Myth and reality: Border security and national security

| | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Responding to this post from the other day, Big Puffy Liberal says:

Ok, let's keep an eye on Mexica and the young communists and other fringe groups to make sure they don't blossom into baby al qaeda's. (I see the KKK claims to be a movement of white Christians, so if you know any white Christians, I'd keep an eye on them too).

Anyway... what do you think about the immigration situation?

I think it's all about economics.

But most of the typical reasons you hear for supporting strict regulations of immigration are pretty weak. Claims that immigrants damage the economy or raise crime rates can pretty easily be refuted.

One reason that seems to have some teeth is the security issue. That is, the fact that any crazy person could waltz right into the country with a bomb strapped to their back.

What people who are opposed to legislation like 4437 need to realize is that a terrorist attack would be the immigrant community's worst nightmare. We've already passed the PATRIOT act, so another attack would compel politicians to pass even more extreme legislation. Given the current political climate, a terrorist attack on the US would likely lead to the most ill-conceived, draconian anti-immigration legislation to date. So in that sense, it's in the immigrant community's own interest that the borders are secure.

On the other hand, the security argument is weakened by the fact that, even though anyone can waltz into the country, there hasn't been another attack. I know the line, "al qaeda works slowly, they're biding their time" ok, but attacking a country once every 10 years doesn't sound like a very effective plan for destroying it? The idea of "terrorism" is to terrorize a population. If there really is this highly organized, global terrorist network hell bent on destroying the US, and it's so easy to get into the US, why no attacks (knock on wood)? Based on the common understanding of terrorism, we should expect to see guys sneaking in and shooting up malls on a regular basis, or blowing up a section of train track as the toxic chemical train passes through town. It'd be so easy for one bad guy to raise hell in the US. Remember that DC sniper guy? And what better way to get us out of Iraq than to "fight us over here"? but that's not what's happening. There's no denying that the border is easy to cross, so the fact that we haven't seen regular terrorist attacks (a la Hamas or Hezb'allah) seems to indicate that the anti-American terrorists aren't quite as global and highly organized as we've been told. That's not to say that we ought to pretend that anti-American groups don't exist, but it does seem to take some of the urgency out of the "we need to secure the borders for the sake of national security" argument.

Pardon me a moment because I still need to bang my head on the table a few more times...

Ok, that's better.

I think Stay Puft and I have agreed the economic incentive is the root of illegal immigration from the south. We just don't agree on the particulars - MANY people in areas inhabited by illegal immigrants (like the next town over from me) would also disagree with the argument crime has not increased - and I see other rationales possibly involved. But we've played that argument out for now.

His comments on border security and national security, however, are so wrong I hardly know where to start.

I'll give it a try, below the fold.

...the fact that any crazy person could waltz right into the country with a bomb strapped to their back.
Yes, that's the gist of the national security argument; though "crazy person" implies a one-in-a-million random mental defective. I would say "determined terrorist." Also, maybe bringing more trouble than a single person could strap on their back.
Given the current political climate, a terrorist attack on the US would likely lead to the most ill-conceived, draconian anti-immigration legislation to date. So in that sense, it's in the immigrant community's own interest that the borders are secure.

Y'see, the problem here, Old Puft-Buddy, is the implication a single, monolithic, rational intelligence is the force behind all the things that happen vis a vis the security of our southern border. With that assumption, of course one might deduce it would be logical for the "immigrants" to want to keep the U.S. secure in every way.

But in reality the world is a multitude of moving parts; to use William James' phrase: a "blooming, buzzing confusion." Between the government of Vincente Fox, the many pockets within his government yearning to be stuffed with cash, the enterprising coyotes and drug dealers and other assorted scruffy types, MS-13 banditos, the various terrorists from abroad (be they crazy or not), and the plethora of parties on the U.S. side who make money off cheap labor, an awful lot of bad things might happen to the U.S. which might not all be in the best interest of every one of the aformentioned players.

