Dear Friends,

We are on the countdown. All coalition members are urged to attend. Please send this announcement everywhere!

NOW IS THE TIME!

See you in Washington!

Whistleblowers Announce Annual Washington Lobby Meeting May 11-18
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: James Murtagh, Co-Chair, IAW
Michael McCray, Esq. Co-Chair IAW (870) 543-0024
Email: jmurtag@mindspring. com, michael mccray

http://www.internat ionalassociation ofwhistleblowers .net/

40 Public Interest Organizations Announce Intense Lobbying for Whistleblower Rights Legislation May 11-18
(Washington, D.C.) - The International Association of Whistleblowers (IAW) and 40 national and international coalitions of good government, open government, and civil rights as well as hundreds of individual whistleblowers from across the globe announce an assembly at the Washington DC Capitol to be held May 11-18, 2008.

The week's events are designed to highlight the important work of whistleblowers - "truth-tellers" - who seek protections for people risking their lives and/or careers to expose those who abuse the public trust. Public interest watchdog coalitions view the week as an opportunity to build on the momentum created after the Senate approved S. 274, legislation to restore and strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) for federal government workers, and obtain bipartisan support and ultimately the adoption of Senate Bill 2041, the False Claims Act Corrections Act of 2007. Congressional passage of more than ten other bills that would serve to protect truth-tellers are pending in Congress.
"In an election, year, congressional votes represent a very significant breakthrough for whistleblower rights," stated Michael McCray, co-chair of the IAW. "With the exception of a few hold-outs in the White House, everyone agrees that government accountability is a good idea."

"We have not seen the promised land yet," added Dr. James Murtagh, IAW co-chair. "Every truth-teller in the nation must be protected- both in the private and public sectors. We must protect the public interest, especially when health, safety, environment, and democracy itself are at stake."
Tom Devine, Legal director of the Government Accountability Project (GAP), will be joined by James Holzrichter and Dr. Janet Chandler, the whistleblowers of the year. Mr. Holzrichter, who won one of the most important cases ever against a defense contractor, stated "A Whistleblower is not who I am it is what I did, who and what I am is First a husband, then a father, a grandfather and finally a man who has had the opportunity to meet and work with some remarkable people of integrity during my journey to get here." Dr. Janet Chandler (a Supreme Court Victor) agreed: "I believe that we as individuals and citizens can raise questions, voice concerns, step forward, create a conscience and make a difference."

IAW advisor Jeffrey Wigand (aka "The Insider") noted: "Whistle blowers emerge from all corporate entities as a direct result of the categorical imperative and virtue ethics, making a commitment to do whatever it takes to protect each individual and each citizen in a democracy."

"Whistleblowing is patriotic, and the people demand protection. This must be the critical issue of this election year" declared IAW secretary Betsy Combier. "We need clean hands in medicine," and as Martin Luther King said: "Of all the forms of injustice, discrimination in health care is the most cruel." Kevin McDonough added: "The benefits to the US Treasury and Tax Payers far exceeds the cost of having to listen to the warnings of Whistle Blowers."

When in private practice as a young lawyer, Barack Obama represented Dr. Janet Chandler, contributing to her pivotal supreme court whistleblower victory. The IAW has invited the presidential candidates to attend so that all three candidate may make clear whether they support protections for truth-tellers.

Speakers from last year's event included Steven Kohn of the National Whistleblower Center (NWBC), Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen, Reverend Walter Fauntroy, former congressman and Chairman of the No FEAR Institute. Senator Grassley was awarded a lifetime achievement award. Mr. Devine and Mr. Wigand jointly testified before Congressional chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and the House Subcommittee on Workforce.

On Monday May 12, 2008, the International Assembly of Whistleblowers will launch a series of panels beginning at 9:00 a.m. in the Senate office building. During the week, speakers include some of the best known whistleblowers in US history, including John Schillng, (one of the winners of the 1.7 Billion dollar Qui Tam suit against Hospital Corporation of America, HCA). Michael Behn, famed TAF attorney of the year, will be a key note speaker. Chairing panels are medical doctors who have stood up for integrity and for quality patient care; civil rights activist Matthew Fogg; Judicial reform activist Zena Crenshaw; and many well-known others.

