Skip navigation

Daily Archives: September 4th, 2009

Comment: I should point out that Linux works fine with iPods and video chat. Skype 2.0 – which is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux – works perfectly with video chat. Pidgin supports video chat on many of the IM protocols which are supported by Pidgin. iTunes replacements such as Rhythmbox and Amarok work perfectly with iPods. I have personally used Rhythmbox to sync to an iPod. And Transgaming Cedega and newer versions of Wine and Codeweavers’ Crossover Games will play World of Warcraft with no problems. So don’t believe the corporate disinformation from Redmond and the Madison Ave. advertising executives. Linux does everything Microsoft does…except get infected on a routine basis by trojans and spyware and adware and viruses.

————————————————————————-

M$’s Anti-Linux Training at Best Buy.
Submitted by twitter on Friday September 04, @10:15AM

twitter writes “Best Buy is one of the few national computer retailers that has survived Vista and the recession. Here’s how Microsoft is training their employees. It’s like a throwback from the badly discredited “Get the Facts” campaign.

I work at Best Buy (insert boos and hisses) and I was doing some Microsoft ExpertZone training. … during my training modules, a “Linux vs Windows 7″ module appeared. Here are screenshots of the lies Microsoft is portraying.

Okay so here’s where it starts getting bad. [bogus claims that gnu/linux won't work your ipod, do video chat, play World of Warcraft and so on]

If you have been paying attention, you know that the first slide is a lie. Windows 7 won’t provide familiarity, choice, compatibility, or peace of mind, really. Windows 7 is a service pack for Vista that comes at a cost to your freedom and privacy. Best Buy is in for a world of hurt if they believe what Microsoft is telling them.”

Link To Original Source

———————————————————-

Here are some of the screenshots in question.

Here are some of the screenshots in question.

What Will Happen When the Senate Votes on Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection? http://www.whistleblowers.org/

The Senate is expected to act on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (S. 372) in September.  The NWC is extremely concerned that this bill, although overall progressive legislation, has a number of provisions which if enacted would harm whistleblowers. The NWC is urging the Senate to fix these provisions and pass a bill that is consistent with the protections in the House version of the bill (H.R. 1507), which guarantees full access to juries for all federal employees and effective protections for national security whistleblowers.

To fully explain the weaknesses in the Senate bill the NWC is publishing a twelve part blog series entitled
“What’s Wrong With the Senate Whistleblower Bill?” here: http://www.whistleblowersblog.org/tags/whats-wrong-with-the-senate-bi/
In addition, NWC General Counsel David K. Colapinto wrote a legal analysis can be found here:
http://www.whistleblowers.org/storage/whistleblowers/documents/whatsinthesenatemarkupbillfinal.pdf

———————————————

What’s Wrong With The Senate Whistleblower Bill?
Posted on August 27, 2009 by Stephen Kohn
On July 29, 2009 the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously reported out of committee S. 372, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.
Unfortunately, this bill contains many significant differences from the House Bill (H.R. 1507), which the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) fully supports.

If you would like more information on the Senate Bill please read NWC General Counsel David K. Colapinto’s legal analysis or visit the NWC’s Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection page.

You can also read the recent press on the Senate Bill:
“Senate whistleblower bill doesn’t go far enough, critics say” OhMyGov!, 8-24-09
“FBI whistleblower shields likely to stay” Washington Times, 8-20-09
“Obama-back bill worries FBI whistleblowers” Washington Times, 8-18-09
“WH sought to weaken law on whistleblowing” Washington Times, 8-7-09
“Secrets and the C.I.A.” Letter to the Editor, New York Times, 8-7-09

We urge every whistleblower support to Take Action by sending a letter to your members of Congress.

II. ADVERSE ACTIONS REVISTED

The Senate Bill goes out of its way to reverse gains whistleblowers have won in the U.S. Supreme Court.  It returns whistleblowers to the days when an employee had to demonstrate a certain level of harm or damages to obtain whistleblower protection.
For years the lower courts debated what level of adverse action was necessary to permit an employee to file a retaliation case in federal court.  Some courts required material adverse actions – such as a termination.  Other courts looked to the purposes behind the enactment of anti-retaliation laws, and permitted filing claims in court for adverse actions that did not result in actual loss of salary or benefits.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Sheila White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) finally resolved this long-standing dispute. A whistleblower could file a claim in court even if they suffered what might be called a less significant adverse action.  Why?  The Court correctly understood that smaller adverse actions still have significant impacts on a person’s career.  Employees who faced transfers to less desirable jobs, whose performance reviews suffered or who were harassed at work could have their careers severely damaged, even when they suffered no reduction in salary.  Moreover, permitting employees who engaged in protected activities to suffer any retaliation on the job has a major chilling effect on other employees and discourages anyone from making protected disclosures.

The court case was a major victory for all whistleblowers.  We thought the battle was over, that is until we read S. 372.

The Senate Bill statutorily overturns the unanimous Supreme Court decision and again creates an artificial differentiation between the level of harassment and the right of an employee to have his or her case heard in court.  It limits who can file in federal court. See Section 117(a)(k)(4)(A)(i)(I).

…This provision in S. 372 is extremely harmful to whistleblowers.  It would result in the majority of federal employees being blocked from access to federal court proceedings.  We strongly oppose this reactionary attempt to overturn the Supreme Court and the NWC cannot support any “so-called” whistleblower bill, which contains this provision.

III. HOW THE NEW “270 DAY RULE” BLOCKS COURT ACCESS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

S. 372 has been promoted as creating a virtual revolution in federal employee whistleblower rights.  Supporters specifically point to the provisions that permit employees to bring a case in federal court before a jury.

But are these claims justified?

In the first post we pointed out that an insidious change in the definition of protected activity would result in numerous cases being dismissed.  In the second post we pointed out that most employee whistleblowers could never bring a case in federal court because the types of retaliation they suffered (including poor job assignments, hostile work environments, retaliatory performance reviews) do not qualify for removal to federal court.

In addition, hundreds of thousands of other federal employees are barred from filing in federal court.  Specifically, employees in various law enforcement and intelligence agencies are barred from filing in federal court, even if their cases have no relationship to any actual national security issue.

Who’s left?  Even if you happen to be one of the “lucky ones” whose case is eligible for a jury trial, will you ever actually have your case heard in front of a jury of your peers?

The answer is no.
S.  372 contains a provision that says if the Merits Systems Protection Board can complete the adjudication of your case in 270 days you have no right to go to court. This will open the door for the MSPB to create procedures that force the adjudication of claims within the Congressionally mandated time-period, and effectively block access to federal court. See Section 117(a)(k)(3)(B).

