-Caveat Lector-
Saturday, October 14, 2000
Goodbye unlimited access
By Gary Aldrich
I was an FBI special agent in the Clinton White House and in an
extraordinary position to both observe and document a dangerous
and sweeping national security collapse that was occurring right
under my nose. The "system" seemed disinterested in doing
anything about it.
Out of sheer frustration, I finally decided to "blow the whistle"
on the high-level political corruption I witnessed because I
realized the liberal mainstream media never intended to
accurately report what Clinton and his staff was doing and the
Congress seemed powerless to stop the damage.
If the U.S. Senate gets its way, it's unlikely any future federal
employees will take the chance that I did. I've already notified
key House Republicans that if such a law had been in place in
1995, I wouldn't have written "Unlimited Access," my first-hand
account about guarding the Clintons at the White House. Why?
It's the risk of doing hard time in the federal penitentiary,
stupid!
In an Oct. 10th Washington Times editorial -- and echoed in the
next day's Washington Post -- it was disclosed that, "Congress
will vote this week on legislation to criminalize whistle-blowing
by government employees. If approved, this legislation would
severely curtail the public's access to information which is
embarrassing to government officials and important for Americans
to know."
The Times' editorial goes on to point out that the provision,
hidden deep within the Senate Intelligence Authorization Act of
2001, provides that government officials could face up to three
years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000 for leaking classified
information.
I can't say I've ever seen an issue that's brought both
Washington newspapers into agreement at the same time.
Conservatives are linking arms with the ACLU and these political
odd-fellows are working fast and hard to fend off a major assault
on the First Amendment.
Members of Congressman Bob Barr's staff have advised me that his
office is indeed working with the American Civil Liberties Union
to defeat this measure but they're concerned it may be too late.
It's also reported that House Judicial Chairman Henry Hyde, R.
Ill., has joined with Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., in a rare
display of unity on the issue. They say that the anti-whistle
blower provision "has profound First Amendment implications."
My view, based on my first-hand experience, is that the biggest
problem with this law is the government gets to decide what's
"classified" and can open criminal investigations on the mere
suspicion that something may be -- or may have come from
something -- that's "classified."
Having worked for the FBI for 26 years, I can testify that there
are many FBI executives who operate as if everything is
classified. The FBI has a history of making life miserable for
any employee who chooses to surface wrongdoing "outside the
loop." The FBI is not alone in this group-think approach to the
issue of employee revelations to outsiders. Washington papers
have documented dozens and dozens of whistle-blower retaliations
by angry federal agency managers.
Can't you just see corrupt politicians like Bill and Hillary
Clinton, clapping their hands in glee, realizing what a great new
weapon the U.S. Senate is willing to give them? One can only
wonder what our Senate was thinking. This law -- if passed -- can
be used to hammer people, like me, who feel compelled to honor
our oaths to the Constitution and tell the truth!
And if this president signs this ridiculous provision into law,
we might as well call it, "Bill and Hillary's revenge." Revenge
against the federal employees who resisted their assaults on our
laws as well trying to highlight their loopy notions of how not
to protect our national security.
How interested are Bill and Hillary and Al Gore in getting to the
bottom of any recent White House scandals? Well, they displayed
true allegiance -- not to the Constitution -- but to their own
unbridled political and personal ambitions in that infamous
trumped-up criminal investigation of former director of the White
House Travel Office, Billy Dale.
In Dale's case, they did not allow the risk of sending an honest
man to prison to stand in the way of their selfish political
plans. The Dale case taught us many things. For example, just how
little protection federal law enforcement agencies have against
misuse by crooked politicians.
Where is the evidence that immoral politicians are no longer
misusing federal enforcement agency resources? As I recall, the
U.S. Senate had significant interest in the Dale case. Where's
the evidence that the White House will not strike again -- or
that this time the FBI will refuse to be an instrument of that
abuse?
Where's the new federal law that makes it a felony for high FBI
officials to allow themselves to be used in politically inspired
frame-ups?
Where's the new federal law that sends to jail any IRS employees
who abuse power by auditing a president's enemies? And, will
Secret Service agents now be forced to report felonies committed
in their presence by a corrupted president, his spouse, or their
employees? The Supreme Court says that a Secret Service agent
should testify but where's the new federal law that requires it?
The Republican controlled U.S. Senate has not begun to address
these serious concerns. However, it now seems they have time to
make it even more difficult to surface serious wrongdoing in the
executive branch. This is an odd use of precious legislative time
since several good laws on the books already give security
officials the tools that allow them to investigate and punish
those who give away our greatest national treasures.
According to the Washington Times, "Government employees would
clearly be less inclined to leak classified documents to
reporters if threatened with jail time. The legislation further
infringes on the First Amendment right to free expression."
Is the Washington Times expressing a real concern? In David
Schippers' new book "Sellout," as former Chief Investigative
Counsel to a House impeachment investigation, Mr. Schippers
relates how he and his staff learned first hand why whistle
blowers do not come forward -- and sometimes even lie under oath.
Schippers found out they remain silent or even lie to protect
themselves!
Consider this passage from Schipper's book reporting an interview
with Kathleen Willey concerning the abusive treatment she
received at the hands of the most powerful man in the world: "She
was frightened and convinced that if she testified she would be
indicted by Janet Reno's Justice Department. She had seen how
Billy Dale of the White House Travel Office had actually been
indicted and tried for crimes he had not committed, reportedly
because he had gotten in the way of the Clinton administration"
(pg. 116).
Willey's logic is sound. Just ask Linda Tripp how high-level
whistle blowers fare when they take on the power.
Another woman who was reportedly raped by a young Mr. Clinton has
claimed she lied under oath about it so that she would not
receive more punishment from the Clinton "Mafia."
The same U.S. Senate that stands accused by Mr. Schippers as
selling out the Constitution and U.S. citizens in return for
political cover -- by refusing to remove President Bill Clinton
-- now has passed a law that, if approved by the House and sent
to be signed, will make it nearly impossible to get at the truth
about the Clintons, or any future corrupt administrations.
I have stated to Congressman Barr in no uncertain terms that if
this Senate law had been on the books in 1995 when I considered
writing my now vindicated book, "Unlimited Access," my book would
never have been written. Would I then turn to a friendly
journalist? The answer is no.
Who would face a lengthy, expensive criminal investigation -- and
hard time -- putting their life in the hands of a journalist in
the current climate of hostility toward government whistle
blowers? Many in the media and, sadly, too many in our population
at large, treat whistle blowers with the same respect that the
Mafia gives to people like Sammy "The Bull" Gravano.
Why doesn't the Senate just send a dead fish wrapped in a
newspaper to each federal employee? The negative impact on the
surfacing of truth would be about the same and we would not be
tying up a virtual army of FBI agents who would have to be
deployed to investigate these pesky leakers.
Isn't it already tough enough to be a whistle blower? Just ask
Linda Tripp.
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