Sessions will be open to the public. Jeff Condit, director of the VA Whistleblower Coaltion (VA-WBC) is hosting a booksigning and reception on Monday, May 12 at The Warehouse Theater 1017 7th Street NW (across from the Convention Center), and will feature entertainment by the guitar duo, David Johnson and Kevin McDonough, "The Senior Lifeguards." Other events open to the public include a Whistleblower Movie night, an Open Mike night, and a gala Integrity reception. Dr. Don Soeken, expert witness on more than 80 whistleblower cases, will host a retreat and other events.

The tentative agenda is posted at http://www.internat ionalassociation ofwhistleblowers .net/

We urge the public, the media and Congress to support these important events.

From TruthOut.Org


Lawmakers Seek Probe of Pentagon PR Program
By Andrew Miga
The Associated Press
Friday 02 May 2008

Forty-one House members are calling on the Defense Department inspector general to investigate a public relations effort that relied on retired military officers to defend the administration's Iraq war policies.
"When the Department of Defense misleads the American people by having them believe that they are listening to the views of objective military analysts when in fact these individuals are simply replaying DoD talking points, the department is clearly betraying the public trust," the lawmakers wrote in a joint letter to Defense Department Inspector General Claude M. Kicklighter on Friday.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who organized the letter, said it was important for the inspector general to find out how high-ranking officials within the Pentagon were allowed to operate a program aimed at deceiving the American people.
"Not only must the Inspector General now account for what it did and did not know about this state-sponsored propaganda effort, but they must also explain why, if they knew about the propaganda campaign, it was allowed to proceed," DeLauro said. "Additionally, we are calling for the Inspector General to launch an investigation to ensure no detail surrounding this program remains hidden."
Retired officers who acted as military analysts for major news outlets were given plum access to the Pentagon, with regular briefings by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a sponsored trip to the Guant‡namo Bay military prison in Cuba.
The lawmakers are seeking information on whether the inspector general investigated the program or senior officials involved in the program. The House members also want to know if the inspector general considers the program to be illegal.
The operation, which has been halted, was first reported by The New York Times.

*****************************
Pentagon halts feeding of information to retired officers while issue is reviewed
By Jeff Schogol, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Saturday, April 26, 2008
ARLINGTON, Va. - The Defense Department has temporarily stopped feeding information to retired military officers pending a review of the issue, said Robert Hastings, principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for public affairs.
The New York Times first reported on Sunday that the Defense Department was giving information to retired officers serving as pundits for various media organizations in order to garner favorable media coverage.
Some of these retired officers saw their access to key decision-makers as possible business opportunities for the defense contractors they represent, according to the newspaper. The story also alleged that the officers who did not repeat the Bush administration's official line were denied further access to information.
Hastings said he is concerned about allegations that the Defense Department's relationship with the retired military analysts was improper.
"Following the allegations, the story that is printed in the New York Times, I directed my staff to halt, to suspend the activities that may be ongoing with retired military analysts to give me time to review the situation," Hastings said in an interview with Stripes on Friday.
Hastings said he did not discuss the matter with Defense Secretary Robert Gates prior to making his decision. He could not say Friday how long this review might take.
"We'll take the time to do it right," he said.
On Thursday, U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said in a speech that he was angered by the allegations raised in the New York Times' story.
"There is nothing inherently wrong with providing information to the public and the press," Skelton said. "But there is a problem if the Pentagon is providing special access to retired officers and then basically using them as pawns to spout the administration's talking points of the day."
Skelton, who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was also disturbed by the ties between the military officers and defense firms.
"It hurts me to my core to think that there are those from the ranks of our retired officers who have decided to cash in and essentially prostitute themselves on the basis of their previous positions within the Department of Defense," he said.
Hastings, who had not seen Skelton's remarks before Friday's interview, said he is unaware of the Defense Department's past activities with retired military analysts. He took over his current post in March.
"I need a little time to kind of digest that and figure out what the path forward is," he said.