Under the new “reformed” law, employees who already have difficulty finding attorneys will have to find a good attorney who can immediately come up to speed on the merits of the case and have the resources necessary to fund a complex lawsuit that to be completed within the time period. Analyzing all the documents in such a case, learning all the facts, interviewing the witnesses can take considerable time. Lawyers will be very reluctant to commit to a full hearing on the merits in such a rushed procedure.

Unfortunately, this is not even the worst part of it.  The worst part is that if the MSPB completes the hearing within 270 days the whistleblower has no right to go to federal court and seek a jury trial.

What if you are one of the “lucky” ones, and the railroad just doesn’t come in on time?  Here is the true injustice of this law. After spending 270 days on rushed and expensive proceedings before the MSPB you finally get the right to file a new lawsuit in federal court.  But guess what happens?  You have to start new – you have to file a new complaint, you may have to file new discovery, you have to file new motions and ultimately you have to spend the time and money on a whole new trial.  The costs have doubled and you had no choice but to waste the first 270 days of your case.  We note with some irony that this also increases the costs to all parties. Those who want to limit whistleblower rights as a matter of judicial economy should take note that S.372 adds a layer of procedures for everyone.

We are extremely disappointed that S. 372 did not adopt a procedure proven to work well under other employee retaliation laws.  For example, under Title VII a federal employee can start a lawsuit with a request for “counseling.”  The employee does not have to file a formal lawsuit and start any such 270-day clock.

Instead, the employee simply seeks informal counseling, and the agency, the employee and the EEOC attempt to reach a settlement.  Obviously, an attempt to promote and reach a settlement at an early stage is fairer to all parties.  However, if there is no settlement, the employee has the right to file an informal complaint, and the agency’s EEO office conducts an investigation during the next 180 days.  This investigation provides cost-free discovery for the employee, as the EEO-investigation is required to interview witnesses and obtain documentary evidence.  At the end of the 180 days, the employee learns the results of the investigation and then has a choice, he or she can either file for an administration hearing before the EEOC or can file directly in U.S. District Court and request a jury trial.

Even if the employee chooses for the administrative approach, he or she still can seek removal of the case to federal court if the employee does not like the manner in which the administrative process is unfolding.

These procedures are already in place in every federal agency.  The General Accounting Office has determined that these provisions could be made applicable to employee whistleblower cases at all federal agencies, including national security agencies.

The right to a jury trial in the U.S. Constitution.  State and local government employees have the right to a jury trial under the Stimulus Bill.  Federal contractors have the right to a jury trial.  Terrorists housed in Guantanamo Bay have the right to have their claims heard in federal court!  Any federal employee (including national security related employees) who alleges discrimination because of their age, sex, race, religion or disability has a right to file a claim in federal court and have their case heard by a jury. We have procedures that work to make this right work in a reasonable manner for all parties.  Yet the Senate refuses to adopt a real framework to allow Federal Employees a right to a jury trial.

Americans need to ask the Senators why they refuse to fully protect federal employee whistleblowers. If the Senate wants credit for federal employee jury trial access – they need to make it real!

—————————————————–

IV: BACKSTABBING FBI WHISTLEBLOWERS: WILL THIS PROBLEM REALLY GET FIXED?

Putting it bluntly: S. 372 repeals all existing whistleblower rights for FBI employees.

From the start of the negotiation process with the White House, the NWC identified this roll back of FBI whistleblower rights.  In meetings with the White House staff the NWC urged that these provisions be changed.  Unfortunately, they were incorporated into the Senate markup.  Upon reviewing the Senate markup language, the NWC notified the Senate Judiciary Committee of this problem on August 5th and asked that they ensure that it be corrected.  Since then, the public interest community has insisted that the current FBI whistleblower rights must be restored.  As reported in the Washington Times, it appears that the White House is expressing a willingness to fix the problem.  However, the White House has not committed to the promise in writing and no alternative language has been proposed.  The devil will be in the details.
It was most disappointing that a whistleblower “enhancement” bill would in fact roll back protections FBI employees have had for over 12 years.  Between 1993-98 the NWC had the honor of representing FBI whistleblower Frederic Whitehurst.  On his behalf we sued the government in order to force the President of the United States to establish legally required protections for FBI whistleblowers under an obscure section of the Civil Service Reform Act codified as 5 U.S.C. § 2303.

Dr. Whitehurst prevailed in his case, and in 1997 President Clinton signed a memorandum that mandated the Attorney General implement whistleblower protections for FBI employees.  Those protections were implemented, and today they are as good as those which exist for most other federal employees.  FBI employees can file whistleblower complaints, which are investigated by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General.   FBI employees who file claims with the IG have the same procedural rights as other government workers who file claims before the Office of Special Counsel.  An employee who disagrees with the results of the IG investigation, can request a hearing within the Department of Justice.

These protections will be repealed under S. 372!

Congress must be careful when fixing this repeal.  There are 3 points that must be changed in order to fully fix the problem.  First, Section 121(b)(2) (Page 59) sets an effective date that would, if signed into law, result in the immediate dismissal of all pending FBI whistleblower cases.  Second, Section 121(b)(1) (Page 58) contains the actual revocation of the existing 2303 protections.  Third, Section 121(a)(2)(A) (Page 44) places the FBI under the jurisdiction of the new Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Board.  That board (as will be explored in a future blog post) affords no substantive protections to national security employees.  By placing the FBI under the Board’s jurisdiction the Act repeals 2303 by implication because the FBI cannot be under two simultaneous procedures.  Therefore, in order to ensure the restoration of FBI whistleblower rights all three provisions must be changed.

This all begs the question what ever happened to “enhanced” whistleblower rights?  The law will devastate existing rights enjoyed by FBI agents, and provide them with no new protections.  It is a complete victory for those who would cover up any abuse of authority or wrongdoing in the FBI.  In regard to oversight of the FBI and protection of FBI whistleblowers, S. 372 is the worst setback for accountability and due process in over thirty years.

The House of Representatives got it right. The House version will effectively protect all national security whistleblowers and should be signed into law.

V: THE NEW SUMMARY JUDGEMENT RULE:  GOLIATH FINALLY WINS!

S. 372 contains a new provision that permits the Merit Systems Protection Board to dismiss whistleblower claims under a procedural rule known as “summary judgment.”  See Section 118.  This new rule permits the MSPB “judges” to summarily dismiss a whistleblower claim without ever conducting a hearing.
One of the main purported benefits of the current MSPB process is its streamlined procedures.  Under the current law, employees are entitled to a hearing before the MSPB if they can establish jurisdiction.  The employees avoid the considerable costs associated with defending a traditional summary judgment motion and instead may address those issues at the hearing on the merits of the case.

Why is this summary judgment procedure a bad development?   Here is what will happen in practice.  In almost every case the agency will file for summary judgment. In a motion for summary judgment the judge decides, without a full trial, that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”  If the judge grants the agency’s motion the whistleblowers case will be dismissed.

