06-09-2006, 08:59 AM
First off, learn what whistleblower means from dictionary.com:
By Al Martin
almartinraw.com
Whistleblowers Beware: U.S. Supreme Court Rules You Have No Rights
(6-05-06) The recent Supreme Court decision (Garcetti v. Ceballos) destroys the last vestiges of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1986 and will effectively end any further government or corporate whistle-blowing. The decision effectively limits First Amendment protection for government whistleblowers since the U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS DO NOT EXTEND TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FOR COMMENTS MADE WHILE PERFORMING THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, EVEN WHEN THE EMPLOYEE IS ACTING TO EXPOSE ALLEGED GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING. In a 5-4 decision (Garcetti v. Ceballos) the court overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling, which extended free speech protection to an employee in the L.A. District Attorneys office. The court majority wrote that: "Exposing government inefficiency and misconduct is a matter of considerable significance.... Public employees should 'as a matter of good judgment' be receptive to constructive criticism offered by employees that dictates a sound judgment, reinforced by the powerful network of legislative enactments such as whistleblower protection laws and labor codes available to those who seek to expose wrongdoing."
IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED WHAT PART OF THIS CASE WAS (AND WHAT I THINK IS THE MOST SINISTER PART) THAT CEBALLOS WAS SEEKING THE COURT'S PROTECTION UNDER THE 1986 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT AGAINST RETALIATION BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS WAS HOTLY CONTESTED, A 5-4 DECISION. THE PRO-BUSH FACTION MEMBERS OF THE COURT, LED BY ANTONIN SCALIA, STRUCK DOWN THAT PART OF THE 1986 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT, WHICH PROTECTED GOVERNMENT WHISTLEBLOWERS FROM REPRISALS OR RETALIATION. NOT ONLY DO YOU LOSE YOUR JOB, BUT YOU POTENTIALLY LOSE YOUR PENSION. AND, REMEMBER, YOU MAY BE POTENTIALLY PROSECUTED UNDER SECTION 432, AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POINTED OUT AFTER THIS DECISION. FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWERS WOULD FACE POTENTIAL PROSECUTION IF THEY REVEAL ANY CRIMES BEING COMMITTED BY GOVERNMENT THAT WERE CONSIDERED TO BE A MATTER OF STATE SECURITY, AS DEEMED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
What I thought was ominous was Scalia's comments that the government not only has the absolute right to retaliate against would-be whistleblowers, but should do so to discourage so-called false and malicious whistleblowing.
The actual wording of the decision -- "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties. Our precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job..." WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT CRIMINALS IN GOVERNMENT AND/OR CORPORATIONS ARE EFFECTIVELY PROTECTED BECAUSE NOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS NO SHIELD OF IMMUNITY FROM EITHER GOVERNMENTAL REPRISALS, CORPORATE REPRISALS OR EVEN GOVERNMENTAL OR CORPORATE CIVIL DAMAGE ACTIONS.
What's interesting about this case is that this, combined with the SEC powers we spoke of last week given to the DNI John Negroponte to immunize corporations that are committing fraud, means that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OR A CORPORATION, COULD ACTUALLY FILE A CIVIL TORT ACTION AGAINST A WHISTLEBLOWER, SEEKING DAMAGES.
The Supreme Court said that Ceballos could not seek First Amendment protection because a memo laying out his allegations was written as part of his job duties and because supervisors have authority 'to take proper corrective action' if they think such a memo is 'inflammatory or misguided.'" SO IT GIVES THE EMPLOYERS, EITHER STATE, LOCAL OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE ABILITY TO QUASH ANY DISCOVERY OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
And it removes the last vestiges of the 1986 Whistleblower Protection Act so that the would-be whistleblower, to avoid retaliation and potential criminal and/or civil prosecution, cannot go directly to the media. They must go through their supervisors with a memorandum revealing the fraud or misconduct by government or corporation, which is akin to ordering the fox to guard the henhouse.