Republicans Crossing Over to Vote in Democratic Contests
By Larry Rohter
The New York Times
Saturday 03 May 2008
Indianapolis - Until now, Shirley Morgan had always been the kind of voter the Republican Party thought it could count on. She comes from a family of staunch Republicans, has a son in the military and has supported Republican presidential candidates ever since she cast her first ballot, for Richard M. Nixon in 1972.
But this year Mrs. Morgan exemplifies a different breed: the Republican crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary. Not only will she mark her ballot for Senator Barack Obama in the May 6 primary here, but she has also been canvassing for him in the heavily Republican suburbs of Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis - the first time she has ever actively campaigned for a candidate.
"I used to like John McCain, but he's aligning himself too closely with what Bush did, and that's just not what I want for this country," Mrs. Morgan, who is 56, said when asked to explain her rejection of the presumptive Republican nominee.
Since the start of the primary and caucus season in January, Republican voters have been crossing over in increasing numbers to vote in Democratic contests - supplying up to 10 percent of the vote in states that allow such crossover voting - and they are expected to play a pivotal role in the fiercely contested primary here. What is less clear, however, is the motivation for their behavior: are they genuinely attracted by the two Democratic candidates? Or are they mischief-making spoilers, looking to prolong a divisive Democratic fight or support a candidate Mr. McCain can beat in November?
Local Republican Party leaders in Indiana concede the attraction of the Democratic candidates to some of their party members. And interviews with roughly a dozen Republican voters in central Indiana suggest that they are driven mainly by concerns about the economy, with discontent over Bush administration policies driving their involvement in the Democratic race.
"Much as I like John McCain as a war hero, I am fearful he does not have the depth of experience to fix the economy," said Darlene Boatman, 62, a just-retired sales clerk who favors Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. "We're all struggling here to make ends meet. I haven't had health care coverage in about 10 years and jobs are fewer and farther between. The economy is my biggest concern, and I think Hillary has the best understanding of how to pull off the recovery we need."
The drift has given some comfort to Democrats worried about the searing divisions in their party. Surveys of voters leaving the polls and official vote tabulations indicate that both Mr. Obama, of Illinois, and Mrs. Clinton, of New York, have benefited from the Republican crossover vote, though to different degrees and in patterns that vary by state.
Initially, Mr. Obama seemed to be getting the bulk of the vote, attracting moderate Republicans who quickly came to be known as Obamacans and lacing his stump speech with references to them. But more recently, Mrs. Clinton's share of the crossover vote has grown.
In Wisconsin's Feb. 19 contest, for example, Mr. Obama got about three-quarters of the votes cast by those identifying themselves as Republicans. In Texas' March 4 primary, though, he and Mrs. Clinton split the Republican vote almost evenly, while in Mississippi on March 11, she outpolled him among Republicans by a three-to-one margin.
Even some states without open primaries seem to have experienced crossover voting. In the Pennsylvania vote on April 22, voter surveys indicated that about 5 percent of those voting in the Democratic primary were Republicans who switched their party registration; they split their vote almost evenly between the two candidates.
Here in Indiana, both Democratic candidates are sending surrogates to campaign in traditionally Republican areas they might have ignored in years past, including in Hamilton County, Indiana's fastest-growing and most affluent county.
"We're getting a lot of inquiries from Republicans asking how do you do it, how do you cross over," Dan Parker, the Democratic Party state chairman, said in an interview here. "It's been our No. 1 request for the past two months."
Clouding the picture, however, is a campaign by Rush Limbaugh, the radio talk show host, urging his listeners to cast their ballots for Mrs. Clinton "if they can stomach it," in order to prolong the Democratic race and weaken the eventual winner.
"They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now," Mr. Limbaugh said in an interview with Fox News just before the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4. "It's fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."
But Republican voters interviewed here said that Mr. Limbaugh was not a factor in their decision to vote in the Democratic primary, and that it was the issues that propelled them.
"I disagree with the Democrats on things like abortion and immigration, but I feel that the Republican Party I grew up in is out of touch with the middle-class family," said Dave Nichols, 40, the owner of a small memorabilia business in Fort Wayne, who has heard of Mr. Limbaugh's effort and is supporting Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Nichols said he had no health insurance and lived on a block where three houses were in foreclosure. "McCain doesn't have an economic plan," he said "We're in a recession and need relief now, but he wants to keep spending all that money over there in Iraq when there are so many things we need here at home, from infrastructure to health care."