The new summary judgment provision forces the employee to conduct expensive discovery simply to defeat the motion.  Given the past substantive and procedural decisions issues by MSPB “judges,” the overwhelming majority of these motions will be granted and the whistleblower cases will be dismissed without there ever being a hearing.  Over 90 percent of the summary judgment decisions will be against the whistleblower. [Note:  MSPB judges are not real judges.  They are not subject to any judicial confirmation process and do not have to be attorneys.  Their appointments are not reviewed or approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.]

Given the new 270 day rule for completing adjudications before the MSPB, summary judgment rulings will become commonplace.

This rule is a major setback for employees.  First, agencies will not settle cases until their summary judgment motions are filed.  The pressure to settle a case shortly before a hearing will be eliminated because agencies will wait to see if the case is dismissed before a hearing is even set.

Second, given the 270-day rule for completing adjudications, employees will be forced to comply with short deadlines in responding to summary judgment motions.  The agencies will be able to compile an evidentiary record against the employee in short period of time that the employee will not have the time to contradict.

Third, Section 117 (a)(k)(4)(A)(ii)(1) (Page 29) provides that an employee can request a certification to federal court within the first 30 days of filing a complaint with the MSPB (Please read tomorrow’s posting for more explanation of this section).  In practice, as soon as employee requests a certification for federal court the employer will file a summary judgment motion in order to try to dismiss the case at the MSPB level.  This allows the agencies to convert the entire MSPB process into a costly and overly prejudicial summary dismissal action.

The summary judgment provision tilts the procedures radically onto the side of the agencies, and all but guarantees that cases will be completed within the 270 day time period necessary to block access to federal court.

Americans need to ask the Senate why they inserted such an anti-whistleblower provision into a law purportedly designed to “enhance” whistleblower rights.  The summary judgment provision must be removed from the Senate Bill.

VI: WILL ANY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES EVER HAVE THEIR CASE HEARD IN FEDERAL COURT?

The short answer to this question is virtually, none.

When read together, the numerous “poison pill” provisions inserted into S. 372 all but guarantee that very few, if any, federal employee cases will ever be removed to district court for a real trial.

As outlined in the blog postings 1, 2, 3, and 5, between the new limits on the definition of protected disclosure, the extremely narrow class of cases permitted to be filed in federal court, the 270 day rule, and the summary judgment rule, it will be virtually impossible for an employee to successfully meet the criteria established in the Senate Bill for filing a claim in federal court.

The Senate Bill does contain a provision in which a federal employee can ask the MSPB to certify their case for a federal court trial before they undergo the expensive full MSPB proceeding. See Section 117 (a)(k)(4)(A)(ii)(1) (Page 29).  However, this certification provision is a complete illusion. It requires the MSPB to admit that a case is too complex for the MSPB to handle.  It will be extremely rare for that certification to happen.

Additionally, an employee has no practical method to appeal a ruling by the MSPB denying certification and court access.  First, such appeals cannot be immediately filed.  The employee will be forced to spend money fully litigating their case before the MSPB, and can only appeal the denial after the employee loses their case.

Second, the standard of review contained in S. 372 is the highest standard applicable in law.  Instead of a de novo review of the law or facts, the courts are required under the law to defer to the rulings of the MSPB, and can only reverse such a ruling if the decision is found to be “arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.”  This standard is almost impossible to meet.  Thus, a ruling by the MSPB denying an employee the right to file his or her claim in federal court is, for all practical purposes, unreviewable.

President Obama promised all federal employees full access to federal court when adjudicating their whistleblower cases.  In one such statement, published on the official Obama transition team web site, the President-Elect stated:

Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and
abuse in government is an existing government employee
committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such
acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives
and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather
than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as
watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack
Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal
workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in
government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite
the process for reviewing whistleblower claims whistleblowers
have full access to courts and due process.

S. 372, as it is currently reads, does not fulfill that promise.  It creates a false hope, and then cheats federal workers out of the rights for which they were promised and for which they need.

VII: CAPS ON DAMAGES AND OTHER LITTLE GEMS

In addition to the problems already addressed in earlier postings, there are some smaller, yet still very important, problems that need to be addressed before the Senate votes on the final version of S. 372.

Caps:  For the first time a Congressional Committee has recommended that caps be placed on the amount of compensatory damages in a law designed to protect federal employee whistleblowers. See Section117 (a)(5)(C)(ii)(I) (Page 33).
These caps set a very bad precedent for whistleblower laws.  No current federal whistleblower law has a cap on compensatory damages.
Under the law compensatory damages must be proven – they are not like punitive damages, which are designed to punish a wrongdoer.  Instead, they are part of the “make whole” remedy, and are designed to compensate employees for actual and proven losses for emotional distress, loss of reputation, physical injuries and other demonstrable non-wage damages often suffered by a whistleblower.

The key to all employment laws is the “make whole” idea that an employee should not suffer because he or she engaged in protected activity (i.e. made a disclosure, in the public interest, concerning waste, fraud or abuse).   Compensatory damages are designed to compensate an employee for actual and demonstrable harms.  If an employee can prove that he or she had more then $300,000.00 in compensatory damages, the employee should be entitled to obtain all of the relief he or she needs to be made whole.

The caps contained in S. 372 set a dangerous and bad precedent for all future whistleblower laws, and need to be removed from the bill before it is voted on by the Senate.

Burden of Proof:  Since the late 1980’s it became apparent to whistleblower supporters that the standard burden of proof in civil law cases was difficult for whistleblowers to meet.  The agency which employed the worker controlled access to most of the personnel information relevant to a case, many witnesses were either under the control of the agency, or were afraid to testify against their bosses at trial and the agency controlled the timing of the case (i.e. the agency could decide it wanted to get rid of the whistleblower, and then spend a year collecting negative information, and spring the termination decision on the employee only after it had carefully concocted a case).  Consequently, Congress changed the burden of proof under all of the modern whistleblower laws.  In order to justify the termination of a whistleblower, the agency would have to prove, by “clear and convincing evidence” that it would have made the same employment decision, even if the worker had never blown the whistle.

S. 372 takes a major step backward on this issue.  The Senate Homeland Security Committee adopted the recommendation of the White House to abolish this burden of proof in any case in which an employee somehow gets into federal court.  See Section 117(a)(5)(C)(iii) (Page 33).  In other words, if the employee somehow jumps over each and every roadblock and files a claim in federal court, the employee will discover another painful fact:  their case is much harder to prove.  The burden on agencies to prove the termination was justified by clear and convincing evidence has been lifted and replaced with the lower standard of “preponderance of the evidence.”

Please see Professor Robert G. Vaughn’s testimony in front of the Senate for a more complete explanation of burdens of proof.

