Last week Boiling Frogs Post invited Mr. Norman L. Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, and Mr. Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center, to publicly debate on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and the current bill proposed by the Senate (S. 372).Despite two invitations Mr. Eisen declined to participate in this crucial debate.

Mr. Kohn, who publicly accepted the invitation and agreed last week to participate in this independent debate, joined Peter B Collins and me to discuss these critical oversight issues, and the effects of this poisonous bill on an entire generation of federal workers, thus the nation at large.

Stephen M. Kohn is the Executive Director of National Whistleblowers Center, one of the nation’s foremost experts in whistleblower protection law, and the author of the first legal treatise on whistleblowing, Protecting Environmental and Nuclear Whistleblowers: A Litigation Manual. Since 1984, Mr. Kohn has successfully represented whistleblowers in numerous cases (both at trial and on appeal), has testified in Congress on behalf of whistleblower reforms, and has worked directly with the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee on drafting the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate whistleblower law. Mr. Kohn has a J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law; an M.A. in Political Science from Brown University; and a B.S. in Social Education from Boston University. In addition to his books on whistleblower law, Mr. Kohn is the author of Jailed for Peace and American Political Prisoners.

Here is National Whistleblowers Center’s Stephen Kohn Taking on the Absentee White House on Protection for Whistleblowers

 

 Steve Kohn v absentee White House [64:12m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

On Friday, March 19, Boiling Frogs Post invited Mr. Norman L. Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, and Mr. Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center, to publicly debate on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and the current bill proposed by the Senate (S. 372). Today Mr. Kohn publicly accepted the invitation and agreed to participate in this independent debate scheduled for recording on Wednesday, March 24. Mr. Eisner’s office also contacted Boiling Frogs Post today but declined the invitation, saying that ‘Mr. Eisner will not be able to attend.’

In their press release today NWC emphasized the importance of these critical oversight issues and encouraged the White House to reconsider:

Given President Obama’s strong campaign promises in support of whistleblowers, the NWC applauds Boiling Frogs for calling this debate and hopes that Mr. Eisen will reconsider the invitation and agree to publicly discuss this issue. This is an excellent opportunity for a full airing of these critical oversight issues, because the bill will affect an entire generation of federal workers.

Boiling Frogs Post will contact Mr. Eisner today and ask him to reconsider. The debate will be recorded tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. EST, and will be posted on Friday, March 26 here at http://boilingfrogspost.com. Boiling Frogs Show partner and talk show host Peter B. Collins will moderate the debate.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Boiling Frogs Post has invited Mr. Norman L. Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, and Mr. Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center, to publicly debate on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act on Wednesday, March 24 at 1:30 p.m.  The bill as proposed by the Senate (S. 372) has drawn mixed reviews from both sides of the political spectrum. 

Mr. Eisen has been invited to discuss how the bill may affect and contradict the White House’s previously emphasized and publicized mission to increase transparency in government, and respond to criticisms that the Senate version of the bill repeals existing FBI whistleblower protections.  Mr. Kohn is an attorney who represents whistleblowers, and he has been invited to explain how the legislation will impact cases for national security whistleblowers who face retaliation. 

Prior to his election, during his campaign, President Obama had pledged his support for protecting national security whistleblowers, and had done so on record. However, since then Obama’s White House has backed away from that pledge. Thus, this debate is designed to help give the public a better understanding of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, and give them a chance to hear the Obama administration’s ‘real position’ on increasing government transparency by providing protection for government whistleblowers.

The debate will last approximately one hour, and will be moderated by Peter B. Collins. We will keep you posted. Please stay tuned.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

President Obama, We have You on Record, Fulfill Your Promise

We are approaching ‘the day’ with the Senate Committee on the whistleblower protection legislation. The mark up is scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday, July 29, 10:00 a.m. EST. The White House seems to have backed off from their previous position. Here is what I just sent to my organization members:

As you know in the last two years I have not been ‘optimistically’ active in the ongoing congressional related whistleblower protection debate. However, the following campaign by the National Whistleblower Center got my attention. Why? Because our new president appears to be talking from both sides of his mouth. During his campaign, as in many issues, he made a bunch of ‘on-the-record’ promises regarding needed protection for whistleblowers, including the most important ones, those in the national security related agencies. Now he may be royally backing off from those promises. I for one am not surprised; not in the least. On the other hand, I am glad to see that National Whistleblower Center is not willing to let our president off the hook. They have him on the record, and they are planning to remind him loudly and publicly.

Copy-pasted below is their letter to President Obama. They want your backing and support. I just signed it; after all, I am a national security whistleblower and I want to go on record with this ‘needed’ reminder to the president. I hope you do the same. Please send me (by e-mail) your name and title, and let me know if you support this campaign.

Regards,
Sibel Edmonds

And here is the letter from the National Whistleblower Center:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

On May 8, 2007, your presidential campaign promised America’s whistleblowers in writing that you stood behind their need for legal protection and fully supported support federal court access and jury trials for all federal employees. The House of Representatives enacted these protections when it overwhelmingly passed H.R. 985 in a veto-proof, bipartisan manner. In another bipartisan effort, Representatives Van Hollen (D-MD), Waxman (D-CA), Towns (D-NY), Braley (D-IA), and Platts (R-PA) have reintroduced this bill as H.R.1507.

Now we need your help. While the House version of the bill is more inclusive, the Senate version lacks many key protections. The Senate bill currently lacks coverage for the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who participate in the global war on terror and oversee a budget well over $150 billion. Please stand by your promise and ensure that all federal employees receive comprehensive whistleblower protections.