Republican officials like Murray Clark, the state party chairman in Indiana, say that the extent of the crossover phenomenon has been "greatly exaggerated" and that in any case it does not serve the party's interests, because it draws potential Republican voters away from deciding other, more local races.
Mr. Clark acknowledged what he called "heightened interest" in the Democratic primary, but argued that Republican-leaning independents, rather than "reliable and consistently Republican voters," accounted for the bulk of the shift.
"It's probably a stretch to call it a crossover vote," Mr. Clark said. "This is a unique situation. The circus is in town, and people want to go. This provides them an opportunity. But when the circus leaves town, we'll have six months of opportunities to contrast their candidate with ours."
Indeed, some of the crossover Republicans here who back Mr. Obama said they would vote for Mr. McCain in November if Mrs. Clinton ends up getting the Democratic nomination, while some of those supporting Mrs. Clinton said the same of Mr. Obama. But others said they simply could not imagine gravitating back to the Republican camp in this election.
"I would probably not vote, or maybe look at a third party," said Becky Kapsalis, who lives in Carmel, Ind., and describes herself as "a 70-year-old white woman for Barack Obama."
"I respect McCain for what he's done, his patriotism and devotion," Ms. Kapsalis said, "but I just don't think he has the heart to lead us, and he doesn't speak to my heart the way this Barack Obama man does."
-------
Go to Original
Convention Preparations Prompt Suit by ACLU
By Kirk Johnson
The New York Times
Saturday 03 May 2008
Denver - Groups planning parades or protests at the Democratic National Convention filed a lawsuit here on Friday charging that the Secret Service and the City of Denver are threatening free speech - not because of tight security rules, but by the very lack of them.
The suit, filed in Federal District Court, says that delays in establishing legal parade routes, and unanswered questions about security arrangements around the convention center, are undermining efforts to plan for events when Democrats gather here from Aug. 25 to 28.
Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, which is representing 12 groups in the lawsuit, said they had no choice but to turn to the court. With just four months until the convention, the groups want a judge to speed the scheduling and the issuing of rules governing activities outside the Pepsi Center.
At the Democratic convention in Boston in 2004, First Amendment challenges could not be addressed by judges, Mr. Silverstein said, because security measures were announced too late.
"In Boston, the trial court and the court of appeals said there was not enough time for full evaluation and not enough time to carry out any orders the courts might issue," Mr. Silverstein said. "For that reason, we are filing now and asking the court to place this case on a top-priority schedule."
Specifically, the suit asks the court to order the Secret Service to immediately provide information to the city that will allow Denver officials to begin considering permit requests for parades and specifying a "demonstration zone" near the convention center. The suit also asks the court to review those regulations for violations of free speech protection.
A spokesman for the Secret Service, Ed Donovan, declined to comment on the suit or the agency's timetable for communicating with the city on security rules.
The attorney for the City of Denver, David Fine, said in a statement that the city was not trying to thwart free speech.
"No one has been denied the right to protest," Mr. Fine said. "In fact, you will see a vigorous exercise of free speech during the convention in many ways and in many places. That being said, we will review the plaintiffs' papers and respond as necessary."
The groups suing include several that plan to draw attention to various issues and causes, like the Troops Out Now Coalition, which opposes the war in Iraq. Another group, Citizens for Obama, wants to march on behalf of a favored presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
One member of the lawsuit coalition, Glenn Spagnuolo, from a group called Recreate 68, which is planning multiple demonstrations on issues including health care and the war, said at a news conference that he thought the delays had been deliberate.
Every passing week of uncertainty, Mr. Spagnuolo said, hobbles the efforts to recruit people to come to Denver and speak their minds.
"If they announce it very close to August that, yes, you will have your permits, these groups are now shut out of hotels, shut out of flights, buses are booked to come to Denver and it's impossible for them to logistically come here and exercise their First Amendment right," Mr. Spagnuolo said. "In our opinion, it's a planned tactic."
The suit itself does not make that claim.
Mr. Silverstein said, "We have to take the city at its word that it doesn't have enough information from the Secret Service to process the permits, and that's why we're asking the court to get the two parties together."
-------