Appellate Review:  For years, as reflected in numerous public statements and comments/testimony before the relevant Committees, both the House and the Senate have recognized that it was a terrible mistake granting exclusive appellate review to a special federal court whose jurisdiction is primarily a review of trademark and copyright infringement cases.  This special court, known as the Federal Circuit, lacked any expertise in employment or labor disputes, and had no sympathy or understanding of whistleblower law.   Both the House and the Senate Committees reviewed the case precedent rendered by the Federal Circuit and concluded that granting this court exclusive jurisdiction over whistleblower claims was disastrous.

Significantly, the Federal Circuit has exclusive control over only cases filed by federal employees.  All other whistleblower laws (and all other federal employment laws) are heard in normal appeals courts.

The Senate bill properly ends the Federal Circuit’s monopoly over appellate review.  However, the bill contains two provisions that could undermine this reform.  First, the bill permits the Office of Personnel Management to file appeals of federal whistleblower claims.  See Section 108(b).  OPM can file the appeal in the Federal Circuit.  Because of this loophole, employees may find themselves before the notoriously anti-whistleblower Federal Circuit, even though Congress had intended to break that Court’s monopoly.

Second, there is a five-year sunset provision.  The problems with this sunset provision are explained below.

Sunset: The progressive features in the Senate bill that allow a whistleblower access to federal court (See Section 117(b)(1)) and all circuit review (See Section 108) have a five-year sunset provision.  This means that after five years the right to go to federal court and have any circuit review the case automatically disappears.  This makes no sense.  The record in the House and Senate Oversight Committees unquestionably supports the need for these two provisions and they should not be subjected to as sunset provision after five years. The sunset provisions could result in federal employees losing these two important procedural right five years after the bill is passed.

All of these problems must be fixed before the Senate votes on the final legislation.

————————————————–

VIII: WHAT HAPPENS TO NATIONAL SECURITY WHISTLEBLOWERS?

National security whistleblowers are the biggest losers in S. 372.

The Senate Homeland Security approved a bill that, if enacted, would seriously undercut national security whistleblower rights and set terrible precedent.  It would in practice constitute an anti-whistleblower law.  It would do permanent harm to “the public’s right to know,” and ensure that national security whistleblowers did not “blow the whistle.”   This is not an exaggeration!
Title II of S. 372 (Page 38) completely ignores the findings of the General Accounting Office (GAO).  The GAO conducted an in-depth review of employment-protections for employees at the CIA, the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. These employees were excluded from protection in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.  The reason for this exclusion was the issue of classified information, and whether permitting these employees access to administrative or judicial remedies could result in the improper release of classified information, and thereby harm national security.

The GAO reviewed how these intelligence agencies handle Title VII cases (i.e. cases filed with the EEOC alleging race, sex and other forms of discrimination).  Under Title VII, these employees are allowed to take their retaliation cases to a jury trial in federal court.

After a systemic and in-depth review, the GAO concluded that national security employees could have full civil service protection, and could have their employment claims adjudicated in federal court, without any threat to national security. The GAO concluded that there were already in existence agency-controlled methods to prevent the release of classified information in employment cases, and that national security employees could have full civil service protection.

The Senate Committee and the White House acted as if this report never existed.

The NWC provided the GAO report and an explanation of the report to White House and Senate Committee staff.  Not one objection was made by either the White House or Senate Committee staff to the findings of the GAO.  This was probably due to the fact that the GAO report completely debunked the argument that national security would be endangered if national security employees were given meaningful whistleblower protection.  They had no legitimate reason to deny national security employees the protection they have long deserved.

However, despite the undisputed facts set forth in the GAO report and President Obama’s campaign promises, the White House introduced a legislative proposal that ignores the GAO findings and completely guts all national security whistleblower protections.  The Senate approved the White House proposal.

Tomorrow we will learn why the national security whistleblower section in S. 372, if passed, would constitute one of the most anti-whistleblower laws ever enacted into law by Congress.

IX: DUE PROCESS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY WHISTLEBLOWERS?

The national security whistleblower protection sections of S. 372 are a bad joke.  They completely undermine any semblance of whistleblower rights, and ensure that no national security worker will ever prevail in a disputed whistleblower case.  The language set forth in Title II of S. 372 is disheartening, and should be struck from the law without delay.

Why is it so bad?

First, there is no court access.
The right to federal court in provided in the House version of the bill and recommended by the GAO does not exist in S. 372.  This not only undercuts essential due process rights, but also creates an atmosphere where the intelligence agency can retaliate against the whistleblower knowing that the employee will never be able to have his or her day in court.

Access to federal court remedies is the single most effective check on any government agency’s propensity to try to silence a whistleblower.  Instead of providing court access, the Senate bill creates an Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Board that only purports to be system of review.

The Board is comprised of intelligence agency officials, not administrative judges, and is not subject to the minimum due process requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.  The Board does not have the authority to hold hearings or interview the whistleblower.  However, the Board is given the authority to determine a whistleblower’s credibility solely on the basis of the recorded created by the agency that retaliated against the employee.

Second, the Inspectors General are stripped of their responsibility to investigate or remedy a whistleblower retaliation case.  Instead, the power to investigate whistleblower cases is vested directly with the agency that retaliated against the whistleblower in the first place. There is not even a pretext of independence.  If you blow the whistle against the CIA, it is the CIA that will look into your case.

Third, the due process protections afforded whistleblowers under the current Whistleblower Protection Act do not exist.  Under current law, the Office of Special Counsel investigates whistleblower claims.  Because of abuses within that office, the contents of these investigations remain protected by the Privacy Act.  Only the employee can consent to the release of the findings.  Why?  In the past, a whistleblower would go to the Special Counsel.  The Special Counsel would draft a report critical of the whistleblower. The agency could and would use the report to discredit the whistleblower and would effectively end that employees career.

In 1989 that process was reformed.  The Special Counsel report could only be provided to the employee, who would have the ability to keep the report confidential.

Not so under the new Senate legislation.  The agency itself will conduct the investigation and issue the report.  The report is not confidential, and can be used to justify further retaliation against the employee.

Forth, the agency is vested with the power to draw “credibility” determinations against the whistleblower.  Thus, the agency can reach a finding that the employee is not credible.  This finding will not only be used to defeat the whistleblower case, but will be sent over to the security clearance office.  An employee who is found not “credible” will very likely lost their security clearance and with that their reputation and ability to even obtain work in law enforcement or security-related agencies.

Fifth, the adverse credibility determination is not subject to any meaningful appeal. The Board can only reach a ruling on the credibility of a whistleblower based on the record created by the very agency that retaliated against the employee!  The Board is prohibited from even talking to the whistleblower and reaching its own credibility finding.

For example, if the CIA makes a finding that a whistleblower is not credible, and the whistleblower files an appeal of that finding, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Board is prohibited from taking any testimony from the whistleblower in order to rebut the adverse agency finding.