I'm betting out of all that rabble, there could occur this ONE particular coyote accidentally bumping into this ONE sort of cute MS-13 member causing her to spill her Inca Kola on this ONE tourist from Syria named Wajid, and one thing leads to another, and before you know it everybody has made friends and met the extended family and they're all having a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things.

From such a wildly improbably series of events terrible things could happen in America which would RUIN the situation for poor Mexicans trying to get across the border. But with all the pieces in place to allow such a thing to happen, there's no logical reason to think it couldn't.

Unless you happen to think EVERYBODY involved is rational and working off the same page - and if you believe that...well, I'm not even going to reach for a clever parallel. You can't be that naive.

If there really is this highly organized, global terrorist network hell bent on destroying the US, and it's so easy to get into the US, why no attacks (knock on wood)? Based on the common understanding of terrorism, we should expect to see guys sneaking in and shooting up malls on a regular basis, or blowing up a section of train track as the toxic chemical train passes through town. It'd be so easy for one bad guy to raise hell in the US.

Without even getting into the highly fruitless game of attempting to guess at jihadist strategy, I'll just say I'm not a logician by trade but I think I detect a flaw in your argument, Mr. Puft-n-Stuff. You say: Because something has not happened, therefore it will not (or is unlikely to) happen.

I say: Eh?

It did happen on U.S. soil a couple of times BEFORE that Patriot Act went into effect, you have to admit. Also, that the Patriot Act might be making it hard to commit another attack.

But to suggest that the absence of terrorist attacks means there is an absence of a terrorist threat is the type of thinking that GETS you terrorist attacks. As in, "We won't know for certain there is a threat to America until America is once again attacked."

Whoa! I just had a flashback, it felt like....1998 all over again.

I'm not out to ridicule your thinking, though. There is a broad segment of the liberal intelligentsia arguing according to the exact same eggshell-thin "logic." Even smart people, if they say something over and over enough times, will forget (often conveniently) that the initial premise was flawed at best. does seem to take some of the urgency out of the "we need to secure the borders for the sake of national security" argument...

Yes...or, rather: No. The conclusion does follow from the premise, but the premise was quite flawed.

I reiterate the point because the error is committed repeatedly in the current debate.

I believe you and many decent liberals are in error innocently. Repetition often trumps logic: Repeat a lie over and over until it becomes uncontested, snigger at those who challenge it (but don't actually argue!), and before long anyone who defers to the authority of the liberal experts - the good man or woman who means well but does not have the time to analyze every position on every issue - is building on the same false premise.

The REAL insidious bastards - and here I am obviously NOT thinking of you, old Pufty old pal - are the progressive opinion-makers who circulate blatant falsehoods for the narrow purpose of scoring political points.

Remember: "False" means "against reality," and you can't go against reality without getting hurt eventually.

Playing down the terrorist threat - like the imbecile I won't even link to who said at the beginning of his moronic book "there is no terrorist threat" - invites another terrorist attack.

Playing word games, turning that argument back on itself ("Ah but what about playing UP the terrorist threat?"), changing the subject, etc., etc., are further methods of circulating the lie.

Then you get statements such as this gem from an author at the kingmaker-of-dreams site. (Hat tip, Is This Blog On). The author writes under numerous names and cross posted this to a military-oriented site:

Remember, please, that this was an act of a bunch of punks. Punks that got lucky. Not the larger Islamo-Fascist monolith that some have conjurred; that may exist as a useful concept but all evidence points to punks. And frankly it's a lot easier to credit the well-grounded "punk theory," because punks behave unpredictably and slip through cracks.

"Lucky punks" is such an outrageous formulation, contradicted by not only every relevant intelligence agency but also by the detailed explanations of the al Qaida leaders themselves, that you'd have to have your head buried deep up your own hindquarters just to give it a second thought.

