WaPo: You Should Give the $800 Billion Away with No Oversight

The WaPo is joining Crazy Pete Hoekstra in his opposition to having whistleblower protection in the stimulus bill. To oppose whistleblower protection, they’re reduced to poo-pooing the notion that it’s sort of important to have oversight when you give $800 billion in government funds out.

The $800 billion stimulus package making its way through Congress is supposed to include measures to jump-start the economy — extension of unemployment benefits and food stamps, infrastructure programs to create jobs. But whistleblower protections? 

[snip]

But attaching the bill to the stimulus package under the pretext that stronger whistleblower protections will enhance fiscal accountability is disingenuous.

Uh, yeah. The last eight years of widespread fraud really proves that protecting whistleblowers before you give away billions and billions is just a "pretext."

Right.

But what the WaPo is really worried about is the same thing Crazy Pete is worried about: if you give whistleblower protection to federal employees, that means you give whistleblower protection to federal intelligence employees. And, the WaPo argues, you can’t have federal intelligence employees revealing fraud and wrong-doing if the President doesn’t want them to.

The measure extends such protections to employees who work in the intelligence arena, including those at the FBI, and would give such employees the unilateral right to disclose to congressional overseers classified material. The measure also calls for federal court review of executive branch decisions to revoke an employee’s security clearance. 

[snip]

The executive branch is constitutionally charged with protecting and controlling classified information. A legislative attempt to override the executive could very well be unconstitutional. It is, in any event, irresponsible to condone and essentially immunize an employee’s unilateral breach.

The Justice Department, as long ago as the Clinton administration, has vigorously opposed expanding whistleblower protections to national security employees.

Now, set aside the question of whether, at a time when we’re privatizing intelligence functions on a massive scale, it would be a good thing to make sure intelligence professionals have some means to report wrong-doing. Put aside the question of whether or not you’d like someone to be able blow the whistle if all that data the government has collected on you were used in improper ways.

Consider the fact that this is a newspaper attacking whistleblower protections.

There are two ways to think about this phenomenon, a newspaper attacking whistleblower protections. Perhaps this is just an indication that the WaPo no longer cares about exposing wrong-doing. The paper that broke Watergate–a story about FBI and CIA (as well as presidential) wrong-doing–is taking a stance against breaking such stories in the future.

Alternately, it could be that the WaPo is just trying to protect its own turf. Dana Priest could never have gotten her Pulitzer prize winning story on the CIA’s black sites without intelligence professionals coming to her instead of Congress.  I’m betting the Pulitzer prize winning Angler series relied on intelligence professionals who might have gone to Congress before going to the WaPo if it wouldn’t mean losing their job. So maybe the WaPo is just trying to ensure it remains a privileged outlet for these kind of stories. It’s protecting its turf! (Never mind that the reporter shield law the WaPo is championing would make it a lot harder for Priest and Gellman to protect just these kinds of sources.)

Whatever the motive, it says something about the culture of journalism today that the WaPo would come out against exposing wrong-doing in our intelligence functions.

image_print
  1. freepatriot says:

    didn’t Hoekstra vote against the bill ???

    so Hoekstra don’t wanna give away $800 billion, but if we do, we shouldn’t have any oversight

    this is a reasonable position on what planet ???

  2. freepatriot says:

    I can’t agree that journalism has changed any over history

    I’ve read some british editorials from the civil war, and other historic examples from different sources, and it seems as inacurate and inflammatory now as it wa in the past

    bloody bill kristol was let go by the NY Times for his “sloppy and inaccurate” columns, and then promptly hired by the wapo

    I’m waiting to see which major media outlet publishes the scribblings of joe the nada plumber journalist

    same shit, different war

    that’s all

  3. brendanx says:

    Whatever the motive…

    Anything on the op-ed page is designed in some way, ultimately, to prolong and extend the war in Iraq, as far as I’m concerned, and has nothing to do with the quality of the paper’s factual reporting, with which it’s often enough at odds. What I don’t understand about the Post, however, is how identical the owners’ and Hiatt’s desires are. I find it hard to believe they would indulge Hiatt’s dead-end neoconservatism is they didn’t share it or find it a useful hedge against their more aggressive reporting.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I can think of two reasons one of America’s formerly great newspapers would advocate against whistleblower protection:

    1. As EW says, it wants a monopoly for its own sources, keeping themselves the only means by which a whistleblower avoids retribution for disclosing waste, fraud, crime and corruption. But it doesn’t want them to have independent protection, because then they might go to another, less powerful, but more independent and honest broker of news. That would be letting the village cat out of the bag.

    2. It wants to keep getting its “scoops” from approved senior administration sources, on which it claims a near monopoly. Except that information from such sources is intentionally planted for political effect, not to deter waste, fraud, crime and corruption.

    The common denominator is that as the voice of the village’s idiots, this newspaper, The Washington Post, wants more waste, fraud, crime and abuse, at least insofar as it wants that committed by other villagers to be rewarded, not disclosed or punished.