Sixth, the agencies can introduce secret evidence in a whistleblower case against the employee, and the employee is prohibited from ever learning what that evidence is.  Thus, an employee can lose his or her case based on secret evidence that they are never able to rebut.

Seventh, the law creates a short sixty-day statute of limitations for filing national security whistleblower claims.  The current Whistleblower Protection Act contains no such statute of limitations.  Such a short filing period will result in many cases being dismissed as untimely filed.  Given the other problems with the law, that may end up being a blessing to most workers, who will not have to incur additional attorney fees simply to have the agency that fired them write a report attacking their credibility!

The bottom line is that the provisions set forth in Title II of S. 372 are anti-whistleblower in nature, and represent a serious setback for all national security whistleblowers.

X: IF IN DOUBT – THROW OUT THE CASE!

Buried at the very end of the national security whistleblower section of S. 372 is a grant of unprecedented power to the directors of the FBI, CIA, NSA and every other intelligence agency.

These directors are authorized to have any whistleblower case summarily dismissed, with no administrative or judicial review.
That’s right.  The Director of the FBI can simply order the dismissal of any whistleblower case filed by any FBI employee.  End of story.

I know this sounds radical, but Section 121(e) (Page 56) grants these powers to the agency directors!

This radical grant of power to the agencies accused of wrongdoing is one of the most obvious manifestation of the deficiencies in the Senate bill.  The national security whistleblower provisions are not designed to protect whistleblowers.  They are designed to ensure that no whistleblower case is ever filed, and if it is filed, that the whistleblower will lose – not just their case, but potentially their security clearance and their ability to ever work in law enforcement or other security areas again.

The fact that the directors of each agency covered under the national security whistleblower provisions are granted this extraordinary power is simply the last step in a process that undermines whistleblower protections.

It is unacceptable to create a process that grants the agency embarrassed by the whistleblower’s disclosure the authority to summarily and without any judicial review throw out a whistleblower’s case.

video at http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/3/spin_the_bottle_expose_raises_alarming
Fiji Water is America’s leading imported water and the bottled water of choice among the rich and famous. President Obama was photographed drinking Fiji on election night, and Mary J. Blige demands ten bottles before concerts. But a new expose in Mother Jones magazine raises alarming questions about Fiji Water’s ties to Fiji’s military dictatorship, the company’s environmental record and its impact on the residents of Fiji. We speak with reporter Anna Lenzer about “Spin the Bottle.” [includes rush transcript]

Anna Lenzer, author of the article “Fiji Water: Spin the Bottle.” It appears in the current issue of Mother Jones. Her reporting was supported by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.
Rush Transcript

JUAN GONZALEZ: The Pacific island nation of Fiji is in the news this week. On Tuesday, Fiji was suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations because its military dictatorship refused to schedule elections for next year. The nation has been ruled by a military junta since a coup in 2006.

In May, the country’s second highest court declared that government to be unconstitutional. The military government responded by abolishing the judiciary and banning unauthorized public gatherings.

While the Commonwealth of Nations, the European Union and the Pacific Islands Forum have condemned the political crisis in Fiji, one institution has been notably quiet: the US owners of Fiji Water, one of Fiji’s largest companies.

Since its founding in 1995, Fiji Water has emerged as the bottled water of choice among the rich and the famous. It has been described as the Mercedes Benz of bottled water. President Obama was photographed drinking Fiji on election night. The singer Mary J. Blige demands ten bottles of Fiji Water before her shows. Rap mogul P. Diddy has praised Fiji Water, saying, quote, “It tastes so pure.”

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Fiji Water has also marketed itself as the environmentally friendly bottled water company. Its slogan is “Every Drop Is Green.” On its website fijigreen.com, the company writes, quote, “The production and sale of each bottle of Fiji Water will actually result in a reduction of carbon in the atmosphere.”

But a new exposé in Mother Jones magazine raises alarming questions about Fiji Water’s ties to the nation’s military junta, the company’s environmental record, and its impact on the residents of Fiji.

Earlier this year, reporter Anna Lenzer traveled to Fiji to investigate the company. While she was working at an internet cafe, Fiji police detained her and interrogated her. They threatened to send her to prison filled with men.

Anna Lenzer is the author of the new cover story in Mother Jones called “Spin the Bottle.” She joins us here in our firehouse studio.

Why don’t you begin there, Anna? When were you there? And tell us what happened in the internet cafe.

ANNA LENZER: Sure. I was there in April. It was actually a coincidence, the timing of my trip. I arrived April 11th, which was a Saturday, and the military junta had declared martial law the day before. And what had happened was that this regime has been in power since a coup in 2006. And the previous week before I went, the court of appeals had declared the regime unconstitutional, illegal and so forth. And the regime’s response was to abolish the judiciary, withdraw the constitution, and declare martial law. So my plane ticket happened to be for the very next day, so I arrived—it was Easter weekend, actually, in April.

So, I had done some reporting and been there for a few days, and I was in an internet cafe in the morning. And I basically had my laptop. I wasn’t actually on one of their computers. But, you know, I sent some emails back to the States. I had gone to the Fiji Water factory the day before. I returned the night before. So I was sending out some emails about that, and I also had gone to check on the political situation in Fiji. And just that week, what had been happening was the regime had been deporting journalists, specifically mainly from Australia and New Zealand. Those are the journalists who, you know, report on the political situation there.

So I sent this story, and pretty much instantly my internet connection died. So I waited, and I asked the staff, you know, what happened, if there was a problem, if it was going to come back up. And they went back to check and, you know, asked me to wait and said that everything would be fine and the connection would come back up. So I waited a few minutes.

And it was very fast. A pair of police officers walked into the cafe, which, you know, I was sort of observing. The police presence in the country was—seemed to be escalating over those days. And they went and spoke to a woman behind a terminal. I didn’t really observe what they were saying, but, you know, she essentially pointed them to me. And then the next thing I knew, I saw them coming towards me. And, you know, he basically—there was two of them—basically just stood over me and said, “We’re going to take you in for questioning about the emails that you’ve been writing.” So, of course—

AMY GOODMAN: On your own computer.

ANNA LENZER: On my own computer, so, you know, of course there’s a moment when I was thinking, you know, “Did I send you an email? What emails are you talking about?” You know? And it was extremely shocking. I mean, I had never heard of this happening before.

And, you know, we’re talking about the political situation. And there’s sort of this idea Fiji has a coup culture. They’ve had four coups since 1987. You know, that for American tourists, we still go to Fiji, and it’s OK, and it’s—you know, we can go to the five-star luxury resorts, and we’re not really—these things don’t affect us. But, you know, so I had heard of these political tensions, but never so much that police were actually monitoring people in cafes.

