Obama, Gates at Odds Over New Whistleblower Protections

Obama, Gates at Odds Over New Whistleblower Protections
Even before President Obama took office, he made it clear, that he “endorsed new protections for national security officers who blow the whistle on abusive, corrupt or illegal behavior, by offering them the right to sue for damages and challenge denials of their security clearances.” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3) However, defense secretary Robert M. Gates believes that the bill would threaten national security and violate the constitution. Gates is not the only one who is against this bill, he is joined by “then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3)
Under the law as it stands now, members of the CIA, FBI and other federal agencies are not allowed to “appeal adverse administrative decisions outside their agencies, either to a special civil service board or a federal court.” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3)
They are also, not permitted to sue for compensation nor for regaining of clearances.
The problem with this bill is that in theory it is very supportable, however, when one is in office as President Obama is now, he will have to stand for the defense of these cases in court and possibly for their losses. As President of the US, he will have to defend these people throughout the world and deal with the loss of respect for the government agencies that would be brought to court. The support and trust towards these agencies might be at risk.
In 1995 a case came up that had exactly these consequences; “Rep. Robert G. Torricelli’s public disclosure in 1995 of CIA payments to a Guatemalan colonel accused of murdering an American citizen and the husband of an American citizen” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3) this had lead to the firing of two CIA officials, eight where disciplined. Due to this case, 100 informants accused of abuse or other criminal acts were laid off the CIA pay roll. After this, it became quite hard to become an informant for the CIA since every case was reviewed thoroughly.
The agencies seemed to be on a way of bettering themselves, hiring only trustworthy informants, until 9/11. George J. Tenet quietly overturned the rules as they stood and started to take into service informants with shady background, if a background check took place at all.
Under the new bill, whistleblowers will have the right to “tell” on inner workings of the federal agencies and be protected. Gates fears that this may lead to disgruntled workers suing simply because they can. He also fears that top-secret information would be given to people without clearances. This fear should have been lessened by the fact that the people judging these cases and working on these cases would have the proper clearance. It seems that he is not afraid of losing secrets but of losing control.
In cases of top-secret information “[t]he government would retain its right to respond by invoking a ‘state secret’ privilege to block a trial,” (Washington Post R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, A3) however, the government would be forced for the first time to inform lawmakers of the case. This means that no more cruelties and inhuman behaviors could be swept under the carpet anymore.