    Crimes against personal as opposed to public property, and violent crimes committed for peanuts rather than billions? Criminals who commit those should rot in jail under mandatory sentencing guidelines and Old Testament laws that decree unending fire and brimstone for having committed any three crimes, including petty, non-violent ones, that annoy the pharaoh’s priests.

  5. Kurt says:

    Guys remember…the Republicans are a non-issue now, the Democrats don’t need them to pass this stimulus package. Even in the Senate, the Republicans are indicating they will not filibuster, but they also will not support the bill. If this is a great bill, take total credit for it and forever sink the Republican Party’s ability to take control for the next 50 years. Its that simple

    I find it very humerus watching the news and reading sites like this that you still blame the Republicans for something not happening. Pete Hoekstra is the least of your worries. Pay attention to the Dems that are not voting for this giveaway package, they are your enemies now.

    • emptywheel says:

      Uh, Kurt?

      Where does it say in this post that I’m blaming Republicans “for something not happening”?

      I’m calling out a newspaper for doing something that violates what newspapers are supposed to be about.

  6. dcblogger says:

    Don’t you just love it, they want shield laws so that reporters can protect their croniessources, but whistle blowers shouldn’t get any protection.

  7. R.H. Green says:

    “The executive branch is Constitutionaly charged with protecting and controlling classified information”.

    As to motive behind the WaPo editorial, I noted that the above quotation mirrors exactly the position the “DoJ” lawyers presented in the Al-Haramain case with regard to withholding the classified document Judge Walker asked for. The defense argued that the executive branch cannot surrender control of the information without violating its caretaking responsibilities. It seems to me that we are seeing the attempt to push into perpetuity the imperial (if not unitary) executive theory of executtive control of power thru secrecy. The fact the Walker made allowances for containment of sensitive information is ignored. The fact that whistleblowers could also testify in closed door sessions to protect sensitive info is also being ignored in this matter. It has been the thinking of the Bush administration to avoid even the appearance of powersharing among the branches, thus advocating for a “strong” executive. What this has to do with the policy of the WaPo may be contained in the comment of brandonx @ 7; that of EoH @9 may also be a contributing factor.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Its obligation to “protect and control classified information” is subsidiary to its primary mission – preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and enforcing the law. As usual Cheney, did it backwards and Shrub didn’t know which was which.

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    It tickles my funny bone that even medical students are called out to blog for the team. The WaPoo prides itself on being the establishment “news”paper. Being against whistleblowers is anathema to the function of newspapers. Their purpose is not to reveal legitimate national security secrets, but to rip away the curtain of respectability from those who claim state secrets in order to hide their schemes to control public resources for private benefit — to the economic, social and legal detriment of their fellow citizens.

  9. Hugh says:

    The Mainstream Media are in the business of propaganda and infotainment. They are not in the news business. This is why the WaPo can back punishing whistleblowers. It masquerades as the second but it is really the first.

  10. brantl says:

    Being against whistleblower laws means that they can take it easy, stuff won’t come out through other sources to make them look bad; this is a knee jerk response to competition. It doesn’t occur to them that this stuff coming out secondarily through them is just as good, as long as it gets out

  11. JohnLopresti says:

    I recall Senator Kyl directing Attorney General Gonzales thru the hearing February 6, 2006 in the wiretap case as if script reading so Gonzales could assure the congress that the watchdog system is in fine fettle.

    In addition are the unknowns presently of precisely what might emerge during the processing of current executive branch captives who have undergone torture but not had their Boumediene due process rights fully exercised, especially given the evidence’s inadmissability because of its extraction “techniques”. Plus, the Binyam case in the UK and a few others in various nations in Europe remain in abeyance, as the new administration works to sort thru the US’ new external policy initiatives. WaPo might have a few investigative journalists whose notebooks could contain leakworthy materials in these respects. So WaPo has some influence on several sides of the subliminal contention currently about what processing of detainees is going to look like, as well as how we are going to refine alliances with other nations. Candid input from intell in those new designed processes will be essential. So WaPo is asserting its influential position as custodian of records meantime.

    Also of significance certainly will be the reshaping of the Presidential Records Act, as well as some forthcoming report from the National Archivist or OMB depicting the quality and completeness of the transition transfer of documentation of what exactly occurred in the former administration.

    In other words, WaPo is asserting its strength in several developing fields which were important in the interbranch struggles over several past congresses, and one of its olive branches might be guaranteeing suppression of select information.

    I still would be interested to hear whether the Conners topology of server backups is extant.

    This all might be so far from Tarp2 oversight as to be irrelevant. WaPo has provided help of many sorts over the past eight years. But there have been some excellent and expanding academic and independent symposia and blogs originating in the capitol over the past few years. Perhaps WaPo has less worth than it is asserting going into the future.

  12. Neil says:

    Bi-partisanship means having the debate on the merits. Exclude the intelligence community from this act and go back later for that piece.