The supervisors now have the absolute ability to quash the memorandum and to notify the appropriate authorities, be they governmental, corporate, corporate counsels, for instance, that Citizen Smith is a potential whistleblower. Let's get rid of him. Without the First Amendment protection, it gives the would-be whistleblower no protection from losing his job or pension.
A little history is in order then. The 1986 Whistleblower Act was passed despite vehement White House objections. The Republicans felt trapped into it because it began to get enough press attention. And, of course, with an election coming up in November of `86, the Democrats were able to make a big enough issue out of it. "Why is it that pro-Reagan Bush faction Republicans are against protecting whistleblowers?" they asked and thats why the bill passed.
But after that, the Reagan Bush Regime immediately tried to water it down by putting on endless amendments and conditions to the 1986 act, such as the 1988 revisions, which watered it down.
THE REASON WHY THE ACT WAS REVISED IN 1988 IS THE REAGAN BUSH REGIME DIDN'T WANT ANY MORE WHISTLEBLOWERS GOING BEFORE THE THEN-DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED IRAN CONTRA INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES WHO WERE EFFECTIVELY PROTECTED UNDER THE 1986 ACT FROM GOVERNMENT RETALIATION, INCLUDING EAVESDROPPING AND SURVEILLANCE OF WHISTLEBLOWERS.
In 1992, the then outgoing Bush Quayle Regime watered the act down some more, and it effectively started to become meaningless after that.
TO GET BACK TO THIS RECENT DECISION, JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO CAST A TIE-BREAKING VOTE AFTER THE CASE WAS ARGUED TWICE. THIS SHOWS THAT THE BUSH REGIME HAS ACTUALLY PACKED THE COURTS WITH PERSONS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE INCREASED POWER OF THE STATE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PEOPLE.
THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT THAT THIS SAMUEL ALITO WAS GOING TO BE A SWING VOTE WAS NONSENSE. HE IS A RADICAL PRO-BUSH FACTION REPUBLICAN. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS THIS ALITO, WHEN HE WAS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN 1986, THAT TRIED TO WATER DOWN THE ORIGINAL 1986 WHISTLEBLOWER ACT. HE WILL SUPPORT ANY BUSHONIAN REGIME. THATS WHERE HIS ALLEGIANCE LIES.
In short, this is a dangerous new power. It will effectively end federal and corporate whistleblowing because anyone whos got any brains wouldnt blow the whistle anymore. In fact, one of the ways future whistleblowers, either government or corporate, are going to be discredited is you're going to see the line in the media that anybody that would become a whistleblower, given the Supreme Court's recent decision, must be out of their minds. IT'S THE OLD SOVIET MODEL. NOW YOU WILL BE LABELED AS "MENTALLY UNBALANCED" TO BECOME A WHISTLEBLOWER.
The other ominous sign is what Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said regarding leaks by government employees to the media. All the doors are being shut. All the doors, save for official doors in the Bushonian-controlled media, are being shut. This is a further effort to sideline non-Bushonian-controlled media.
Thus, in a victory for the Bush Regime, 20 million public employees do not have free speech protections. But the decision goes much further than that. It is part and parcel of what the regime has done, even in very recent months, to increasingly discourage whistleblowers, this Supreme Court decision then effectively being their crowning achievement to prevent future whistleblowers, in government or corporations.
THE REGIME HAS AN EQUAL INTEREST IN PREVENTING CORPORATE WHISTLEBLOWERS SINCE, IF ONE LOOKS AT THE CORPORATIONS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN WHISTLEBLOWERS, THEY HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATIONS WHOSE SHARES ARE HEAVILY OWNED BY BUSHONIAN CABALIST MEMBERS.
FOR INSTANCE, IF THIS WERE IN PLACE WHEN ENRON WHISTLEBLOWER SHERRON WATKINS CAME OUT, WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO HER? INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, ENRON COULD HAVE PROSECUTED HER CIVILLY. BY EXPOSING FRAUD AND BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY WAS COMMITTING A FRAUD, IT COST THE COMPANY REVENUE AND BUSINESS. AND EVENTUALLY PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS. BUT THEY COULD ACTUALLY HAVE SUED HER FOR MONETARY DAMAGES. BECAUSE SHE INJURED THEIR REPUTATION AND/OR PROFITABILITY.