So, you know, I had been taking certain precautions, given the martial law and this and that, but never—never would I have thought that the police were actually monitoring me. So that was how they picked me up. And essentially, then they—you know, they just escorted me. We took all my stuff in a police station, the central police station in Suva. I was right around the corner, so that’s where we went for a couple hours.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You said that they specifically asked you whether you were representing some other water company and you were trying to, somehow or other—

ANNA LENZER: Yeah.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —blemish the reputation of Fiji?

ANNA LENZER: Yeah, that was a very strange encounter. I mean, you know, what he did in the interrogation was he took out my laptop, and he just read through everything, all my personal emails, every doc, you know, anything on my computer. And then he also went through my bags, and I had notebooks.

And as I said, I had been traveling the day before to the Fiji Water factory, and part of that was visiting, you know, the towns in the area and just to get a sense of what water do they drink. And I write in the story about a town called Rakiraki, which is a half-an-hour drive from the factory. They’ve had huge water problems. So I was in this town, and I had a notebook full of prices of Fiji Water bottles in the grocery stores in this town half an hour from the Fiji Water factory. And I was surprised to find out that the bottles were nearly as expensive as they are in the United States, which—

AMY GOODMAN: The Fiji Water from next door.

ANNA LENZER: The Fiji Water bottles, yeah. I mean, you know, I took pictures of the stands and, you know, the prices, and we did the conversions. I mean, it was just kind of a shocking thing.

AMY GOODMAN: Why can’t they drink their own water?

ANNA LENZER: There’s a whole host of problems with Fiji’s water supply problems. I mean, obviously, you know, there’s a choice of what people are going to drink. But, you know, in this one town, Rakiraki, in particular, I mean, I had a Lonely Planet, a travel guide, and it literally said, you know, Rakiraki water is deemed unfit for human consumption. So that was—you know, this is an incredible paradox of this town, where the water is—you know, don’t drink the water, and the next town down is like the best water in the world.

AMY GOODMAN: What happened to you?

ANNA LENZER: What’s that?

AMY GOODMAN: What happened to you when you were in detention?

ANNA LENZER: Yes. So he saw the prices where I had written down the costs. And yeah, at that point he basically accused me of some kind of corporate espionage. I mean, he really did not like that. He basically—I quote it in the story. What he said was, “It would be really good to come here and, you know, hurt Fiji Water’s business, wouldn’t it? Who do you work for?” He just—you know, the interrogation was just through this cycle of, like, who are you? And I had my passport and my press credentials.

AMY GOODMAN: Did he threaten you?

ANNA LENZER: Well, a sort of this—a bleak threat, as I quote it in the story. What he basically said was—and he sort of said it with a smile—like, “I would hate to see you go to jail. And I would hate to see you go to jail”—and the language he used was—“a jail full of men,” which, you know, at that point, I just—there was sort of this—I really was not expecting that. I mean, to be frank, I was expecting there was a chance I would be deported, when I knew there was martial law, when I knew, you know, they were deporting journalists reporting on political or anything sensitive. I mean, the term I use in the story is “journalism of hope.” You know, that’s what they’re enforcing now, and they have—I mean, there are military censors now in the news in Fiji, so…

AMY GOODMAN: Anna Lenzer is our guest. We’ll come back to her after break. She wrote the cover story of Mother Jones called “Fiji Water: Spin the Bottle.” Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Anna Lenzer, wrote the cover story of Mother Jones magazine this month. It’s called “Fiji Water: Spin the Bottle.” Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Anna, I’d like to ask you—tell us a little bit about the history of how Fiji Water developed on this remote group of islands in the Pacific, and how important is it to the economy, and what you found about its relationship to the government.

ANNA LENZER: Right. Well, its evolution is pretty fascinating. It started in 1995, and it really started as a luxury product. It was started by a gold mining and real estate mogul named David Gilmour, and he really created this product as a luxury, you know, niche product for the elite. I mean, it was—it did not do traditional advertising. It was placed in five-star hotels, movies. You know, it was really—it really shunned this traditional route of, you know, Dasani or these other brands. So it really started off as this luxury.

And we quote some of the various ways they had of doing that. You know, David Gilmour frequently would call it “living water.” A big part of the marketing was this idea that Fiji comes from “before the Industrial Revolution,” and so it’s this water from, you know, hundreds of years ago, and we have exclusive access; you know, this is the best water in the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Because there’s this aquifer that was discovered in Fiji, and then he moved in and, what, bought it or leased it?

ANNA LENZER: Yeah, he obtained a ninety-nine-year lease on this aquifer. And what I talk about in the story, too, is the aquifer was actually discovered by the Fijian government working in tandem with international aid groups, who were serving the island for water, you know, for the people. But then it turned out that basically people working with David Gilmour in his company, you know, they heard of this report, and they secured the lease on the land for ninety-nine years.

So, to go back to your question, it really is a fascinating thing to see how this product evolved, because it really was this extremely luxury product, but now it’s—since it’s become the most imported water in America, it’s really gone mainstream. And the shift, though, under the new owners who bought it in 2004, we talk about in the story, Stewart and Lynda Resnick, has really been to transform it into like an ecological and a progressive product almost. So it’s really shifted from this, you know, again, a luxury product to a product where it’s—where you’re ecologically and you’re socially responsible if you drink it. It’s really how the product has evolved over time.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And its relationship to the government?

ANNA LENZER: I mean, Fiji has trademarked the name “Fiji.” And its marketing campaign, what the government calls it is “brand Fiji.” And, you know, throughout—if you look at the bottle and the slogans it has used, it has been to brand the country, the image of the country, as basically an unspoiled paradise. I mean, that’s sort of been the idea of where this water comes from: from an unspoiled paradise.

So, you know, over the years, they have worked with the government. Last year, I spoke with one of the Fiji Water spokesmen, and what he said to me was, “We basically market Fiji with the product.” He also said that it’s one of the few products that the government is able to get off the island, so it’s been a really good thing for the government. And I think, as a lot of people in the States know, I mean, one of the only and the first things we hear and think about when we hear Fiji is Fiji Water. I mean, the company has really sort of capitalized on the fact that this is a very small nation. We don’t talk a lot about it. We don’t know a lot about it. And this is something that comes up a lot, that, you know, the government basically has thanked the company and said, you know, “We have brand Fiji now. It’s this idea as an unspoiled paradise. You’ve created it.”

And to go back to the size of it in the country, it’s now—the company now says that it’s 20 percent of Fiji’s exports, and that’s three percent of its GDP, which is $3,900. So it’s pretty big.

AMY GOODMAN: Anna Lenzer, we invited Fiji Water to join us on the program; they declined. But in a statement posted on their website, the company writes, in part, quote, “We strongly disagree with the author’s premise that because we are in business in Fiji somehow that legitimizes a military dictatorship. We bought FIJI Water in November 2004, when Fiji was governed by a democratically elected government. We cannot and will not speak for the government, but we will not back down from our commitment to the people, development, and communities of Fiji.

