whistle blowers, secrets, and privacy

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ross Stapleton-Gray <ross () stapleton-gray com>
Date: January 12, 2006 12:31:13 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: whistle blowers, secrets, and privacy

At 05:01 PM 1/11/2006, David P. Reed wrote:
> Bush, in his signing statement on Sarbanes-Oxley, also completely
> gutted the protections that act afforded whistleblowers, by stating
> that he would only enforce it in extremely narrow special cases (when
> there was an active Congressional hearing already under way prior to
> the whistleblowing).

I'm astonished that the Legislature and Judiciary don't slap down  
these "signing statement" pronouncements; the Executive has only a  
binary duty--sign or veto--when it comes to enacting laws, and then  
they're obligated to follow them, with the Judiciary, and not the  
Executive itself, given the ultimate responsibility to determine  
legality and Constitutionality. But that's another topic...

A modest proposal, to address several current threads...  There's  
enormous power in symbols, and we've established a variety of symbols  
to make certain functions universally recognized (for various values  
of universal, e.g., nationwide).  "9-1-1," for instance, as the  
universally known, "Help, I have an emergency" number... my four-year- 
old knows what 9-1-1 is for.  (It may not be the best option... here  
in Northern California, a cell phone 9-1-1 call goes to the  
California Highway Patrol, and you're better off calling your local  
police directly... but it's guaranteed to be a good bet.)

The Hatch Act is another, of sorts... it was readily apparent, when I  
was a federal employee, that there were certain things I knew I  
couldn't be obligated to do, vis-a-vis politics.  The ERA was an  
attempt to create one, re gender equity; we've muddled along without  
that... on the other hand, we've got EEO as something of a symbol re  
protections against discrimination on various fronts.

What I'd love to see the Congress do, in response to various recent  
abuses, and confusions, is create a Legislative entity, to be a  
Privacy, Secrets and Security Ombudsoffice (better, simpler names  
welcomed!): it would be empowered to receive any and all inquiries  
from citizens who are concerned about issues involving privacy,  
secrecy and (theirs, or national) security... it would be the final,  
best resort for whistleblowers, and a place for those frustrated by  
Col. Flagg-caliber bamboozling ("If you tell anyone you've ever met  
me, I'll have to kill you...") from intelligence or law enforcement,  
to find an appropriately-cleared ear.  They would specialize in the  
full meaning of "need to know," which is a two-sided coin: while it  
often is applied negatively ("You have no need to know, sorry"),  
there are also aspects of "speaking truth to power"... more people  
than did had a need to know that the WMD search was coming up empty.

If senators and congresspersons are resorting to socking away memos  
about how they were concerned about Executive actions, but weren't  
sure whom they could talk to about it, and what was appropriate to  
say in dissent, then it suggests a desperate need for *one place* one  
can know it's safe to go.  And I'd feel safer if that was removed  
from the Executive branch.

Ross



----
Ross Stapleton-Gray, Ph.D.
Stapleton-Gray & Associates, Inc.
http://www.stapleton-gray.com
http://www.sortingdoor.com





-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/