Now if you blow the whistle and admit that the publicly traded corporation youre working for is committing fraud, you could be potentially liable for damages.
People have often asked me about my situation vis-a-vis Iran Contra. How did I get into that position?
In 1986, when Iran Contra was falling apart, the Kerry Committee had a bird dog asking around. This was a year before the Kerry Committee was actually formed. However, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry started to dispatch people, principally in Miami and New Orleans, the real hub of illegal Iran Contra activity, putting out feelers. And that is: Would anyone be prepared to stand before a Congressional Committee and blow the whistle?
Knowing that, by 1986, the people that were on the outs, or knew that they were going "to be left slowly twisting in the wind with the word scapegoat stamped on their forehead,' to use Gordon Liddys words, wanted some alternative. And there was only two alternatives at the time: Defect behind the Iron Curtain or cooperate with the Democratically controlled investigative committee. As I and others who cooperated with such committees subsequently found out, it was a bad idea because the Democrats had no money and no power. Hence they did not have the power to protect.
AND I'M THINKING OF MYSELF AND OTHERS OF MY FORMER IRAN CONTRA COHORTS, WHO ESSENTIALLY SACRIFICED THEMSELVES, THEIR FUTURES, EVERYTHING BY COOPERATING WITH USELESS DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES AS OPPOSED TO DEFECTING BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN, WHICH MANY COULD HAVE DONE, AND WOULD HAVE BEEN OF SUBSTANTIAL AID TO THE KGB AND OTHER EASTERN EUROPEAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES AT THE TIME. THESE PEOPLE EFFECTIVELY THREW AWAY THEIR LIVES TO HELP USELESS DEMOCRATS.
THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. NOW YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE CHOICE OF DEFECTING ANYWHERE. You may remember the Stephen Ross defection in 1986. That was a major defection. The KGB got him out of Arizona in the middle of nowhere right out from under the noses of the FBI. He was going to be prosecuted. And they subsequently were able to get his family out too.
But he never was able to live very well because by that time, youre going into an era where the then-Gorbachev regime, after 1986, and it was particularly true in 1987, really didn't want a lot of Western defectors anymore. By then Gorbachev had taken the deal, as they say and essentially bailing out of the old Soviet Union.
They knew that having a lot of Western defectors, an influx of them, wasnt going to do anybody any good.
Now with this latest Supreme Court decision muzzling whistleblowers -- the predictable fallout is going to be that a lot of senior NSA, CIA, FBI personnel will be retiring or taking early retirements. Because of the Patriot Acts, there will be yet another round of retirees of probably all of the remaining senior people, particularly in the CIA and the FBI.
THIS WILL BE THE SECOND GUTTING OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THATS PART OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING. PART OF THE BUSHONIAN AGENDA IS TO GET RID OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT I KNEW FROM THE 1980'S THAT WERE STILL IN THE AGENCIES UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, THE PEOPLE THAT KNEW TOO MUCH ABOUT BUSHONIAN MISCHIEF-MAKING THEN AND NOW. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT CAN ACTUALLY CONNECT THE DOTS HISTORICALLY. THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO BUY BACK INFORMATION ANYMORE.
They've changed the fraction. The way everything was always done in Washington has changed. Senior managers over the years at the Agency or the Bureau would collect sensitive documents that would be embarrassing to Republicans and, when they went to retire, they'd effectively sell them back to a Republican-controlled foundation, supposedly under some sort of an archives deal. And that was to help augment their retirements. That was always the way it was done.
And there was another buyer. These are the days, even up until the mid-80's, when the media still had money, when the media could still spend a hundred grand to buy sensitive documents and wanted to. It was the days when the world was divided by an iron curtain, and the documents had value elsewhere as well. But that was always the way the system had worked. And now theyve blown out all the last vestiges of that.
