National Whistleblower Appreciation Day

The following was part of the Chuck Grassley (R-IA) "Here's the Scoop" Newsletter. I'd like to see more then an 'appreciation day' for whistle-blowers, but it's nice to see a member of congress speak so highly (and rationally) about these individuals.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It was February 19, 1777. The seeds of democracy were just taking root in America. Aboard the warship Warren, 10 sailors who were putting their lives on the line to help win America’s independence also determined it was their patriotic duty to blow the whistle on wrongdoing.

Understanding that reporting misconduct against their commanding officer would put their careers and good names at risk, the sailors plunged into uncharted waters. With no legal protection or court precedent to shield themselves against reprisal, these brave men ultimately became what we believe to America’s first whistleblowers.

The commander-in-chief of the Continental Navy sought retaliation and filed a criminal libel suit against two of the whistleblowers. The Continental Congress authorized legal expenses and full release of government records to enable the sailors to defend themselves in court.

Fast-forward 200-plus years, and it’s clear America owes generations of whistleblowers a debt of gratitude. While Congress has the constitutional authority to conduct oversight, trillions of tax dollars are sprinkled among some 2,000 federal departments, agencies, commissions and bureaus.

Thanks to the eyes and ears of citizens who have witnessed, investigated and reported waste, fraud and abuse occurring under their very noses, the federal government is forced to run a tighter ship and work harder to protect the integrity of government services and programs funded by taxpayers.

As a longstanding champion of whistleblowers, I have secured legislative protections and financial incentives to encourage private citizens to come forward with information that strengthens good governance, accountability and stewardship of tax dollars. Since passage of my 1986 whistleblower updates to the federal False Claims Act, the federal government has recovered more than $30 billion that otherwise would be lost to fraud.

Whether it’s ripping off the taxpaying public or ignoring the rule of law, whistleblowers stand on the front lines of defense to root out misconduct.

Inside government, too often, federal agencies try to suppress information, shoot the messenger or stonewall efforts for full disclosure and transparency. Landmark updates were enacted earlier this year to permanently extend protections for whistleblower communications with Congress and internal agency watchdogs.

Without the good work of whistleblowers, Congress would be less able to identify and solve mismanagement and fraud.

Since the earliest days of our republic, whistleblowers have stuck their necks out for the public good. Instead of looking the other way, they risk it all for the good of their country.

Consider whistleblowers at:

• the Department of Defense who exposed a too cozy relationship between defense contractors and the Pentagon. Remember the $700 toilet seat?

• the FBI who exposed a culture of intimidation and mismanagement, including Dr. Frederic Whitehurst who revealed flawed forensic science at its crime lab that undermined the integrity of our criminal justice system.

• the FDA who exposed potential conflicts of interest between drug companies and the public interest, alleging the agency was caving to companies seeking regulatory approval.

• the ATF who exposed the flawed gun-walking program known as “Operation Fast and Furious.”

The list cuts across the entire spectrum of Washington’s alphabet soup. From the GSA to HUD and the IRS, both private and public sector whistleblowers let the sun shine in on wrongdoing.

One week after the sailors’ petition was presented to Congress 236 years ago, lawmakers passed a resolution that encouraged all citizens to expose misconduct.

On July 30, 1778, the Continental Congress enacted the nation’s first-ever whistleblower legislation.

“Resolved that it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States … to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any persons in the services of these states, which may come to their knowledge.”

In salute to our nation’s truth-tellers who in good faith and accordance to federal law come forward with information to uphold the people’s business and hold government to account, I authored a resolution that passed the Senate designating July 30, 2013, as “National Whistleblower Appreciation Day.”

Whistleblowers are pivotal pieces of the oversight puzzle. Their work ensures that our system of checks and balances operates effectively. I’ve asked Presidents to host a Rose Garden ceremony to honor these truth-tellers. Nobody has taken me up on the suggestion. It would do a lot of good to show these courageous Americans that, by telling the truth, they are continuing an important legacy to keep America strong. Let’s honor the whistleblowers who have helped change the course of history for the better.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Track this simple resolution as it passes the senate and moves to the house here.

Secrets: Part 3 of 3 - Whistleblowers

Deep Throat would be hunted down like the dog he is today.

The story of wiretapping a reporter did not begin last month with James Rosen, back in 2006, a panel of three federal appeals court judges in New York struggled to decide whether a prosecutor should be allowed to see the phone records of two New York Times reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, in an effort to determine their sources for articles about Islamic charities.

One of the Judges of that panel, Judge Robert D. Sack recited lines from the movie "All the President's Men" when forming his arguments. He spoke of the part where Bob Woodward, in the process of unraveling the Watergate scandal for The Washington Post, meets his source in an underground parking garage.

“First of all,” Judge Sack asked, “do you really have to meet in a garage to maintain your confidentiality? Second of all, can the government go and subpoena the surveillance camera?”

Six years and six press leak prosecutions later, those questions seem as naive as their answers are obvious: yes and yes.

It used to be that journalists had a sporting chance of protecting their sources. The best and sometimes only way to identify a leaker was to pressure the reporter or news organization that received the leak, but even subpoenas tended to be resisted. Crazy talk about the freedom of the press kept being brought up. Today, advances in surveillance technology allow the government to keep a perpetual eye on those with security clearances, and give prosecutors the ability to punish officials for disclosing secrets without provoking a clash with the press.

But in today's government structure, the ability for the watchmen of our secrets to maintain them as such is inhibited. We live in a world where data flows too easily, to too many people, at such speeds and frequency that oversight is impossible, the perfect example of this issue can be explained in one proper name, Edward Snowden.

The tools that allow a person to keep a secret for themselves no longer apply in such a huge superstructure. Information needs to change hands, be reviewed, and ultimately end up in the correct hands for it to be actionable and worthy of being gathered in the first place. So rather then trying to find the leak that is causing this seepage of information, the government has decided to go after then sponge that is socking our secrets up. My crude metaphor is of course, meant to refer to the government pursuing the persons who are publishing the secrets, rather then those who share them.

The changes have unsettled a decades-long accommodation between national security and press freedom, one in which the government did what it could to protect its secrets but exercised discretion in resorting to subpoenas and criminal charges when it failed. Even the administration of George W. Bush, no friend of leaks, more or less stuck to this script.

That does not seem to be the view of the Obama administration's Justice Department, which has used the tools of the Patriot Act and other recently made legal avenues to bring more prosecutions against current or former government officials for providing classified information to the media than every previous administration combined.

To what end does this new culture of pursuing these links lead? An obvious conclusion would be that it increases the level of paranoia of those within the system, feeling eyes lurk over them every time they hit 'send' on an email, causing high levels of anxiety that a misstep or a mistake could lead towards a leak investigation. This adds a second layer of 'security' around the governments secret keeping apparatus as information that could or would normally be shared with the general public as a way of maintaining the public trust begins to become omitted out of fear of prosecution. The shining example of that is a bureaucratic being led in front of congress to give testimony only to claim innocence and then claim the fifth.

We, the people, are left forced to trust a system that forces itself to be less trustworthy. The government won their case in a 2-1 decision against the ability for the press to maintain their leaks confidentiality back in '06. Opening the way for these historic levels of prosecutions. In a dissent, Judge Sack said he feared for the future.

Part 1: Too Many Parts
Part 2: What is Sacred?