New Congressional Leadership Prioritizes Wikileaks Investigation

Do We Need A Whistleblower To Tell The World Which Senator Killed Whistleblower Protection Law?

from the or-are-they-too-scared dept

Mon, Jan 3rd 2011 3:49pm — Mike Masnick

Last month, we mentioned that the Senate had given its approval to a new law protecting whistleblowers in the federal government. There were some problems with the bill, which led some to fight against it, but much of the bill was useful. With the whole Wikileaks stuff going on, there had been some concern that such a law might lead to similar leaks, but most of Congress recognized that protecting whistleblowers is important. Except for one anonymous Senator. Even though the bill had already passed the Senate. After the House took a bunch of stuff out of the bill, it went back to the Senate again, where an anonymous Senator put a hold on the bill, effectively killing it. It does seem kind of silly that a Senator can do this anonymously. Of course, we can hope that, in the long run, this will work out for the best. Perhaps sometime in the future Congress can pass a better bill that is actually much more protective of whistleblowers.

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: senate, whistleblower

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2011 @ 3:54pm

Lieberman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 3 Jan 2011 @ 3:59pm
  
  Re:
  That's my guess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2011 @ 4:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mine too. Second guess would be Coburn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 3 Jan 2011 @ 4:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Eh, I'm going with Demint.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mdmadph (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 6:51am
  
  Re:
  Probably, but does it honestly matter? I honestly think that such a club as the Senate sometimes gets together and decides which guy is going to be the "fall guy" (take the blame for opposing popular legislation that no one wants to be seen actively opposing but all have reservations against), even in situations where it's done discretely, like this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2011 @ 4:46pm

This is part of the democrat package to reform the rules for filibusters that would remove this option. An individual senator can (and often does) use this Nuclear option to knock legislation off the order papers. It is ugly and it's been very popular with whichever side is in the minority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coward (Anon), 3 Jan 2011 @ 4:58pm

But sometimes it is used for good
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon put a hold on the COICA (aka the Internet Blacklist bill) that prevented it from coming up for a vote in 2010. Given the money and leverage the AAs can bring to the table, the bill is likely to pass if voted on. But the anonymous aspect of the hold on the whistleblower bill seems not right. Either stand up for what you believe in or get out of the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt, 3 Jan 2011 @ 5:30pm
  
  Re: But sometimes it is used for good
  But there's a huge difference between one principled Senator standing up to block a bad piece of legislation - and a cowardly one sabotaging it from the shadows!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2011 @ 5:46pm
    
    Re: Re: But sometimes it is used for good
    One is worse than the other, but both are bad. No single senator ore representative should ever have power to completely stop legislation.
    
    The reason we have 100 senators and multiple hundred representatives is so that everyone's voice is heard equally and the majority opinion prevails. Allowing one person to stop legislation is literally giving that person power greater than the presidential veto (at least the president can be overruled).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Casey, 3 Jan 2011 @ 7:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: But sometimes it is used for good
      It is wrong that the majority view is supposed to prevail. The founding fathers were as distrustful of true democracy as they were of living in a monarchy. We are a representative republic. That rule was created so that legislation would NOT be pushed through the halls of government without being thoughtfully considered. The big issue with the American government is the people who hold power. Our politicians are in no way looking out for us and it is not one side or the other doing it, it is both.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2011 @ 6:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: But sometimes it is used for good
      This rule was specifically crafted to avoid "the tyranny of the majority".
      
      Also, it can be overruled. By the same margin as a presidential veto if I'm not mistaken (2/3rds majority)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 4 Jan 2011 @ 4:36am
  
  Re: But sometimes it is used for good
  "Either stand up for what you believe in or get out of the way."
  
  I like the idea that politicians should wear stickers like in NASCAR.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
monkyyy, 3 Jan 2011 @ 5:58pm

if its mine again, after i wrote him complaining about voting for the internet censorship bill, and got repeated lobbyist lies back including ones i did argue of being unsupported; im going to have to....ummmm write him again and complain about his ignorance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 1:10am
  
  Re:
  OOR...you can kill him and take his stuff, in the grand old tradition of pirates everywhere! :p
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2011 @ 7:35pm

Senators's action must be responsible for the people they represents. The permission to submit bills anonymously doesn't make any sense at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 4 Jan 2011 @ 4:39am
  
  Re:
  "Senators's action must be responsible for the people they represents"
  
  Naivety, how cute.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darryl, 4 Jan 2011 @ 1:31am

wikileaks is not a whistleblower, by its definition
None of this makes any difference to assange or wikileaks, and they do not fall under the definition of a whitleblower.

The US will ignore whistleblower laws, and change him on something more substantial.

Also, if you have been following international news regarding wikileaks, it is MOST CERTAINLY NOT, about how the US has responded to it. Or their reaction to it..

Most of the international news about wikileaks is about specific leaks, and how trivial they generally are.

It's turned out to be very little 'dirt' some fluff and little substance. Certainly nothing to get really upset about, but regardless, assange will probably meet his cumuppense soon enough.. if he has not allready, but just does not know it yet.

He got his 15 minutes of fame, then some, his time has passed, it will be "what ever happend to him??" next. the reply will be 'who cares !!'..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 1:58am
  
  Re: wikileaks is not a whistleblower, by its definition
  next. the reply will be 'who cares !!'..
  
  Which are you quite used to given your bogus comments. Still, ppl will remember Assange as the one who started it and not a puny Darryl. Pity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2011 @ 9:05am
  
  Re: wikileaks is not a whistleblower, by its definition
  I love how the Wikileaks whiners seamlessly jump back and forth between "there is nothing that damaging in the leaks so who cares!?" and "these leaks are destroying America!!!!!!!!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2011 @ 7:13am

They are all just waiting for the check. Put it on hold until the bribe comes in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chinese overlord, 4 Jan 2011 @ 8:58pm

Senators bought and sold
Every senator and congressman is for sale to do the bidding of private industry. This is the American way, and part of the reason America is going down into the shitter. Good luck when the only thing left in America is lawyers, politicians and a giant debt which you can't pay off.

I'd like to find out who this senator is and send them a big bag of shit to tell them my opinion of their vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yuhong Bao, 4 Jan 2011 @ 10:25pm

It is worse than silly
"It does seem kind of silly that a Senator can do this anonymously."
It is worse than that. Why did you think the Senator wanted to do this anonymously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]