“We consider Fiji our home and as such, we have dramatically increased our investment and resources over the past five years to play a valuable role in the advancement of Fiji.”

That, again, the statement on Fiji Water’s website. Anna Lenzer, your response?

ANNA LENZER: Well, whether or not the company intends to legitimize the government, the fact is it does. I mean, right now, even just in the last week in the news in Fiji, there’s news that Fiji Water is working with the Fiji embassy in Japan to market its product. It works with the embassy in the States to market its product. You know, this is part of how it has marketed itself, is working with the embassy and the government.

You know, in the story, we talk about Tourism Fiji. President Obama, you know, has been photographed drinking Fiji Water and Tourism Fiji circulates that photograph. Government agencies circulate these photographs of Fiji Water. You know, elsewhere, you can see the military junta in their boardroom in their meetings with—recently with a delegation, a Chinese delegation, working on a hydro project, and there are Fiji Water bottles all around the table.

I mean, this is an impressive product. You know, it’s one of the country’s—it’s the country’s signature export. It’s got the country’s name on the bottle. So, whether or not the company says, you know, “We are, you know, giving them guns”—no one has accused them of that—the fact is, the product offers legitimacy to the government.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And when you we mention the military junta, your article goes into the development of the military in Fiji. Because obviously it’s not a country that’s exactly menaced by its neighbors, how that military developed and the role of the United Nations in that?

ANNA LENZER: Well, I mean, basically there was, you know, two coups in the 1980s, another coup in 2000, and then this most recent coup in 2006. So it has been—you know, since 2006, there has been a lot of pressure on Fiji from the Commonwealth, which just suspended Fiji on Tuesday, but mainly from Australia and New Zealand. And nobody has really known quite what to do.

You know, the government has kept pushing back this election deadline. First it was March 2009. You know, then this most recent event, and they’re saying it’s going to be—elections are not going to be until 2014. So, you know, I don’t think anybody really knows exactly what’s going on there. I mean, the commander, Bainimarama, he’s basically saying, you know, “We’re doing this to bring democracy. And how dare you question us for taking time to do it properly?”

JUAN GONZALEZ: But isn’t it—wasn’t the point that you were making that because Fiji has played an outsized role in supplying peacekeepers to the United Nations peacekeeping forces, that it therefore has developed a much bigger military culture, I guess, than would be expected?

ANNA LENZER: I mean, I don’t talk about Fiji’s role in the United Nations in the story, but I think that is something that has come up a lot with people, you know, watching the war in Iraq, watching Fiji saying Fiji’s military has these peacekeepers in the United Nations. And that has been sort of a point of pressure, I think, you know, among the people in the United Nations, because they’re saying, “Look, you know, in Fiji we’ve got a military junta, we’ve got martial law. And, you know, is this a contradiction here to have peacekeepers in Iraq enforcing democracy?”

AMY GOODMAN: On the environmental record of Fiji Water, I want to go to a brief excerpt of a talk recently given by Lynda Resnick, who owns Fiji Water with her husband Stewart Resnick. She outlined Fiji Water’s efforts to become carbon-neutral.

LYNDA RESNICK: First of all, we measured our carbon footprint, from the place in China where the preforms are made all the way to the moment you pick this up in the store. OK? And you can watch our progress reducing our carbon footprint on fijiwater.com. We bought back our carbon offsets, and the way we did it, 120 percent. So every time you pick up a bottle of Fiji, you’re giving 20 percent back to the grid.

But what we did, we’re replanting the rainforest in Fiji. And the reason we’re doing that is, so much of the Fijian rainforest has been slashed and burned to grow sugar cane and to raise cattle. And so, we’re trying to keep it pristine. We also saved the Sovi Basin in Fiji, which is 50,000 square miles of beautiful virgin rainforest. And we reduced the plastic in the bottle. And we’re shipping through the Panama Canal instead of going and dropping off in California and trucking across the country. We’re doing all sorts of things, putting in wind and solar, in an ever-ending attempt to do it better.

AMY GOODMAN: Lynda Resnick, the owner of Fiji Water. Anna Lenzer, your response?

ANNA LENZER: Basically, all of those things are things that happen in the future. I mean, the company has been fantastic at creating a list of green goals, using the lingo. But fact is, right now Fiji Water is double the amount of plastic as a lot of other bottles, and that’s part of what made it a luxury product: it feels great in your hand.

AMY GOODMAN: Gets the plastic from China.

ANNA LENZER: Yeah, it gets the plastic from China. Right now, the company has on its website, you can even see a one-liter bottle, they have estimated, creates 1.3 pounds of greenhouse gases of carbon—I mean, 1.3 pounds of gas. Yeah, this idea of offsets on top it, I mean, they were questionable to begin. Do they take place over decades? And as I report in the story, a climate trade journal called ClimateBiz reported that Fiji’s offset program is called—under “forward crediting,” meaning it takes decades to even take effect. And they haven’t even measured last year’s offsets yet. So, you know, Lynda uses the present tense for a lot of things, but the fact is, these things are going to happen in the future. So when the company says, “Every drop is green,” what you’re buying right now is not green.

AMY GOODMAN: I just wanted to end with a little box, a side box that’s in Mother Jones that’s very interesting, about the overall bottled water industry, called “H2Uh-Oh: Fiji’s Not the Only Bottled Water with a PR Challenge.”

It talks about Sam’s Choice, which is sold at Wal-Mart. “Water comes from the Las Vegas municipal supply. A test by the Environmental Working Group found it had 200% of the allowable”—let’s see if I can even pronounce it—“trihalomethane, a carcinogen, and included several chemicals known to cause DNA damage.”

Dasani, which is owned by Coca-Cola: “Coca-Cola’s bottling plant near the village”—near a village [Plachimada] “in Kerala, India, began pumping groundwater in 2000. When wells dried up and villagers couldn’t irrigate their fields, Coke offered a goodwill gesture: heavy-metal-laced sludge from the plant to use as fertilizer. After company ignored years of protests—and two government orders to install wastewater treatment and provide drinking water to villagers—the state ordered Coke plant to close in 2004. (Coke won the right to reopen the next year.)”

Then there’s Arrowhead, owned by Nestlé: “Nestlé is seeking a permit to pipe 65 million gallons a year from a spring in rural Colorado. When critics raised concerns about the effect of climate change on local water supplies, Nestlé said it was ‘illogical’ to base decisions on changes ‘many years in the future.’”

Then there’s Volvic, which is, “Last fall, Japan recalled 570,000 bottles of the French water after finding the toxic paint chemicals xylene and naphthalene in the bottles.”