AND WHO WILL REPLACE THE RETIREES? THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHAT THEYVE DONE AT THE FBI. REPLACE ALL OF THE SENIOR PEOPLE WITH 20-SOMETHINGS "QUANTICO SPECIALS" THAT DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PAST. THEY ARE RABIDLY LOYAL TO THE BUSHONIAN REGIME.
This will extend to corporations as well. If youre a senior employee, you bail out or you short the stock -- but you keep your mouth shut. Thats what this is. A signal for everyone that knows too much about the Bush Cheney Regime or about the Cabal to keep their mouths shut.
There's another bit of news which fits into this. Very, very quietly, the government of the United States and several media outlets including the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and AP settled a lawsuit for $1.6 million with former Los Alamos nuclear engineer Wen Ho Lee, wrongly accused of selling information to China.
And as has always been the case, how much money will the NFWCS (Naﶥ Flag Waving Crowd) cost the taxpayers down the line? How much did they cost them in the Second World War, when we ultimately paid out money to Japanese who were interned?
The Wen Ho Lee case is going to open the floodgates. All of the people that this regime unfairly targeted, unfairly harassed, surveilled upon, destroyed their careers, arrested, indicted in late 2001-2002, when politics dictated it, when the NFWCS (Naﶥ Flag Waving Crowd) wanted scapegoats -- now, when the ardor cools a little bit and the flags are put down for a while, there's going to be lawsuits.
If you really look at it from the Second World War, how many trillions of dollars have they cost the nation? How many lawsuits? There will be a plethora of lawsuits. And its all misguided patriotism.
WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN--AND YOULL PROBABLY SEE IT IF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS CHANGE IN THE ELECTIONS. BUT THE REASON WHY THIS REGIME IS NOT CLOSING THE PRISON AT GITMO, DESPITE THE FACT THEY ARE UNDER PRESSURE FROM ALL OTHER 19 OF G-20 NATIONS. ALL 19 OF THEM HAVE URGENTLY ASKED THIS REGIME TO CLOSE GITMO, AND THE REASON THE REGIME ISNT IS BECAUSE THEYRE FRIGHTENED OF A MASSIVE LEGAL ACTION.
What they're going to do is let them rot there until such time as the pro-Bush faction Republicans aren't going to take the heat for it. Republican regimes have tended to do this, particularly after the war, the Eisenhower regime, the Nixon regime in particular, and the Reagan Bush regime, is this -- in order to pander to their grassroots Right constituency, they break the law with great regularity. Because its politically popular, the concept of cloaking your misdeeds in the flag. But eventually the ardor cools, time changes, lawsuits get started. They get media attention. And, yes, they grind away. But eventually they cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
Like we say, when there are Republicans in office, NFWCS beware because in the United States you pay for your own naivete in your capacity as taxpayers.
Remember what Paul Wolfowitz said. The great thing about running huge deficits, such as the Reagan Bush regime and now Bush Cheney regime do, is you can effectively shield the American taxpayers from the cost. Hey, don't worry about the $200 billion a year were spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, a few billion more we may have to spend to pay out legal settlements, etc., etc. Don't worry, taxpayer. We dont have to raise your taxes. After all, were running red ink. It isnt your money anyway. We'll just borrow more from somebody else.
And Wolfowitz is absolutely correct. There were only 18% of the nation understanding what deficits are, and even the way the U.S. budget is financed. What real political jeopardy is there to consistently pander to NFWCS when you never have to raise taxes to cover the cost? All you have to do is to increase the national debt that only 18% of the people understand.
When ignorance rules, other people pay the price. Its other peoples money, (OPM). Now its other nations money.
WHEN IGNORANCE RULES THE DAY, OPM'S -- WATCH OUT. UNTIL THEY CALL IN THE NOTES.
Quote:whis÷tle÷blow÷er or whis÷tle-blow÷er or whistle blower
n.
One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority: ââ¬ÅThe Pentagon's most famous whistleblower is... hoping to get another chance to search for government wasteââ¬Â (Washington Post).