But look at the myth under construction: "larger Islamo-Fascist monolith" mocks anyone who would use the term Islamo-fascist. The "punk" theory is proferred as "well-grounded."

No facts are related here - in reality, the argument is built on anti-facts - but an attitude is being promoted, one of snide, preemptive derision.

C.S. Lewis defined "flippancy" as the shared assumption the joke has already been made. This is the dominant rhetorical stance of many modern liberals: Their assumptions are laughable, but they defend them by laughing at any who challenge.

To tell the truth, it has worked pretty well so far.

We live in an age of widespread shallow thinking, very susceptible to the "ideology of flippancy." Otherwise, some of the progressive pooh-bahs would have been hooted out of public discourse a long time ago.

The ideology has not all caught on, of course: George W. Bush was re-elected despite a myth-making effort of legendary proportions; Bastion of flippancy Air America is a monumental failure; and the Daily Kos Web site has managed to back a rock-solid slate of losing candidates. But we have to be on guard for continued foolishness and myth-making.

The U.S. border problem is a reality. Attempting to wish it away invites disaster.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Myth and reality: Border security and national security.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Well, it’s a good thing you know so much more than I do about issues of security, but you should stop banging your head on things, it might be affecting you.

1 re: economics and the reality of the border: the border is a reality for labor, not capital

2 On immigration: Crime rates in border communities have risen because of gang-led drug trafficking operations. Where I live there are undocumented workers yet not rising crime. I submit to you that it’s not illegal immigrants, but drug traffickers, who lead to rising crime rates. Yet the hr 4437 legislation has far-reaching implications which go well beyond removing drug traffickers and jihadists.

3 Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not imply that there is a “monolithic rational force” behind the issue, only that the immigrant community would be negatively affected by a terrorist attack. Do you disagree?

4 On terrorism: again, I'm not suggesting that the fact that another attack hasn't happened = it WILL NEVER happen. but it does tell us something about the effectiveness of our enemy. Jihadists have declared war on the US. in a war, enemies have to attack each other. you want illogical, how about saying we're at war when an enemy who, despite our horribly porous borders, has only attacked us once in over 10 years. You’ll be surprised to know that there is in fact an unambiguous definition of “terrorism” You may not want to discuss terrorist tactics, but surely you recognize that terrorism, as a strategy for fighting a war, depends on terrorizing a population by carrying out regular attacks in random places to create a perception in the population that no one is safe until the people lose their will to resist and sort of cave in. This definition fits for what is going on in Israel, and it applied to the situation in Bosnia, etc. But it does not describe the American experience during this, “war on terrorism” and you can't say the PATRIOT ACT saved us, because it's effectiveness in preventing terrorist attacks is negated by the fact that ANYONE can sneak into the country from Mexico, Canada, or Sea. Anyone can walk right in around the back, just a half a mile from the railroad track
And do anything they want…

5 “Because something has not happened, therefore it will not (or is unlikely to) happen.”

What makes you think the sun will come up tomorrow? Is it that it’s never NOT come up, or is it based on some sort of idea about physics and the laws of motion? the fact that no jihadist has yet taken advantage of the border situation indicates that our enemy isn’t as organized or effective as some would like us to believe because if the jihadists had their act together they would have surely exploited the weakness in our borders by now. Can you think of one conceivable reason why a highly organized group with an international presence, and dedicated to the destruction of the US, would pass on the opportunity to sneak in and raise some hell, especially considering the goal of “terrorism” is to keep a population in fear. It there is a single jihadist cell in Mexico, or all of South America for that matter, why haven’t they seized the opportunity? You can’t just say, “I don’t know why, let’s not get in to terrorist tactics” that’s a cop out.

It makes me think there aren’t so many terrorists out there, and that the ones that are out there are ineffective in carrying anything out. But maybe they wait because they want to lure people in the US into thinking like that, yeah? Get us thinking that there aren’t so many of them out there after all. What advantage would that serve them?
Or maybe Bush is a right and they’re all tied up in Iraq and so they don’t have the ability to carry out an attack on the US. But if that’s the case, they don’t have an international presence, and are of no real consequence in the immigration debate.