Deer Park, owned by Nestlé: “In the middle of a drought, convinced officials to let it pump water from Florida’s Madison Blue Spring State Park for 14 years for no fee except a $230 permit (more than offset by nearly $1.7 million in tax subsidies).”

Ice Mountain, owned by Nestlé: “Pays nothing (other than small lease and $85 yearly well fee) to pump from a Mecosta County, Michigan, spring. Citizens sued, saying the plant would damage nearby waterways, and prevailed. But Nestlé appealed and this past July won the right to continue pumping up to 200 gal./minute.”

And finally, International Bottled Water Association: “Created @Bottled H20Babe on Twitter: ‘A lover of bottled water, a convenient, refreshing beverage that shouldn’t be restricted by governments or false claims.’”

That’s it. That’s the little side box on the competitors to Fiji Water.

ANNA LENZER: Well, I think the fascinating difference about Fiji—you know, all these bottles, they’re from fake places. I mean, the sort of question about bottled water is, where does it come from? And you have, you know, image of trees; it might be a parking lot in Jersey or something. But that’s sort of what makes Fiji unique. It’s actually branded as water to this very specific location. And I think now it’s going to start to see some blowback about what is actually going on in Fiji. And how long can its brand actually eclipse what’s going on there?

AMY GOODMAN: Anna Lenzer, we want to thank you very much for being with us, author of the article “Fiji Water: Spin the Bottle.” It appears in the current issue of Mother Jones magazine.

—————————————

Here is some more stuff about Fiji’s military dictatorship from earlier this summer (July 23, 2009) where the dictatorship was arresting Methodists for organizing a religious conference.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/2667136/Wave-of-Fiji-arrests-alarms-Key

Wave of Fiji arrests alarms Key

A wave of arrests of church leaders in military-ruled Fiji is alarming, Prime Minister John Key says.

“It’s a very concerning move,” he told Stuff.co.nz.

“It follows on from the breakdown of the government structure.”

At least 12 leaders of the Fiji Methodist Church and a paramount chief have been seized in the last couple of days, after trying to get around martial law by organising an annual church conference.

Dictator Voreqe Bainimarama, who overthrew democracy in a 2006 coup, this morning told Indian Auckland Radio Tarana that his regime would not tolerate any challenge from Methodist politicians.

Mr Key said Bainimarama was leading Fiji down the wrong path.

“Unfortunately it is having a real and immediate impact on the lives of Fijians,” Mr Key said.

“I sense you are starting to see a push back from everyday Fijians.”

In developments this morning state controlled and censored Fiji Broadcasting reported that the Methodist Church of Fiji’s general secretary Reverend Tuikilakila Waqairatu and paramount chief Ro Temumu Kepa will appear in court later today for breaching martial law.

Fiji courts are military controlled and operate without a constitution.

Bainimarama told Radio Tarana that the Methodist Church secretariat had a permit to hold a meeting last week but they breached this by discussing plans to hold the banned national conference next month.

“It’s a political move,” Bainimarama said.

“If you look at everyone making decisions in the Methodist Church they are politicians.”

The church was listening to local chiefs like Kepa when the chiefs themselves were members of the deposed SDL Government.

“It’s a political move and we are not going to tolerate this.”

Asked if the security forces were ready to halt the annual conference if it went ahead, Bainimarama replied: “Its not going to come to that.”

Most indigenous Fijians are Methodists.

In the past the church has taken a hard political line and has been involved in earlier coups, notably the 2000 George Speight coup which bought down an Indian led government.

Bainimarama was firm on its stand of “no conference for the Methodist Church”.

The event usually attracts around 100,000 people.

* Home
* CBS Evening News
*

Sept. 3, 2009
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/03/eveningnews/main5286651.shtml

It is taxpayer money meant to fund aid and development projects in Afghanistan: roads, bridges and schools.

But there are new claims that U.S.-funded contractors have been spending a hefty chunk of that funding on protection payments to the Taliban – for years, reports CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.

“That translates into money that the Taliban are using to attack and kill American military personnel, and that’s just simply outrageous,” said Rep. Bill Delahunt.

The international news organization GlobalPost quoted several unnamed contractors who said 20 percent of their budgets – or more – go to pay off the Taliban so it won’t bomb their projects, or their people. It’s a protection racket far more sophisticated than the typical mob-style shakedown.

“The Taliban literally has an office in Kabul where it works out what percentage will be charged on these contracts,” said Charles Sennott, the executive editor of the GlobalPost. “This is so open.”

The State Department has spent more than $4 billion on development contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. Experts say the kickbacks could have netted the Taliban tens of millions of dollars and are such an open secret on the streets that the U.S. government had to know.

“You cannot do anything about it,” said CBS News consultant Jere Van Dyke. “This is how it operated, this is how it was in the 1980s, this is how it is today.”

Contractors have good reason to fear the Taliban. As of last September, 291 State Department-funded contractors, most of them foreigners, had been killed by Afghan insurgents.

The State Department has launched an investigation into the alleged protection payments.

“In Afghanistan, any diversion of funds for any reason makes it that much more difficult for us to achieve our objectives,” said P.J. Crowley, an assistant secretary of state for public affairs.

Especially because popular support for the war, which has fallen lately, could sink ever further if taxpayers fear their money is going to fund our adversaries.

Spencer Pratt Lashes Out at Ryan Seacrest for Bashing Heidi

Us Magazine – September 2, 2009 12:42 PM PDT

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/spencer-pratt-lashes-out-at-ryan-seacrest-for-bashing-heidi/27266

The Hills star tells Usmagazine.com that he’s outraged that on Seacrest’s KIIS0-FM radio show Wednesday morning, the American Idol host said that if he could tase a reality star, he’d choose Heidi Montag.

“I’m disgusted and horrified that Ryan Seacrest would find it amusing and entertaining to have his listeners call in about tasing anyone,” he told Us exclusively. What’s next, Ryan — guns and knives? Waterboarding? It is irresponsible and offensive for someone with your platform to promote violence on this level. For someone who produces reality content, I’m shocked that you’d encourage people to tase reality stars. Would it be funny to you if one of your Kardashians got tased? Is that how you treat your talent, Ryan?”

On the radio show, Seacrest took calls from listeners. Others considered for what Seacrest tweeted as a “funny topic” were The Apprentice‘s Omarosa, Tila Tequila and Daisy from Rock of Love.

“Finding humor in violence is disgusting,” Spencer continued. “For someone who pretends to be mister clean-cut America, you really should be ashamed. Any reasonable person knows that a taser isn’t a Super Soaker and can cause immediate death.”

The reality star then cited a University of California study about the potentially lethal danger of tasers.

“I expect an apology not to just us, but to people everywhere for using your public voice to spread violence,” he concluded.

To show his disapproval, Pratt also took to his Twitter page, where he changed his profile picture to one of Seacrest as a chubby child.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.