  13. jdmckay says:

    On all this unaccountability crap in general… from lack of TARP transparency to Obama Folks Miffed about al-Haramain on your previous thread, to utter obfuscation by everyone on severity of our econ problems and how much of it (eg: all) was booted down the road into BO’s lap with barely a wimper…

    It sure seems to me that landscape Obama’s inherited in which to operated is not much different than the one W’ had: eg. hostile to reality at the expense of common sense. It also seems to me that this environment is populated by obstructionists… MSM, congress etc., that really don’t give a rip about fixing our society, rather most of ‘em still seem determined to posture for 1st in line @ the federal $$ teat and repairing/creating a viable economy (much less legal system) be damned.

    I would hope Obama get’s the idea sooner or later that he is in a position to set an agenda… to direct purpose and action, and that he does not have to be bound by all this crap ideologically unless he chooses. And given vacuous purposes of most of that environment, he’d do well to rise above it.

    This seeking consensus methodology of his is going nowhere fast.

    Kind’a sort’a on same subject (econ recovery and what to do w/fed $$), I see Atrios floated same idea I’ve been hammering here and elsewhere…

    A Brief Economics Thought

    Am I the only to whom it’s occurred that monetary policy through the banking channel (as opposed to, say, actually dropping money from helicopters) is only likely to be effective if banks are pretty good at allocating capital efficiently, and recent history tells us that the existing set of clowns in charge completely suck ass at this?

    I dun’o, but watching concrete dry around BO’s feet is getting a little depressing. He can do better… a lot better.

  14. albaz says:

    I am a bit confused here. I fail to see any constitutional mandate that the securing or protecting of “classified” information is the sole prerogative of the executive. Rather,as I recall having been taught throughout my long but amusing life that it is the responsibility of every citizen to protect government secrets. When a private citizen, whether for pecuniary or ideological reasons, discloses secrets to an enemy it is a crime called treason and punishable by the most extreme methods.

    As I also recall, Congress is not the enemy of the government but part of it. Though various laws of dubious value have been passed which are only barely constitutional in the sense that a future court could and in a more perfect world, would dispose of them as inimical to a free society, I need to be educated on which of them declares that the protection of information deemed “classified” by an administration, however corrupt, is under the sole purview of the executive branch and what clause of the constitution less general that promote the common good would be referenced by that law.

    Thank you in advance for your elucidation.

  15. Mary says:

    I haven’t read either the bill or the editorial so I probably shouldn’t comment at all (I’ve been in a powerlost deep freeze in KY) but I have to say this, if the bill does provide for federal court review of losses of security clearance, it is possible that it will run into a constitutional problem.

    And it sounds like one more attempt by Congress to abdicate their own oversight and responsiblity and shift it to the courts. If Congress doesn’t like what is being done on security clearances, they should haul someone in for an explanation and if they don’t like the explanation, they should tell them to restore or face impeachment and then they should actually follow through and impeach.

    The bill is going to have to include some very artful drafting to get around some of the Navy v. Egan and national security aspects of Exec Privilege, but hopefully they’ve done that. I think they are on more solid ground to prohibit firing or pay demotions and insure compensation is unimpeded even pending loss of clearance (rather than involving courts in determining whether or not individuals should or should not have Exec Branch clearances) but hopefully it has all bases covered.

    IMO, Congress needs to become

  16. TheShadowKnows says:

    This is off-topic – but in the area of censorship and who gets to decide who makes a point and who doesn’t.

    I would like to see one of the Firedoglake bloggers create a permanent space for comments which were refused posting on other liberal or mainstream websites. In my case, on HuffingtonPost, the following comment was repeatedly not accepted. The topic was Dascle and Taxes.

    “Daschle is an Insider, wheeler-dealer who uses his government access to make a lobbyist living. His wife is in the same influence peddling business. They are BOTH examples of what is WRONG with our government.

    Daschle is another wimpy “Democrat from a Red State”. More of them, and real Democrats might as well close up shop.

    I will never forgive him, either, for hugging the War Criminal Bush who ignored all the 9/11 warnings so he could get a cover reason to invade Iraq.

    The American People deserve better than Bush and Daschle.”

    There doesn’t seem to be anything so outrageous in the above post that would call for not allowing it to get posted.

    Perhaps there are patterns of censorship even among “the good guys (and gals)” that would be useful to make public to all. This would be in the spirit of whistle-blowing – creating a clearinghouse of verboten topics on a site by site basis. After all,it is possible the censorship is ocurring at the moderator level, and not at the site owner level.

    If they can’t stand the heat, let them get out of the Web Kitchen.

  17. Stephen says:

    How many whistleblowers have gone to the Wa Po and their stories have never seen the light of day but they were unemployed within a week?

  18. Mary says:

    OT but related – When WaPo published Daschle’s op ed in favor of Obama breaking his FISA filibuster promise, did they point out that Daschle’s Alston & Byrd firm was handling the ATT lobbying for telecom immunity?