Knowing that the recent whistleblower bill that moved through congress was a false gesture that doesn't include protection for security whistleblowers, I'm skeptical about bills going through now sponsored by Republicans. Anyone see anything wrong with this one? It looks like Republican Christopher Shays might be trying to push through a bill to try and limit the state secrets privilege invocation by the administration, by automatically awarding the lawsuit judgement to the whistleblower to the person filing the suit if the government tries to dismiss it with state secrets privilege. I'm thinking though that this won't serve to bring forth wrongdoing the whistleblower wants to expose and just rewards that person financially instead. Most whistleblowers want the problem to be exposed and aren't just motivated by financial gain. Add to that and if those in the government aren't held personally liable and the money used for the rewards comes from the government's coffers, it is the taxpayer's that's left with the bill for the actions of a wrongdoer that doesn't get exposed. Is that the way others read it here?
Hopefully this will help folks like Sibel Edmonds, but I'm not holding my breath, given that she's stated many times she's not looking for financial return in her legal actions, just her day in court and the ability to speak the truth on the stand.
From:
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3481/1/1?TopicID=1Shays Looks to Limit State Secrets Privilege
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) has introduced a bill to prevent the administration from abusing its all-powerful state secrets privilege. Based on the 1953 Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. United States, the state secrets privilege allows the executive branch to declare certain materials or topics completely exempt from disclosure or review by any body.
The state secrets privilege, rarely used by past presidents, has already been invoked 24 times by the Bush administration, more than any other administration over a six-year period, according to studies conducted by University of Texas-El Paso and the National Security Archive at George Washington University. In just five and a half years, the Bush administration has used this privilege almost half the number of times it was invoked between 1953 and 2001, when the combined use of 8 presidents -- Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the first Bush and Clinton - amounted to 55 claims of state secrets. While in the past the power was used to keep specific documents from disclosure, recently the privilege appears to be invoked to deflect lawsuits against the government. It is a trend that has many concerned, including Shays.
...
Essentially, in each of these cases the Department of Justice has used the state secrets privilege to shut down cases against the federal government, claiming that any discussion of the lawsuit's accusations would endanger national security. With a growing array of challenges to the government's handling of terror suspects and warrantless domestic wiretapping, target cases for this tactic are in far from short supply.
Shays believes that the state secrets provision has been used too frequently and with little public protection. In particular, he is concerned that whistleblower cases will continue to be rejected with the president employing the state secrets privilege. Accordingly, Shays has proposed language to the Executive Branch Reform Act of 2006 (H.R. 5112) that would limit the use of the state secrets privilege in blocking whistle-blowers' lawsuits. Specifically, the provision requires that courts rule in favor of a whistleblower claim if the government invokes the state secrets privilege to end the case. Basically, so long as an inspector general investigation supports the overall claim of the whistleblower and the government could no longer get a dismissal of the case by claiming state secrets privilege. Instead, under these provisions, the case would automatically be ruled in favor of the whistleblower without any public discussion of the details. In cases where no inspector general investigation has been conducted, the administration must explain to Congress why the use of the privilege is necessary and demonstrate that efforts have been made to settle the case amicably. The bill containing the Shays language was reported out of the House Government Reform Committee.
''If the very people you're suing are the ones who get to use the state secrets privilege, it's a stacked deck,'' said Shays, who has long been a proponent of limiting government secrecy.