YETMO

“Is Anybody Talking?"(June 19 – 23, 2006)

All things considered, this site gets its fair share of comments from readers.

It’s not easy for people to talk about the issues we’re trying to address in the cyber confides of “The Forum.”

Why?

People are fearful. Fearful of losing their jobs, being disciplined, feeling like a traitor, airing their agency’s dirty laundry in public, and using an unsecured communication mechanism: e-mail on the Internet.

Look at what I received from a person who wishes to remain anonymous:

“I don't comment on situations like those printed in the Washington Post. In the process of showing how clever they are, they divulge names that don't need to be published, and do not benefit readers like you and me to know, or any other readers. So, are we sharing constructive information, or fueling the fire for the terrorists? Email is NOT secure, so I'll keep my opinions to myself.”

This observation referred to a Chicago Tribune article, which noted that simple Internet searches were able to “out” CIA agents.

This reminds me of the World War II rejoinder: “Loose lips sink ships.” It appears as though so-called ‘clever’ e-mails may unwittingly do the same.

Prior to my last government position at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), which has both feet planted firmly in the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community worlds, I was skeptical about national security considerations. Oftentimes, I thought that such claims were bunk and that those making them might be hiding behind that imperious smokescreen. I know now that national security is NOT bunk, but we remain vulnerable to those inside our government who fail to accurately and honestly gauge true national security matters, i.e., protecting employees who are at serious daily risk in performing their jobs.

For good or ill, our country is no longer as willing to just “trust us,” as many bureaucrats and politicians request when dealing with dangerous and sensitive operations. Thus, many of us want to know that all factors are being openly and fully aired before life-threatening (or saving) decisions are made and actions are taken.

Reader concerns, such as the one listed above, are not inconsequential matters. While no one relishes or welcomes boorish and crude people, our government needs mindful and respectful employees to respectfully discuss important issues affecting its operations. Without this, how can we be assured of the most effective and efficient government possible?

Yet, the courts aren’t helping.

I’m not the smartest person, but I’m not the dumbest. And while I’m no lawyer, it does get tricky when the U.S. Supreme Court rules a few weeks ago that the federal government can discipline employees for inopportune remarks (NY Times had opinion on this), without abridging First Amendment rights, yet ruled yesterday (see today’s Washington Post article) that retaliation against employee complaints won’t be tolerated.

This draws a fine line to me, although, I repeat, I’m not the smartest and I’m no lawyer. If federal employees express opinions on-the-job, which their management deems inappropriate and subsequently takes appropriate disciplinary action, no harm or foul is committed, except to the employee, of course. But isn’t such discipline a form of retaliation, which the Supreme Court yesterday said was a no-no?

I think the answer is as simple as the Court believing that First Amendment safeguards are not needed because existing whistleblower statutes more than adequately protect government employees. Even so, doesn’t this have a chilling effect on employees, not knowing exactly what can be said to whom, when, and how?

I invite readers to sort this out. I’m confused, which in itself, is not noteworthy; however, many of you may be, too, which would be more noteworthy.