A blow to the rights of whistleblowers

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5034100.stm

Note that the swing votes came from Bush's new appointees.

I'm really starting to get the picture that this sort of thing is only going to get worse as long as the Bush administration is in power....

 

[evearael]

That is not a good thing at all.

 

[Pah]

If the case was only decided on the basis of First Amendment freedoms, if that was the only constitutional claim advanced by the plaintiff (the lawyer), I can see why he lost the case. Freedom of speech has limits. Government procedings and classified documents are not subject to free disclosure in every instance. I would imagine that prosecuters office would term stategy a "non-disclosureable" item.

Most "whistle blowing" is done before congressional commitee but in this case that would be an improper intrusion into the Judicial Branch. Congress can by stipulation monitor the Executive Branch but not the courts.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15920 gives more details about the case than the OP reference. This cite talks about a civil service complaint that apparently wasn't filed. I'm also fairly sure that State bar committees would have heard the case. It appears that if the prosecutor had followed the due process available there may have been a different outcome.

I would be interested in what the memo said for if it had contained a specification of public concern, he may have been had protection for his action as well. It is important, very important, to follow procedures.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Being a keen advocate of conspiracy theory, I would conjecture that this is an effort of the US Government to ensure many of the 9/11 truth will never be made known to the general public.
On the other hand, it is also showing US double standard of claiming to help to establish a democracy in Iraq, but at home, it is moving towards the 1984 big brother.

 

[c0da]

Not particularly good news, theres much worse people who they could choose not to protect under the free speech rules.


(1)

 

[michel]

If the case was only decided on the basis of First Amendment freedoms, if that was the only constitutional claim advanced by the plaintiff (the lawyer), I can see why he lost the case. Freedom of speech has limits. Government procedings and classified documents are not subject to free disclosure in every instance. I would imagine that prosecuters office would term stategy a "non-disclosureable" item.

Most "whistle blowing" is done before congressional commitee but in this case that would be an improper intrusion into the Judicial Branch. Congress can by stipulation monitor the Executive Branch but not the courts.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15920 gives more details about the case than the OP reference. This cite talks about a civil service complaint that apparently wasn't filed. I'm also fairly sure that State bar committees would have heard the case. It appears that if the prosecutor had followed the due process available there may have been a different outcome.

I would be interested in what the memo said for if it had contained a specification of public concern, he may have been had protection for his action as well. It is important, very important, to follow procedures.

The trouble with a ystem designed to protect the victim and his rights, is that more often than not, it is the innocent who are caught in the net.