The reason typically cited for denying court access for all federal employees is that it could create a national security risk. As current or former national security whistleblowers, we know this is not true. In an objective and independent review, the General Accounting Office (GAO) saw “no justification for treating employees at [intelligence] agencies differently from employees at other federal agencies except in rare national security cases.” This finding has held since 1996, and yet misinformation about extending full due process protections to national security whistleblowers is still pervasive today.

Moreover, whistleblowers have actually been instrumental in pointing out issues that threaten our nation’s security. Even without full due process protections, courageous employees have pointed out problems including deficiencies in the counterterrorism program that contributed to the success of 9/11, the promotion of faulty intelligence that led to a war, systemic due process violations through misconduct in crime labs, and billions of dollars in waste and illegal contracting. Rather than a national security threat, whistleblowers are a central defense against misconduct.

The future of our nation depends on your support for this critical oversight and accountability issue. Taxpayers put forward billions in government spending, and they deserve accurate information and a guarantee of accountability. Please safeguard our nation against future terrorist attacks by removing the gag order from the brave men and women who are charged with ensuring our safety.

The past ten years have demonstrated the invaluable contributions of whistleblowers. We have made countless preventable mistakes, including the failure to search Moussaoui, abuses in Abu Ghraib, and lies to Congress about secret CIA programs. The need to fully protect national security whistleblowers is indisputable. They are vital to our country’s safety, and their future is in your hands.

And here is Mr. President on record during his campaign:

Come on Mr. President; be a man of your word. Show us what kind of a man you are.

Let’s watch this together, and let’s demand the deserved protection for whistleblowers…

Those of you who’ve been following my case, and those familiar with my previous writings and speeches, surely have a pretty good idea as to how I view the MSM. As a reminder here are a few excerpts from my latest piece:

But the story is almost dead – ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media’s insistence on burying ‘real’ issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation’s continuous downward slide.
…

The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media are known universally and seem to have been accepted as a fact of life.

For me, the importance and impact of the current state of our mainstream media go beyond my own personal take or direct experience. This happens to be a central issue for our organization, NSWBC, and its 150+ whistleblower members. We have yet to announce it (call it a dreaded un-pleasantry if you will), but our organization has suspended all its congressional activities. We did so in spring 2007, a few months after the new majority took over. So what have we been doing, advocating? In a nutshell, we’ve been advising those who may be in the process of disclosure, to do so, if they can, anonymously, and directly, by making the criminal and or wrongdoing cases and the supporting documents/sources public. As many of you already know, case after case, filing with IG offices, and briefing the appropriate congressional committees, has proven to be futile. In fact, considering all the latest on the true-workings of our ‘real’ congress, approaching them with whistleblower cases involving law enforcement and intelligence agencies would be a true mockery…

Okay, back to the media. How does the media fit into this? Well, we, the NSWBC, are in the position where we are asked to provide guidance to potential and current whistleblowers on ‘who’ or ‘where’ to go to disclose. Based on my experience and knowledge of ‘who-is-who’ in the MSM sector, based on cumulative direct experiences of our current members, and based on advice by a few trusted experts in this sector, to say we have a very short list would be an understatement. Let me put it this way: we provide them with a fairly extensive list of ‘No-No’ people in the MSM

I know many of you want to stop me right here and say, ‘but there’s the internet! There are these fairly visible alternative news sources and forums on the net they should go and offer the info to…’ I will get to that and address the pros and cons of it later. But the majority of whistleblowers or those in the process of decision making on disclosure are weary and skeptical of the blogosphere landscape. Again, let’s keep that thought, since we’ll be discussing it soon.

In the next few days I’ll be posting a series of either 4 or 5 pieces on the MSM, examining brief important historical facts and cases, current relevant cases, and of course adding my own un-bashful comments. Most importantly, I am hoping to get your input via your comments, whether by additional links to relevant information, or your own view and theories – I would love to hear them all.

It’s impossible to pinpoint the current sorry state of the MSM to one or two factors, since, at least to me, it seems to be caused by several factors, but here are the usual theories we hear out there on the mainstream media’s current state:

1. Government Agents: CIA-Media reporting as seen in Operation Mockingbird, or embedded Pentagon pawns like Judith Miller, or Hoover style censorship of the MSM.

2. Lazy Journalism on the Cheap: The publications no longer pay for, budget for, real ‘investigative journalism,’ thus, you get your typical stenographers who make their one or two calls to their ‘usual sources’ right from their desks, and write as dictated.

3. Government Pressure, Harassment, and even Blackmail: Cases like James Risen (NY Times) and Bill Conroy (an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal) are good examples.

4. Self-Censorship: Based on this theory, with just a little massaging patriotism kicks in with many of these so-called journalists (whether it’s the Cold War, or, the Post 9/11 war on terror), and that does the job for the government propagandists.

5. Americans Want Entertainment not Real News: Some suggest that after commute-work-commute-kids & household chores, basically, exhausted with day-to-day work, hassles, stress, and pressure, people don’t want serious and grim realities. They want to tune in to Brittney’s latest panties, or Brangelina’s latest baby conquest.

6. Corporate Owned Media: Powerful Corporations are becoming a major influence, and ownership concentrated as a result of mega mergers…

7. Combination of some or all of the above

8. None of the Above

I am sure I have missed some other equally important theories/hypothesis, so at this point I am turning this discussion over to you. Which explanation, or call it a theory if you like, do you subscribe to? Why? Here is what I’d like us to do. I will be covering the theories in the 4 or 5 part upcoming series, but before the detailed coverage, on this post I’d like to ask for your preliminary input: Please take a look at them, give each some thought, and let me know which one(s) you subscribe to, and why? If your stand is #8, then provide us with your own view not listed and enlighten us as to why.
It will be interesting to have this done again, after the upcoming series, after we discuss and debate each theory/angle, and see whether we have narrowed or expanded our diagnosis of this diseased fourth branch.