Darlene Fitzgerald said:

Dear Nova Townhall:

I am a National Security Whistleblower who has recently published the book “BorderGate” ( “BorderGate” is a true story written by former U.S. Customs Special Agent Darlene Fitzgerald and Peter S. Ferrara. “BorderGate” puts a human face on a story exposing corrupt and/or incompetent, high level DHS managers who are literally allowing train car loads of illegal narcotics to come into the U.S. There is a cancer growing on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The government doesn’t want people to read this story. It tells in detail how and why some of the best and brightest Agents in Department of Homeland Security are being driven out. This story culminated in a landmark case in federal court (Fitzgerald - Nunn Vs. Department of Homeland Security). You may see some of the most shocking transcripts of this trial at

In many ways, we are less safe now than before “9/11," even after countless billions have been spent. Why is this? Those who stand on the front lines of protecting this country - - the Agents and Officers who are actually trying to protect us - - are being systematically driven out of law enforcement by corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats who have a different agenda. What we witnessed after Hurricane Katrina will pale in comparison to what we will see after this country is hit by a weapon of mass destruction.

Currently, there is no effective law to protect any Federal Whistleblower who dares to report wrongdoing and confront the cronyism and corruption which eats away at U.S. Customs and at DHS. If these Whistleblowers lose, then we all lose. What America’s enemies have thus far been unable to do will be done from within our own government.

We are asking for your help. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP) are supporting some much-needed legislation to protect legitimate Federal Whistleblowers from the persecution and retaliation of the kind exposed in “BorderGate.” Anything you can do to bring attention to this problem and support such legislation would be greatly appreciated. I have already been a guest on the O’Reilley Factor, CSPAN, NBC News, and numerous other new papers and magazines have completed articles on our story. We must act before

it is too late. The story “BorderGate” tells, and the call for action it makes cannot be ignored. No one in government can say they have not been warned.

Please visit our website at “” to ascertain how you may be of help to us in spreading the word. You may contact us at the website or at the below listed contact information for further information. Thank you for your attention to this crucial matter.


Darlene Fitzgerald and Peter S. Ferrara
Authors of “BorderGate”

Attorney Austin Price said:


On January 17, 2007, the New York Times reported that U.S. Attorney Carol C. Lam, the top federal prosecutor in San Diego, CA, was removed from her job. The Justice Department said Tuesday that, ?Ms. Lam?s dismissal had nothing to do with the prosecution of Mr. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, but was based on her overall record in prosecuting firearms violations and crimes along the California border with Mexico.?

At the very same time that U. S. Attorney Lam was responsible for the Cunningham case, she was also responsible for the landmark case Fitzgerald ? Nunn Vs. Department of Homeland Security. A year before this civil trial began, Lam?s Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Timothy Stetler had been made aware of the ostensible corruption that U.S. Customs Special Agents Darlene Fitzgerald and Sandy Nunn had uncovered and attempted to expose. Darlene?s investigation uncovered tons of narcotics and contraband being facilitated into the U.S. via railroad tanker cars with the apparent approval of Customs managers. AUSA Timothy Stetler listened to the testimony of Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos in her pre-trial deposition. She corroborated Darlene?s suspicions when she stated that the managers at Customs were ?torpedoing our rail operation? and criminal cases. She further stated, ?At the very least these managers were committing Obstruction of Justice.? AUSA Stetler told Gastone Bebi, attorney for Fitzgerald and Nunn, that he was concerned that it was in fact corruption and that he felt he had a duty to report it. He should have reported this to his boss, U.S. Attorney Lam.