An employee who has inside knowledge of illegal activities occurring within his or her organization and reports these to the public.
Investopedia Commentary
Although whistle blowers are protected under federal law from employer retaliation, there have been cases where punishment for whistle blowing has occurred.
By Al Martin
almartinraw.com
Whistleblowers Beware: U.S. Supreme Court Rules You Have No Rights
(6-05-06) The recent Supreme Court decision (Garcetti v. Ceballos) destroys the last vestiges of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1986 and will effectively end any further government or corporate whistle-blowing. The decision effectively limits First Amendment protection for government whistleblowers since the U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS DO NOT EXTEND TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FOR COMMENTS MADE WHILE PERFORMING THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, EVEN WHEN THE EMPLOYEE IS ACTING TO EXPOSE ALLEGED GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING. In a 5-4 decision (Garcetti v. Ceballos) the court overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling, which extended free speech protection to an employee in the L.A. District Attorneys office. The court majority wrote that: "Exposing government inefficiency and misconduct is a matter of considerable significance.... Public employees should 'as a matter of good judgment' be receptive to constructive criticism offered by employees that dictates a sound judgment, reinforced by the powerful network of legislative enactments such as whistleblower protection laws and labor codes available to those who seek to expose wrongdoing."
IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED WHAT PART OF THIS CASE WAS (AND WHAT I THINK IS THE MOST SINISTER PART) THAT CEBALLOS WAS SEEKING THE COURT'S PROTECTION UNDER THE 1986 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT AGAINST RETALIATION BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS WAS HOTLY CONTESTED, A 5-4 DECISION. THE PRO-BUSH FACTION MEMBERS OF THE COURT, LED BY ANTONIN SCALIA, STRUCK DOWN THAT PART OF THE 1986 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT, WHICH PROTECTED GOVERNMENT WHISTLEBLOWERS FROM REPRISALS OR RETALIATION. NOT ONLY DO YOU LOSE YOUR JOB, BUT YOU POTENTIALLY LOSE YOUR PENSION. AND, REMEMBER, YOU MAY BE POTENTIALLY PROSECUTED UNDER SECTION 432, AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POINTED OUT AFTER THIS DECISION. FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWERS WOULD FACE POTENTIAL PROSECUTION IF THEY REVEAL ANY CRIMES BEING COMMITTED BY GOVERNMENT THAT WERE CONSIDERED TO BE A MATTER OF STATE SECURITY, AS DEEMED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
What I thought was ominous was Scalia's comments that the government not only has the absolute right to retaliate against would-be whistleblowers, but should do so to discourage so-called false and malicious whistleblowing.
The actual wording of the decision -- "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties. Our precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job..." WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT CRIMINALS IN GOVERNMENT AND/OR CORPORATIONS ARE EFFECTIVELY PROTECTED BECAUSE NOW THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS NO SHIELD OF IMMUNITY FROM EITHER GOVERNMENTAL REPRISALS, CORPORATE REPRISALS OR EVEN GOVERNMENTAL OR CORPORATE CIVIL DAMAGE ACTIONS.
What's interesting about this case is that this, combined with the SEC powers we spoke of last week given to the DNI John Negroponte to immunize corporations that are committing fraud, means that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OR A CORPORATION, COULD ACTUALLY FILE A CIVIL TORT ACTION AGAINST A WHISTLEBLOWER, SEEKING DAMAGES.
The Supreme Court said that Ceballos could not seek First Amendment protection because a memo laying out his allegations was written as part of his job duties and because supervisors have authority 'to take proper corrective action' if they think such a memo is 'inflammatory or misguided.'" SO IT GIVES THE EMPLOYERS, EITHER STATE, LOCAL OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE ABILITY TO QUASH ANY DISCOVERY OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
And it removes the last vestiges of the 1986 Whistleblower Protection Act so that the would-be whistleblower, to avoid retaliation and potential criminal and/or civil prosecution, cannot go directly to the media. They must go through their supervisors with a memorandum revealing the fraud or misconduct by government or corporation, which is akin to ordering the fox to guard the henhouse.