From Government Accountability Project: http://www.whistleblower.org/template/index.cfm

Lawsuit Details Security Company's Shortcomings at U.S. Embassy in Kabul
Former Program Managers for Private Security Company ArmorGroup Detail their 2007 Fight to Ensure Adequate Protection
Last week, GAP and a private law firm filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two program managers who worked for the private security company ArmorGroup. That company was responsible for ensuring security for the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. The managers were fired in June 2007 for raising concerns about the integrity of the security program and for disclosing those concerns to the State Department.
Our clients have not been given detailed information by the State Department as to whether corrections to the problems they reported have been made.
The lawsuit was filed against ArmorGroup North America (AGNA) and its parent company, ArmorGroup International (AGI) of Britain. AGI is an international private security company that provides protection for government facilities, institutions and personnel around the world. The lawsuit alleges that AGNA won the security contract by significantly overstating its capabilities, and overall put profit concerns ahead of the security needs of the Embassy and its personnel.
Click here for the ABCNews.com article detailing the lawsuit
Click here for a copy of the lawsuit

Just Between Us
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Wednesday 30 April 2008
Telecoms and the Bush administration talked about how to keep their surveillance program under wraps.
The Bush administration is refusing to disclose internal e-mails, letters and notes showing contacts with major telecommunications companies over how to persuade Congress to back a controversial surveillance bill, according to recently disclosed court documents.
The existence of these documents surfaced only in recent days as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by a privacy group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The foundation (alerted to the issue in part by a NEWSWEEK story last fall) is seeking information about communications among administration officials, Congress and a battery of politically well-connected lawyers and lobbyists hired by such big telecom carriers as AT&T and Verizon. Court papers recently filed by government lawyers in the case confirm for the first time that since last fall unnamed representatives of the telecoms phoned and e-mailed administration officials to talk about ways to block more than 40 civil suits accusing the companies of privacy violations because of their participation in a secret post-9/11 surveillance program ordered by the White House.
At the time, the White House was proposing a surveillance bill - strongly backed by the telecoms - that included a sweeping provision that would grant them retroactive immunity from any lawsuits accusing the companies of wrongdoing related to the surveillance program.
Although a version of this proposal has passed the Senate, it has so far been blocked in the House by Democrats who are demanding greater public disclosure about the scope of the administration's post-9/11 surveillance of individuals inside the United States. Negotiations between House Democrats, the Senate and administration representatives over a possible compromise have made little progress so far. Capitol Hill officials now say Congress may not get around to final action on new surveillance legislation until right before a one-year temporary law expires in August - right before the presidential nominating conventions.
The recent responses in the Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit provide no new information about the administration's controversial post-9/11 electronic surveillance program itself, but they do shed some light on the degree of anxiety within the telecom industry over the litigation generated by the carriers' participation in the secret spying. One court declaration, for example, confirms the existence of notes showing that a telecom representative called an Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) lawyer last fall to talk about "various options" to block the lawsuits, including "such options as court orders and legislation." Another declaration refers to a letter and "four fax cover sheets" exchanged between the telecoms and ODNI over the surveillance matter. Yet another discloses e-mails in which lawyers for the telecoms and the Justice Department "seek or discuss recommendations on legislative strategy."
The declarations were filed in court by government lawyers only after U.S. Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco, who is overseeing the case, ordered them to fully process the Electronic Frontier Foundation's FOIA request for documents showing lobbying contacts by the telecoms. The government initially resisted even responding to the FOIA request, but White found that disclosure was in the public interest because it "may enable the public to participate meaningfully in the debate over" the pending surveillance legislation.
But while complying with the judge's order to confirm the existence of some documents, administration officials have told the judge they cannot actually disclose the documents themselves, in part because to do so would undermine national security. Even to confirm the identity of any of the carriers with whom administration officials have discussed the surveillance issue would implicitly identify the carriers that participated in the program and therefore "would provide our adversaries with a road map" that would help them thwart surveillance against them, according to a court declaration filed by Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess, director of the ODNI's intelligence staff.
Spokesmen for the Justice Department and ODNI today declined comment to NEWSWEEK on the grounds that neither agency will talk about pending litigation.
The revelation of the existence of the documents comes at a time when Congress is bracing for what is expected to be a grueling summerlong debate over the surveillance measure. Administration officials say that unless Congress acts by this summer, existing court orders permitting surveillance of suspected overseas terrorists will expire, threatening the U.S. government's ability to keep track of potential plots against the homeland. If new legislation is not enacted before the current stop-gap law expires, Republicans may try to use this as an election issue against Democrats.
The debate over a new surveillance authorization is likely to be complicated by figures showing sharp increases in the government's electronic eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. One report filed with the office of the administrator of the U.S. Courts shows that standard wiretaps approved by federal and state courts jumped 20 percent last year, from 1,839 in 2006 to 2,208 in 2007. Later this week another report is expected to also show increases in secret wiretaps and break-ins approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in terror and espionage cases. But even these secret wiretaps and break-ins - estimated to be about 2,300 - tell only part of the story. They don't include other secret methods the government uses to collect personal information on U.S. citizens.