There was no investigation into the well-documented, well-witnessed allegations of Sandy and Darlene. At the trial, Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos took the stand and made history that day by being the first sitting Judge ever to testify against the U.S. Government. A complete transcript of her historic testimony may be read at The essential fact of her testimony was that she witnessed high-level Customs managers shut down Operation Rite Rail. In that operation Darlene had already seized 8000 pounds of marijuana and 34 kilos of uncut cocaine in just one pressurized railroad tanker car. She had secondaried (placed on hold pending inspection) five more of these cars. These five cars importing from Mexico were improperly manifested as empty yet contained 25 to 40 tons of unknown contraband. They had been sent from the same front company in Mexico where the previous seized- tanker car was from. Darlene had high-level information from a reliable informant as to the contents of these five cars ? yet Darlene was ordered off the case and told to shut down her operation.

At the trial, Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAIC) Gary Pinkava took the stand for Customs (See Federal Transcript of Pinkava?s testimony at During the course of his testimony, he admitted that he would not allow Darlene and her Supervisor Robert Mattivi pressure test, at no charge to the government, these highly suspect tanker cars. This would have been the largest seizure on record for any agency (25 to 40 tons) and it was under the command and control of ASAIC Pinkava. Subsequently, as testified to by numerous witnesses (see other testimony at the BorderGate web site); these tanker cars were released into the commerce of the U.S. uninspected by anyone.

As shocking as this testimony was, there was also evidence of witness tampering during the course of the trial. The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge, while presiding over this case, responded to the efforts by U.S. Customs Attorneys who threatened U.S. Customs employees with the loss of their jobs if they dared to answer subpoenas and testify against Customs managers. Judge Benitez stated, ?Boy, there?s something about this that doesn?t pass the smell test!? (see All these crimes remain uninvestigated.

What Darlene and Sandy exposed at this trial is the horrendous National Security Terrorist Threat that these tanker cars pose to our nation. Timothy McVey blew up the Federal Murrah Building in Oklahoma City with about one ton of ammonium nitrate in an unsealed-cargo truck. This cowardly attack killed scores of people and resulted in at least fifteen damaged buildings being torn down. A terrorist can put forty times this amount of ammonium nitrate in a railroad tanker car and pressurize it. This would result in the world?s largest pipe bomb. This is almost too frightful to image, yet America has enemies who relish such a possibility. Darlene has repeatedly said that the national security threat she has exposed is apolitical because exploding tanker cars do not just kill Republicans, Democrats or Independents, they kill everyone. This too was made known to the San Diego U.S. Attorney?s Office, which was headed by U.S. Attorney Lam.

During the course of this trial sufficient evidence to warrant a Grand Jury investigation into the following was absolutely exposed: Facilitation of the Importation of 25 to 40 tons of contraband into the U.S., Witness Tampering, Perjury, Misprision of Felony, and possible Subornation of Perjury. This evidence was sufficient to warrant the initiation of a Grand Jury Investigation ? yet there was none. The most shocking federal transcripts of this testimony can be found at U. S. Attorney Lam knew, or should have known, about this ostensible corruption committed by the Customs managers before the trial, and later exposed at the trial. Yet to date, nothing has been done to investigate any of this.

What is even more telling in this case is the fact that Senator Dianne Feinstein has publicly defended U.S. Attorney Lam. This is most interesting when you consider that well before this case (Fitzgerald ? Nunn Vs. Department of Homeland Security) was ever filed in federal court, 24 Customs employees signed a letter begging Senator Feinstein to investigate their allegations of corruption. Two weeks after Senator Feinstein?s Office received this letter (sent certified mail & fax) Senator Feinstein was seen by several of these Customs employees out on one of the U.S. Customs Yacht ?rubbing elbows? with one of the very managers the brave 24 wanted Feinstein to investigate. It was later learned by a reporter who covered this story, that Senator Feinstein?s husband may have had a financial interest in the very companies over whose rails this contraband was rolling. Senator Feinstein initiated no investigation into the 24 Customs employees? allegations. Customs turned up the retaliation heat on the agents involved in this rail project. Details of this horrendous retaliation are chronicled in the book ?BorderGate.?