The supervisors now have the absolute ability to quash the memorandum and to notify the appropriate authorities, be they governmental, corporate, corporate counsels, for instance, that Citizen Smith is a potential whistleblower. Let's get rid of him. Without the First Amendment protection, it gives the would-be whistleblower no protection from losing his job or pension.
A little history is in order then. The 1986 Whistleblower Act was passed despite vehement White House objections. The Republicans felt trapped into it because it began to get enough press attention. And, of course, with an election coming up in November of `86, the Democrats were able to make a big enough issue out of it. "Why is it that pro-Reagan Bush faction Republicans are against protecting whistleblowers?" they asked and thats why the bill passed.
But after that, the Reagan Bush Regime immediately tried to water it down by putting on endless amendments and conditions to the 1986 act, such as the 1988 revisions, which watered it down.
THE REASON WHY THE ACT WAS REVISED IN 1988 IS THE REAGAN BUSH REGIME DIDN'T WANT ANY MORE WHISTLEBLOWERS GOING BEFORE THE THEN-DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED IRAN CONTRA INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES WHO WERE EFFECTIVELY PROTECTED UNDER THE 1986 ACT FROM GOVERNMENT RETALIATION, INCLUDING EAVESDROPPING AND SURVEILLANCE OF WHISTLEBLOWERS.
In 1992, the then outgoing Bush Quayle Regime watered the act down some more, and it effectively started to become meaningless after that.
TO GET BACK TO THIS RECENT DECISION, JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO CAST A TIE-BREAKING VOTE AFTER THE CASE WAS ARGUED TWICE. THIS SHOWS THAT THE BUSH REGIME HAS ACTUALLY PACKED THE COURTS WITH PERSONS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE INCREASED POWER OF THE STATE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PEOPLE.
THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT THAT THIS SAMUEL ALITO WAS GOING TO BE A SWING VOTE WAS NONSENSE. HE IS A RADICAL PRO-BUSH FACTION REPUBLICAN. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS THIS ALITO, WHEN HE WAS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN 1986, THAT TRIED TO WATER DOWN THE ORIGINAL 1986 WHISTLEBLOWER ACT. HE WILL SUPPORT ANY BUSHONIAN REGIME. THATS WHERE HIS ALLEGIANCE LIES.
In short, this is a dangerous new power. It will effectively end federal and corporate whistleblowing because anyone whos got any brains wouldnt blow the whistle anymore. In fact, one of the ways future whistleblowers, either government or corporate, are going to be discredited is you're going to see the line in the media that anybody that would become a whistleblower, given the Supreme Court's recent decision, must be out of their minds. IT'S THE OLD SOVIET MODEL. NOW YOU WILL BE LABELED AS "MENTALLY UNBALANCED" TO BECOME A WHISTLEBLOWER.
The other ominous sign is what Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said regarding leaks by government employees to the media. All the doors are being shut. All the doors, save for official doors in the Bushonian-controlled media, are being shut. This is a further effort to sideline non-Bushonian-controlled media.
Thus, in a victory for the Bush Regime, 20 million public employees do not have free speech protections. But the decision goes much further than that. It is part and parcel of what the regime has done, even in very recent months, to increasingly discourage whistleblowers, this Supreme Court decision then effectively being their crowning achievement to prevent future whistleblowers, in government or corporations.
THE REGIME HAS AN EQUAL INTEREST IN PREVENTING CORPORATE WHISTLEBLOWERS SINCE, IF ONE LOOKS AT THE CORPORATIONS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN WHISTLEBLOWERS, THEY HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATIONS WHOSE SHARES ARE HEAVILY OWNED BY BUSHONIAN CABALIST MEMBERS.
