Below
is my Letter to Sen. Susan Collins
RE: WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009
[please see Whistleblower
Advocates Oppose Senate Bill ]
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Dear
Senator Collins:
the vast powers and
monies involved in operations within the Federal Government must be
acknowledged as a strong corrosive influence, likely over time to result in
attempts by human employees to game the system for personal gain, at all levels
but more so where the powers and monies are the greater. Is this not a reasonable assumption? The contrary view, that positions of more powers and monies tend less toward corruption is
unreasonable and untenable. Maintaining
safeguards against such harmful eventualities is the only responsible course of
government.
The best safeguard
against corruption in high places is sunlight, and the best source of sunlight
in the cavernous halls of government are the eyes of those who spend their
lives and their energies engaged in the work that goes on there. No one outside the system can know to the
same degree the intricate ramifications of those internal processes.
But any insider who
discovers wrongdoing on any scale takes great risks by coming forward. Such brave souls must be protected. At my company, we have tent cards in the
breakroom encouraging those who see malfeasance, pilfering, safety violations,
and any other prohibited behavior, to come forward to agencies within the
company which purport to protect the whistleblower from retribution. Sadly, these protections are not always
dependable, as some of my former colleagues have learned, to their dismay.
Why is it dangerous
to report wrongdoing by one's superiors?
The answer is so obvious as to be unworthy of statement.
The necessity of
rock-solid whistleblower protections in the Federal Government is absolutely
undeniable. The protections that have
existed in the past were less than stellar, but have at least allowed for
independent oversight agency to be appealed to.
The worst possible situation for a whistleblower and for the nation is for those who discover crimes in their
agency to have no recourse of accusation but to the very authorities they
accuse. This is a scenario in which
corruption may rule supreme, is it not?
There has long been
an exemption for national security agencies.
But the FBI, whose venue is domestic criminal activity, has rightly been
excluded from this exemption. Now this
pending bill, S.
372, removes these protections and many more.
Under the pending
bill, recourse to external "honest brokers" within the DoJ, in
particular the OIG and the OPR, is barred and the whistleblower must make their
accusations to the very persons whom they accuse. They are forced to say "Sir (or Madam),
I observed you doing thus and so", and the judgment handed down by that
superior is likely to be, "My judgment is, the accusations against me are
false. Case closed."
What kind of
accountability to the American people by the Senate does that represent? I would remind the Senator of the sweeping
under the rug of vast malfeasance on 9-10-01, the day before the collapse of
the Twin Towers and the Salomon Brothers Building, the day before the Pentagon
was struck, where Donald Rumsfeld spoke in the auditorium there, as reported by
CBS News ("Vince
Gonzales investigates the Pentagon") saying "The adversary is
closer to home: it's the Pentagon bureaucracy. . . . In fact it could be said,
it's a matter of life and death. . . . According to some estimates, we cannot
track $2.3 trillion in transactions."
There are vested interests who gravitate toward the largest
accumulations of money and power. Is
that a surprise?
Of course it's no
surprise. When the judge asked bank robber Willie Sutton the question,
"Willie, why do you rob banks?"
the answer was, "Because that's where the money is." This quote, ironically, is from the FBI
website!
That is exactly why
protections for whistleblowers, the
most knowledgeable people in government being those directly involved at the
detail level, must not be destroyed, but if anything strengthened.
I urge the Senator to
use her powerful position as Ranking Member and her well-known influence and
persuasive skills and close ties with Chairman Lieberman to resist pressure
from the FBI bureaucracy and stand up for these brave souls, our first line of
defense, in the fight to protect our nation from the cancer of corruption in
high places. President Madison wisely
wrote, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition". But here, it is conscience that opposes
ambition and greed.
This bill in its present state is
deeply flawed.
·
The
Statute of Limitations (60 days) is far too short to gather an effective case
and pursue it through to conclusion.
Indeed, how is the introduction of limitations warranted at all?
·
Recourse
to outside investigators, as OIG and OPR, is indispensible.
·
The
explicit prohibition, as in President
Clinton's Memorandum, of the DOJ from ever re-delegating any authority
under the law back to the FBI is indispensible.
·
Secret
evidence against the whistleblower would now be allowed. The complainant is subject to accusations
they are never allowed to see or rebut.
[What on earth can justify such blanket
trust in Intelligence appointees, especially in the wake of the War in Iraq,
disastrous for that country, disastrous for the USA if in no other way than
financially, all based on "intelligence" now universally acknowledged
as being without merit (as I and all my fellows, as well as the Energy Department
and many other prominent authorities knew from the beginning)? The images of palletized bundles of $100
bills going to Iraq in the days before the handover by Paul Bremer are exactly
the reason why this bill is a travesty of conscience.]
·
The
factual record of all materials bearing on the case is in the power of the
agency being investigated. The
whistleblower, as well as any court of appeal, has no recourse but to use that
list of facts. If the American People
find out about this outrage, there will be consequences.
There is not space
here for further expository discussion of these matters. But be advised that I have read through much
of the relevant material, and I will be publishing it to as many as will listen
by whatever means are at my disposal.
I thank the Senator
for her attention to my remarks.
Sincerely,
— &c.