It is important to note that there have been no other rail tanker car seizures since Darlene?s seizure in 1998. Have the drug smugglers and terrorists simply quit trying to enter the U.S. or have they simply been operating freely under the unwatchful and accommodating eyes of U.S. Attorney Lam and Senator Feinstein.

The real victims here are Darlene, Sandy, and all other brave Whistleblowers who have come forward with important information that exposes threats to our National Security. There is no real protection for Federal Whistleblowers. There seems to be a pattern at the U.S. Attorneys Office and the Department of Homeland Security of acting against employees for doing their job instead of prosecuting corruption. Another clear example of this is the two Border Patrol Agents who now face prison because they defended themselves in a firefight against a known drug smuggler. Again, it was a U.S. Attorney?s Office who appeared to take the side of the drug smuggler and went after the Border Patrol Agents. Yet there has been no investigation into the motivation of the AUSA prosecuting this case against the Border Patrol Agents. This raises the question ? Who is overseeing those who are responsible for prosecutorial oversight?

U.S. Attorney Lam at worst condoned and at best ignored the retaliation by U.S. Customs managers against Whistleblowers Fitzgerald and Nunn. Ironically, now she complains when she is the object of ?possible? retaliation for her role in exposing the Cunningham scandal. What goes around comes around.

By: Attorney Austin Price
Attorney for Darlene Fitzgerald
and Peter Ferrara, Authors of ?BorderGate, the story the government doesn?t want you to read.?

Darlene Fitzgerald said:

Dear Congress:

Although I am glad to see you rushing in to protect our wrongly fired U.S. Attorneys, I must ask you - WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? The very same political network, ?good old boy clique,? that fired these attorneys, has been around for years attacking other federal government employees who dare to speak out against wrongdoing. Yet you, dear Congress, have done nothing to protect these brave souls who dare become National Security Whistleblowers.

Currently there is no real whistleblower protection for government employees on the front line of our national security (Border Patrol Agents, Customs Agents, Transportation Security Agents, etc.). Many of these government employees have endured wrongful firings, harassment, threats, and other retaliation on an enormous scale for simply doing the right thing. They have witnessed extreme instances of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption that they are required by law to report. For many of them, what they have witnessed are criminal acts by their mid-level and sometimes very high-level managers. If they don?t report these abuses, they the employees may be criminally charged with a felony (Misprision of Felony). Yet when they do the right thing, the whistleblowers are most certain to be severely retaliated against by the people benefiting from the wrongdoing.

Moreover, this has been documented and presented to Congress repeatedly by numerous organizations like The Government Accountability Project (GAP), the Project On Government Oversite (POGO), and the Patrick Henry Center. All three of these organizations list scores of National Security Whistleblowers that have testified repeatedly before Congress in different forums (e.g. the 911 Commission; the Blue Ribbon Commission; Whistleblower Counsel). Yet the Whistleblower Protection Act that was authored and sponsored by Senators Akaka and Grassley, and has passed the Senate, sits idle for months now on the House floor.

As you rush to protect these more powerful federal government employees (U.S Attorneys) who are often hand picked by their home state Senators, remember, there are others who have suffered much more because they have risks much more via the national security issues that they have reported. I doubt that these U.S. Attorneys will have to file bankruptcy because they are being ?blackballed? by corrupt government officials, in the same way that National Security Whistleblowers do. I doubt that these U.S. Attorneys will fear the threats and intimidation to themselves and their families; repeated frivolous internal affairs investigations; the passing over of earned promotions, and numerous other tools that government managers have at their disposal to discredit whistleblowers and SHUT THEM UP.