FOR INSTANCE, IF THIS WERE IN PLACE WHEN ENRON WHISTLEBLOWER SHERRON WATKINS CAME OUT, WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO HER? INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, ENRON COULD HAVE PROSECUTED HER CIVILLY. BY EXPOSING FRAUD AND BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY WAS COMMITTING A FRAUD, IT COST THE COMPANY REVENUE AND BUSINESS. AND EVENTUALLY PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS. BUT THEY COULD ACTUALLY HAVE SUED HER FOR MONETARY DAMAGES. BECAUSE SHE INJURED THEIR REPUTATION AND/OR PROFITABILITY.
Now if you blow the whistle and admit that the publicly traded corporation youre working for is committing fraud, you could be potentially liable for damages.
People have often asked me about my situation vis-a-vis Iran Contra. How did I get into that position?
In 1986, when Iran Contra was falling apart, the Kerry Committee had a bird dog asking around. This was a year before the Kerry Committee was actually formed. However, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry started to dispatch people, principally in Miami and New Orleans, the real hub of illegal Iran Contra activity, putting out feelers. And that is: Would anyone be prepared to stand before a Congressional Committee and blow the whistle?
Knowing that, by 1986, the people that were on the outs, or knew that they were going "to be left slowly twisting in the wind with the word scapegoat stamped on their forehead,' to use Gordon Liddys words, wanted some alternative. And there was only two alternatives at the time: Defect behind the Iron Curtain or cooperate with the Democratically controlled investigative committee. As I and others who cooperated with such committees subsequently found out, it was a bad idea because the Democrats had no money and no power. Hence they did not have the power to protect.
AND I'M THINKING OF MYSELF AND OTHERS OF MY FORMER IRAN CONTRA COHORTS, WHO ESSENTIALLY SACRIFICED THEMSELVES, THEIR FUTURES, EVERYTHING BY COOPERATING WITH USELESS DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES AS OPPOSED TO DEFECTING BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN, WHICH MANY COULD HAVE DONE, AND WOULD HAVE BEEN OF SUBSTANTIAL AID TO THE KGB AND OTHER EASTERN EUROPEAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES AT THE TIME. THESE PEOPLE EFFECTIVELY THREW AWAY THEIR LIVES TO HELP USELESS DEMOCRATS.
THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. NOW YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE CHOICE OF DEFECTING ANYWHERE. You may remember the Stephen Ross defection in 1986. That was a major defection. The KGB got him out of Arizona in the middle of nowhere right out from under the noses of the FBI. He was going to be prosecuted. And they subsequently were able to get his family out too.
But he never was able to live very well because by that time, youre going into an era where the then-Gorbachev regime, after 1986, and it was particularly true in 1987, really didn't want a lot of Western defectors anymore. By then Gorbachev had taken the deal, as they say and essentially bailing out of the old Soviet Union.
They knew that having a lot of Western defectors, an influx of them, wasnt going to do anybody any good.
Now with this latest Supreme Court decision muzzling whistleblowers -- the predictable fallout is going to be that a lot of senior NSA, CIA, FBI personnel will be retiring or taking early retirements. Because of the Patriot Acts, there will be yet another round of retirees of probably all of the remaining senior people, particularly in the CIA and the FBI.
THIS WILL BE THE SECOND GUTTING OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THATS PART OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING. PART OF THE BUSHONIAN AGENDA IS TO GET RID OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT I KNEW FROM THE 1980'S THAT WERE STILL IN THE AGENCIES UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, THE PEOPLE THAT KNEW TOO MUCH ABOUT BUSHONIAN MISCHIEF-MAKING THEN AND NOW. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT CAN ACTUALLY CONNECT THE DOTS HISTORICALLY. THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO BUY BACK INFORMATION ANYMORE.
They've changed the fraction. The way everything was always done in Washington has changed. Senior managers over the years at the Agency or the Bureau would collect sensitive documents that would be embarrassing to Republicans and, when they went to retire, they'd effectively sell them back to a Republican-controlled foundation, supposedly under some sort of an archives deal. And that was to help augment their retirements. That was always the way it was done.
