HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » White House Objects To Wh...

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:04 PM

White House Objects To Whistleblower Protections In NDAA, Surprising Key Backer


WASHINGTON -- The White House did not inform a key Senate backer of whistleblower protections ahead of time that President Barack Obama would issue a signing statement circumventing those provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, according to the senator's office.

The protections for federal government contractors had been pushed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) during the drafting of the NDAA over the last several months. After Obama signed the bill into law on Wednesday, he issued a signing statement objecting to those sections without having alerted McCaskill, her office told The Huffington Post.

The signing statement is yet another chapter in the president's ongoing clash with whistleblower advocates. Obama, who has come under fire for his administration's aggressive prosecution of leak cases, issued the statement despite the fact that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had already removed from the bill protections for contractors working in the intelligence community.

The whistleblower language backed by McCaskill and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was designed to extend protections to 12 million employees of federal contractors if they disclosed information they reasonably believed would expose illegality, gross waste or gross mismanagement within the federal procurement system. The nonprofit Government Accountability Project, which lobbied for the measures, said they would apply to Defense Department contractors, subcontractors and grant recipients permanently and to all civilian federal agency contractors under a four-year pilot program. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/obama-whistleblower-protections-claire-mccaskill_n_2403248.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009



9 replies, 1101 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply White House Objects To Whistleblower Protections In NDAA, Surprising Key Backer (Original post)
marmar Jan 2013 OP
elehhhhna Jan 2013 #1
Vattel Jan 2013 #2
ProSense Jan 2013 #3
enlightenment Jan 2013 #4
ProSense Jan 2013 #5
enlightenment Jan 2013 #6
forestpath Jan 2013 #7
LineNew Reply ^
Wilms Jan 2013 #8
think Jan 2013 #9

Response to marmar (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:09 PM

1. wtf, President O? wtf?


Holder too busy busting potsmokers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:11 PM

2. I don't want a fucking king. I want a president severely restricted by consititutional rights

and both congressional regulation and judicial oversight. Like Bush, he claims the powers of a king when it comes to national security. Fuck that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:13 PM

3. This article is bullshit. The signing

statement was typical interpretation. From the article:

But Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, said the language of Obama's objections could have been much worse.

"The president's expressions of concerns were a milquetoast version of traditional Pentagon fretting about whistleblowers," Devine told HuffPost. "We all considered them so muted that it was almost like tacit support for making those rights, expanding those rights."

In contrast to McCaskill's office, Devine said he was aware of the White House's issues with the whistleblower provisions before Obama issued the signing statement. A White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment, while a spokeswoman for Levin said the senator had no statement on the matter.

"What we've seen is President Obama prosecuting more aggressively than his predecessors on leaks," Devine said. "At the same time, though, he's provided unprecedented support for free speech rights overall within the executive branch."


President Signs Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021890422

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:27 PM

4. Could have been worse.

Odd that is the best we can expect from our Democratic President - that the things that happen under his watch (and by his hand) "could have been worse."

Faint praise, that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enlightenment (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:52 PM

5. Funny,

"could have been worse."

...that's not in quotes. That's pure editorializing. What is in quotes:

"The president's expressions of concerns were a milquetoast version of traditional Pentagon fretting about whistleblowers," Devine told HuffPost. "We all considered them so muted that it was almost like tacit support for making those rights, expanding those rights."


"What we've seen is President Obama prosecuting more aggressively than his predecessors on leaks," Devine said. "At the same time, though, he's provided unprecedented support for free speech rights overall within the executive branch."


And again, the President just signed into law protections that have been sought for more than a decade:

President Signs Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021890422

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:33 PM

6. You're trying too hard, ProSense,

when you have to scratch for that level of denial. You're the one who posted the comments, after all. If you thought that sentence was "pure editorializing" you should have left it out. Like you did this time.

Keep on plugging away, though. It's cute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:35 PM

7. Disgusting but not surprising anymore.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:51 AM

8. ^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:55 AM

9. Well, that's depressing.... /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread