Justice Department Report Notes Defense Department Sucks At Protecting Whistle Blowers
from the interesting-timing... dept
As large segments of the US government go ballistic over the Wikileaks issue -- potentially caused by a military whistleblower -- is it any surprise to find out that the government is admitting it sucks at protecting whistleblowers? The Justice Department has put out a report saying that the Defense Department has pretty much failed in its effort to protect whistleblowers in the military. The report also found that the military has also seen nearly double the amount of "retaliations" for whisleblowing as it had in the past.Of course, what's most interesting about this is that this is the sort of thing that leads to situations like Wikileaks. If the Defense Department can't protect whistleblowers who go through the official process to report problems, those whistleblowers are going to go to third parties... like Wikileaks.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defense department, justice department, whistleblowers, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Time for us Americans to face facts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for us Americans to face facts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whois
Who is protected?
Employees of non-federal employers receiving recovery funds, including State and local governments, contractors, subcontractors, grantees or professional membership organizations acting in the interest of recovery fund recipients.
What are whistleblowers protected from?
Covered employees are protected from being discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for making a protected disclosure.
What kinds of disclosures are protected?
To be protected, the disclosure must be made by the employee to the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, an Inspector General, the Comptroller General, a member of Congress, a state or federal regulatory or law enforcement agency, a person with supervisory authority over the employee, a court or grand jury, or the head of a federal agency or his/her representatives.
In addition, the disclosure must involve information that the employee believes is evidence of:
�gross mismanagement of an agency contract or grant relating to recovery funds;
�a gross waste of recovery funds;
�a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety related to the implementation or use of recovery funds;
�an abuse of authority related to the implementation or use of recovery funds; or
�a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to an agency contract or grant awarded or issued relating to recovery funds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: whois
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep using that word . . . I don't think it means what you think it means...
With Wikileaks, while some of the cables and other leaks indicate at least possible wrongdoing, the vast majority of it doesn't seem to be "wrong" at all - just secret. And, in many cases, secret for good reason. It doesn't make sense that some analyst's assessment of a foreign leader should be subject to public disclosure. It doesn't really help for polite relations with your neighbor if your kid tells him you think he's an idiot, so why would it be helpful in the context of international relations?
And it's sort of odd that Assange was hiding in a club for journalists. In what sense is merely posting a bunch of secret stuff - with no analysis or discretion - "journalism"?
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep using that word . . . I don't think it means what you think it means...
With Wikileaks, while some of the cables and other leaks indicate at least possible wrongdoing, the vast majority of it doesn't seem to be "wrong" at all - just secret. And, in many cases, secret for good reason. It doesn't make sense that some analyst's assessment of a foreign leader should be subject to public disclosure. It doesn't really help for polite relations with your neighbor if your kid tells him you think he's an idiot, so why would it be helpful in the context of international relations?
And it's sort of odd that Assange was hiding in a club for journalists. In what sense is merely posting a bunch of secret stuff - with no analysis or discretion - "journalism"?
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While we're on the subject of not knowing what words mean...
"Journalism is the practice of investigation and reporting of events, issues, and trends to a broad audience. Although there is much variation within journalism, the ideal is to inform the citizenry."
Sounds like a pretty accurate description of wikileaks to me. If you wanted analysis you would go to a pundit, not a journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]