And there was another buyer. These are the days, even up until the mid-80's, when the media still had money, when the media could still spend a hundred grand to buy sensitive documents and wanted to. It was the days when the world was divided by an iron curtain, and the documents had value elsewhere as well. But that was always the way the system had worked. And now theyve blown out all the last vestiges of that.
AND WHO WILL REPLACE THE RETIREES? THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHAT THEYVE DONE AT THE FBI. REPLACE ALL OF THE SENIOR PEOPLE WITH 20-SOMETHINGS "QUANTICO SPECIALS" THAT DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PAST. THEY ARE RABIDLY LOYAL TO THE BUSHONIAN REGIME.
This will extend to corporations as well. If youre a senior employee, you bail out or you short the stock -- but you keep your mouth shut. Thats what this is. A signal for everyone that knows too much about the Bush Cheney Regime or about the Cabal to keep their mouths shut.
There's another bit of news which fits into this. Very, very quietly, the government of the United States and several media outlets including the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and AP settled a lawsuit for $1.6 million with former Los Alamos nuclear engineer Wen Ho Lee, wrongly accused of selling information to China.
And as has always been the case, how much money will the NFWCS (Naﶥ Flag Waving Crowd) cost the taxpayers down the line? How much did they cost them in the Second World War, when we ultimately paid out money to Japanese who were interned?
The Wen Ho Lee case is going to open the floodgates. All of the people that this regime unfairly targeted, unfairly harassed, surveilled upon, destroyed their careers, arrested, indicted in late 2001-2002, when politics dictated it, when the NFWCS (Naﶥ Flag Waving Crowd) wanted scapegoats -- now, when the ardor cools a little bit and the flags are put down for a while, there's going to be lawsuits.
If you really look at it from the Second World War, how many trillions of dollars have they cost the nation? How many lawsuits? There will be a plethora of lawsuits. And its all misguided patriotism.
WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN--AND YOULL PROBABLY SEE IT IF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS CHANGE IN THE ELECTIONS. BUT THE REASON WHY THIS REGIME IS NOT CLOSING THE PRISON AT GITMO, DESPITE THE FACT THEY ARE UNDER PRESSURE FROM ALL OTHER 19 OF G-20 NATIONS. ALL 19 OF THEM HAVE URGENTLY ASKED THIS REGIME TO CLOSE GITMO, AND THE REASON THE REGIME ISNT IS BECAUSE THEYRE FRIGHTENED OF A MASSIVE LEGAL ACTION.
What they're going to do is let them rot there until such time as the pro-Bush faction Republicans aren't going to take the heat for it. Republican regimes have tended to do this, particularly after the war, the Eisenhower regime, the Nixon regime in particular, and the Reagan Bush regime, is this -- in order to pander to their grassroots Right constituency, they break the law with great regularity. Because its politically popular, the concept of cloaking your misdeeds in the flag. But eventually the ardor cools, time changes, lawsuits get started. They get media attention. And, yes, they grind away. But eventually they cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
Like we say, when there are Republicans in office, NFWCS beware because in the United States you pay for your own naivete in your capacity as taxpayers.
Remember what Paul Wolfowitz said. The great thing about running huge deficits, such as the Reagan Bush regime and now Bush Cheney regime do, is you can effectively shield the American taxpayers from the cost. Hey, don't worry about the $200 billion a year were spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, a few billion more we may have to spend to pay out legal settlements, etc., etc. Don't worry, taxpayer. We dont have to raise your taxes. After all, were running red ink. It isnt your money anyway. We'll just borrow more from somebody else.
And Wolfowitz is absolutely correct. There were only 18% of the nation understanding what deficits are, and even the way the U.S. budget is financed. What real political jeopardy is there to consistently pander to NFWCS when you never have to raise taxes to cover the cost? All you have to do is to increase the national debt that only 18% of the people understand.
When ignorance rules, other people pay the price. Its other peoples money, (OPM). Now its other nations money.
WHEN IGNORANCE RULES THE DAY, OPM'S -- WATCH OUT. UNTIL THEY CALL IN THE NOTES.