Every so often, I read something on the Post op-ed page that literally makes me spit out my morning coffee. Usually, however, those articles consist of statements like Broder's "Bush is poised for a comeback," or "Roosevelt caused great depression". Usually, however, they don't show up under the newspaper's op/ed masthead.
Today, we have a shorter Fred Hiatt:: OMG NO WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!
Today, the influential liberal/freedom tickle supporter
Fred Hiatt has topped himself. Let's examine the premises underneath each one. First, there's the "Oh my god what is [provision x] that has nothing to do with [subject of the bill] doing in this gigantic omnibus legilsation?" Pass the smelling salts. But then we have this:
House members attached an amendment to their version of the stimulus package that would broaden protections against retaliation for federal workers who expose wrongdoing, waste or fraud. 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.
Yes. That's what whistleblowing is. And the Congressional oversight committees are, um, BOUND by confidentiality obligations. All staff and members have security clearances. So what is the difference? It does not mean that the member will run to the floor of the House and introduce a statement into the record. It continues:
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.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but bull. fucking. shit. What created the CIA? Legislation. Where, exactly, does the executive get the power to punish people for breaches of confidentiality obligations? From laws passed by Congress. It has no inherent authority to punish anyone. Unless, of course, you've been reading too many John Yoo memos.
Since the Post never links to nor discusses what the legislation actually says or does (we're just supposed to take it on faith that this is the WORST THING EVER), the reader is left to take the author's suppositions on faith. And there may well be good policy reasons why the specific bill as drafted is unworkable or unwise. The Post elected to wrap those points in such a huge veneer of intellectual dishonesty and scare tactics that I doubt the legislation is anywhere near as bad as they say.
And no, I'm not taking it on faith. Been there. Done that. No thank you.
PS: If anyone reads this and knows where a link to the whistleblower portion is, please stick in the comments. I don't like it when my hometown paper shovels that much bullshit.
The national security provisions are about halfway down. What Hiatt wrote was complete, unadulterated nonsense.
