/14/2006 GAP Testifies on National Security
Whistleblower Protection ... 14 at a hearing of the
House Government Reform Subcommittee on National
Security, ...
HTTP://www.whistleblower.org/ - 33k - Feb 16, 2006 -
Cached - Similar pages - Remove result
GAP - Action Alert!: Calling all Security Clearance
Reprisal Victims!
... hearing of the House Government Reform Subcommittee
on National Security, ... The hearing is titled
"National Security Whistleblowers in the Post-9/11 ...
HTTP://www.whistleblower.org/template/page.cfm?page_id=153
- 24k - Feb 16, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages - Remove
result
American Samizdat: Rebel Scum Since 2001
Saturday, February 11, 2006. *. National Security
Whistleblowers Hearing. The hearing on National Security
Whistleblowers by the House Subcommittee on ...
HTTP://amsam.org/2006/02/national-security-whistleblowers.html
- 58k - Cached - Similar pages - Remove result
All Things International - Bush is Bad for America V
The Hearing on National Security Whistleblowers in the
Post 9/11 Era WHAT: The House Subcommittee on National
Security, Emerging Threats & International ...
HTTP://wc5.worldcrossing.com/webx/.1ddf0698 - 21k -
Cached - Similar pages - Remove result
American Civil Liberties Union : National Security
ACLU Says National Security Whistleblower Protections
Lacking, ... was the subject of a hearing held by a
panel of the House Government Reform Committee. ...
HTTP://www.aclu.org/natsec/ - 21k - Feb 16, 2006 -
Cached - Similar pages - Remove result
NEXT:>>
============================================

ENTER:
2/14/2006 GAP Testifies on National Security
Whistleblower Protection
SOURCE:
GAP Testifies on National Security Whistleblower
Protection
February 14, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tom Devine, Legal Director
Phone: 202.408.0034 ext. 124
Email: whistle47@aol.com
Contact: Adam Miles, Advocacy Associate
Phone: 202.408.0034 ext. 132
Email: adamm@whistleblower.org
Contact: Dylan Blaylock, Communications Director
Phone: 202.408.0034 ext. 137, cell 202.236.3733
Email: dylanb@whistleblower.org
Gap Testifies On National Security Whistleblower
Protection
Praises House Hearings as Last Step for Congressional
Consensus to Close Security Clearance Loophole in
Whistleblower Rights
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) today
testified on the lack of enforceable rights for national
security whistleblowers at hearings of the House
Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security,
chaired by Rep. Christopher Shays (R.-Conn).
GAP legal director Tom Devine praised the forum as the
last step necessary for a congressional consensus on
closing the security clearance loophole in the
Whistleblower Protection Act. He characterized the
reform as “essential for America’s national security,”
by giving whistleblowers genuine legal rights against
“the most common harassment technique against those who
challenge security breaches – yank the whistleblower’s
security clearance or otherwise block access to
classified information necessary to perform the
employee’s job duties.”
Devine's full testimony is available by clicking here.
Based on experience representing over 100 national
security whistleblowers, GAP’s testimony summarized the
primary lesson learned, “Abuses of secrecy enforced by
repression are a severe threat to national security,
because they cover up bureaucratic negligence that
sustains unnecessary vulnerability to terrorism.” Devine
surveyed why national security whistleblowers are
America’s modern day Paul Reveres exercising the freedom
to warn. The testimony illustrated why the nation is
less safe from silencing the warnings of front line
professionals before and since 9/11 about not being
prepared for terrorist and natural disasters at our
airports, nuclear facilities, ports, coasts and borders.
GAP also surveyed the obstacles national security
whistleblowers face while attempting to survive
professionally and make a difference. Devine provided
the bottom line for employees trying to exercise their
rights against security clearance retaliation: “Kafka’s
The Trial isn’t just a 20th Century novel. It is 21st
Century reality for national security whistleblowers
seeking justice.” The testimony supported that
conclusion with case studies illustrating the following
barriers --
* contempt for anti-secrecy laws. Agencies openly
discipline and yank the security clearances of
whistleblowers for unclassified disclosures, which are
shielded on paper under the Whistleblower Protection Act
(WPA).
* noncompliance with the anti-gag statute. As a rule,
agencies disregard the law passed unanimously by
Congress for the last 17 years that bans spending on
agency gag orders that attempt to cancel the WPA and
other good government laws. This abuse has even spread
to Congressional Research Staff evaluating the
effectiveness of national security whistleblower laws,
as well as to climate change scientists trying to
prevent national security threats from natural
disasters.