Yet you, Congress, point the ?Political Finger? at the folks who have fired these U.S. Attorneys, while you sit and allow much worse behavior to continue for others. Maybe someone should wave that same ?Political Finger? back at themselves. Why is it that the U.S. Attorneys have been given preferential treatment over other government employees who, quite frankly, have put their necks much more on the line for this country than the U.S. Attorneys?

Don?t get me wrong, I?m sure that the firing of these attorneys is political, morally wrong, and perhaps illegal - BUT SO WHAT! Why are you rushing to their aid over the dead bodies of National Security Whistleblowers who were also government employees - and I do mean literally dead bodies. Numerous whistleblowers have had their lives so destroyed by doing the right thing, that they have died of heart problems due to stress, and/or have committed suicide. The whistleblower cases that I have witnessed, including my own, are much more egregious and appalling than what has happened to the U.S. Attorneys. One may conclude that the answer to this question is that U.S. Attorneys are simply more powerful in their positions, and can be of more assistance to Congress in said positions - hence fostering the notion that this sudden interest for Congress to protect them is merely POLITICAL! Therefore, while you waive the ?Political Finger? at this administration for firing these attorneys, please take a close look in the mirror at the other end of that very same finger - which is pointing straight back at you! I would encourage you to provide protection to ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, not just the influential ones.


Darlene Fitzgerald
National Security Whistleblower & proud of it
Author: ?BorderGate, the story the government doesn?t want you to read?


On Monday, May 14th, 2007, former Special Agent Darlene Fitzgerald, Author of ?BorderGate? spoke on Capital Hill. Fitzgerald described retaliation by her agency when she and her task force blew the whistle on corruption and gross mismanagement within the U.S. Customs Service. She detailed the terrorist threats created by this corruption, mismanagement and the lack of border and port security. ?Twenty-five to forty tons of contraband entered the U.S. uninspected by anyone,? said Fitzgerald to a packed room. Fitzgerald ended her testimony by quoting the famous French free thinker Voltaire: ?It is dangerous to be right when government is wrong.?

This was the beginning of Washington Whistleblower?s Week in Washington, D.C. in support of the Whistleblower Protection Act and the No Fear Act II. Both bills will result in tighter controls that will protect whistleblowers from abusive retaliation by their agencies and managers, and provide much needed government accountability. Whistleblowers and support organizations from all over the country gathered to submit their testimony before Congressional panels. The events were sponsored by The Government Accountability Project (GAP), The No Fear Coalition, the National Whistleblower Center, and many others. The press conference aired live on C-SPAN 3, and C-SPAN radio. The event was also covered by the Public Broadcast System, PBS (to be aired at a later time), The Hill Magazine, the Democratic Underground and numerous other news journals. Also present at this event was the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers who is now serving his 21st term in Congress along with Senator Charles Grassley and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner.

On May 15th, Fitzgerald again gave live testimony before a Congressional Tribunal in support of legislation entitled ?The No Fear Act - Two.? Fitzgerald stated, ?After 20 years of combined law enforcement experience, in 1999 I resigned from my agency. I refused to work for an agency who had managers that were worse than the people I put in jail!? This modern day ?Serpico? laid out chilling testimony of corruption and gross mismanagement that places us all at risk. Present on this panel were: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee who sits on the Judiciary Committee; Rep. Albert R. Wynn; Tobacco industry whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand, Ph.D who?s own experience formed the basis for the motion picture ?The Insider?; Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, Founder of the No Fear Coalition; Former FBI Agent Michael Germain, representing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and author of ?Think like a Terrorist?; Tom Devine, Gap Legal Director; Joan Claybrook, President of the Senate Homeland Security Staff; Steve Kohn, President, National Whistleblower Center; Colleen Rowley, TIME Person of the Year and former FBI Agent; Susan Wood, former Director of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Bogdan Dzakovic, Former FAA Red Team Leader and whistleblower, just to name a few.

See attached photos
BY: Peter Ferrara & Austin Price, Esquire
606-376-5931 / 606-310-0078

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here