National Security seems to act on the Congress like garlic on a vampire. Especially during a perceived or declared war or national threat, it has been the pattern of Congress to yield to the President’s claims with far too little questioning. This is understandable, as national threats and war require tighter secrecy and speedy reactions – which would be hampered by Congressional involvement and deliberation. It is also seen by Senators and Representatives as political jeopardy to become the target – as typically happens – of accusations from the President’s supporters of being “soft” or “endangering the nation.”
However, when there has already been cases of abuse, questionable use of the power and the extent of secrecy allowed the President and the Executive Branch, then such a passive and trusting approach becomes in and of itself a national security risk.

When the war is both formally undeclared and fought mainly against an enemy defined only by the President without any clear end, then it is more total surrender of Constitutional and statutory duty, than a genuine attempt to protect the nation.

One case where this has become very clear is the matter of federal whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers are those who “commit the truth” to their detriment and for the benefit of society. Their sacrifice for society often costs them their careers, skills, friends, families, wealth and sometimes their sanity.

Because the lack of oversight and insight into the doings of the Executive Branch, employees are often the only source of information about mistakes, flaws and abuses that violates laws, rights and national security.

“National Security whistleblowers are at even greater danger and with less protection than whistleblowers in other settings. At least in the non-national security setting the federal whistleblower has access to some process and may resort to publication, the news media, fully consult counsel, and access evidence relevant to his or her case. Nevertheless, National Security employees are ensconced in secrecy. They are hemmed in by security clearances and access, threats of criminal prosecution, and non-disclosure and pre-publication review agreements.”

Witness testimony at Administration Oversight, Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Hearing

While it might seem reasonable that people with access to information regarding intelligence, defense, national security etc should not be allowed to leak such information without restrictions, as it now stands, particularly in the realm of National Security, the Executive Branch has argued that it has exclusive control over classified information and that its employees may not provide this information to Congress without approval.

The President has claimed the right to determine how, when, and under what circumstances certain classified information should be disclosed to members of Congress even though Congress members have or can receive appropriate security clearance.

Someone giving information outside the chain of authority within the Executive Branch, for example by going to a member of Congress, can be punished severely – both formally and informally.

One argument often advanced in defense of this, is that the chain of authority is the instance most capable of correcting problems and thus should be the place to go for employees with information about them.

Nevertheless, this does not resolve the issue in cases in which an employee fears reprisals, or has reason to doubt that going up the chain of authority will actually lead to anything. In many cases, whistleblowers have discussed the problems in the actions of going to precisely the same people he or she would have been forced to go to.

In 2007, the House passed an act protecting federal whistleblowers and allow them to go to the appropriate Congress chairs, without facing the risk of reprisals. The need to gain insight into a branch which has blocked oversight, has engaged in many cases of suspected abuse and committed severe mistakes was emphasized as the main reasons. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007 was considered not just a protection of rights for federal employees, but a protection of Congress’ rights—the right to know the actions of the Executive Branch, to oversee implementation of law, and to fulfill its constitutional obligations as a separate and co-equal branch of government.

According to Sourcewatch President George W. Bush, citing National Security concerns, promised to veto the bill should Congress enact it into law. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved the Senate’s version of the Whistleblower Protection Act (S. 274) on June 13 2007. However, it has yet to reach a vote by Senate as a hold has been placed on the bill by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).

So Now What?
In the face of all this – what good is there to mention the doings and non-doings of Congress if it seems to be alternately actively or passively, intentionally or unintentionally, facilitating the “men with the plan” of a unitary executive?

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5