* systematic conflicts of interest in enforcement of
paper rights. Agency officials abuse unchecked authority
to yank the clearances of those who blow the whistle
against them, as occurred when whistleblowers challenged
nuclear weapons security breakdowns and lax monitoring
of leaks from 500 tons of chemical agents. Internal
review boards to police anti-retaliation paper “rights”
are honor systems: The agency that normally would be the
institutional defendant for a fair day in court, instead
is the judge and jury of its own alleged retaliation. In
reality, whistleblowers’ only have the legal right to
ask an institution engaging in harassment to change its
mind.
* twisting in the wind syndrome: Agencies have and abuse
unrestrained power
to suspend clearances for periods ranging months to
years, without telling employees the charges that leave
them officially untrustworthy until proven otherwise.
* internal review boards that make a caricature of due
process. To illustrate in one case, after waiting three
and a half years for a hearing that went 90 minutes and
not a second longer, a pre-Katrina emergency planning
whistleblower was not informed of her alleged specific
misconduct; allowed to know who made the charges against
her, let alone confront her accusers; present witnesses
or the lion’s share of evidence in her defense; only
allowed to present her defense to a bureaucrat who was
little more than a delivery boy forwarding the
transcript; and a decision by an anonymous three person
panel that upheld her clearance revocation without
explanation.
* the Twilight Zone. Agencies can deny reality at will,
as occurred after a Department of Justice whistleblower
successfully exposed leaks of classified information. He
was informed he never had a clearance, despite having
contrary documentation and a record of handling Top
Secret data for 18 months. There wasn’t anything he
could do.
* inconsistent rules for disclosures and protection:
National security whistleblowers at the FBI and
intelligence agencies have the right to make classified
disclosures to Congress under controlled circumstances,
but those at civil service agencies like DOE, the
department of Defense or the Department of Homeland
Security do not. More fundamentally, all rights at the
FBI and intelligence agencies are honor systems,
compared to third party enforcement of anti-reprisal
rights covering all but security clearance harassment
for other national security whistleblowers.
* toothless channels to work within the system. The
Whistleblower Protection Act disclosure channels for
employees to work within the system are broken, as
evidenced by the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC)
recent resolution of a whistleblowing disclosure of a
systematic security breakdown against terrorist threats
to Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons
operations. The OSC took over two and a half years to
evaluate a report that took DOE less than six months to
investigate and write. After conceding the
whistleblower’s evidence that DOE’s official, public
denial of any ongoing problems was contradicted by a
dozen internal agency reports, the Special Counsel then
concluded that he could not determine whether DOE’s
conclusions reviewed all relevant evidence and were a
reasonable resolution of the whistleblower’s concerns.
The WPA requires the Special Counsel to make those
determinations. Devine concluded, “The Special Counsel
does not have the legal option to duck a judgment call
whether DOE responsibly addressed this homeland security
threat. National security professionals are more likely
to work within the system if it is worthy of respect.”
GAP made the following recommendations to remove these
obstacles:
* press for a floor vote on Whistleblower Protection Act
amendments in H.R. 1317, and support ultimate adoption
of the Senate Government Affairs Committee’s provisions
in S. 494 to close the security clearance loophole,
define channels for responsible classified disclosures
to Congress, and confirm Whistleblower Protection Act
supremacy over new hybrid secrecy categories such as
Critical Infrastructure Information. (CII)
* introduce legislation to close WPA coverage for
national security whistleblowers at the FBI,
intelligence agencies, and the Congressional Research
Service.
Conduct analogous hearings on that issue consistent with
this forum on security clearances, and support
corresponding floor amendments to H.R. 1317 if the
record is complete.
* initiate an oversight initiative to request a General
Accountability Office (GAO)
investigation whenever the Office of Special Counsel
orders an agency investigation into whistleblowing
disclosures of national security breakdowns, so there
were will be some healthy competition to keep agencies
honest in responding.
* hold hearings on creative models for national security
whistleblowers to work within the system, such as
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) third party policy
hearings to develop a record of the whistleblower’s
concerns, instead of agency self-investigations.
Government Accountability Project •
www.whistleblower.org
National Office
1612 K Street, NW Suite #1100
Washington, D.C. 20006
202.408.0034 West Coast Office
1511 Third Ave. Suite 321
Seattle, Washington 98101
206.292.2850
=======================