Our tax dollars do not always make us safer.
Yes, our taxes pay for the bombs that deliver "democracy" to other nations, which eventually make us safer (excluding the Americans that die and are maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan) -- as well as much of our infrastructure. But this is a case that exhibits a weakness of the "very crucial" (had to be passed post-haste) law that created the Department of Homeland Security -- not a bad idea in concept, but our representatives in Congress may have failed us in the execution.
Frank Terreri is the president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association's (FLEOA) Federal Air Marshal Agency, and he cannot criticize another agent or the Department of Homeland Security IN ANY WAY without violating his employment agreement. Explicitly, no air marshall can do so. Essentiallly, anyone in the DHS who disagrees with the status quo could be punished for expressing his opinion -- publicly or personally. Bottom line: __IF__ someone wants to make us safer and their superiors don't like their advice, they could be out the door INSTEAD of improving national security.
Read this and discuss...
###
New York Times
Some U.S. Security Agents Chafe Under Speech Limits
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: April 26, 2005
WASHINGTON, April 25 - It would be natural to expect that as president of an employee association that represents more than 1,000 federal air marshals, Frank Terreri would be a reasonably outspoken guy.
But since Mr. Terreri became the association's president two years ago, he has been effectively prohibited by the rules of the Federal Air Marshal Service from speaking in public about airline safety matters. He has never been quoted in a newspaper article or written letters to the editor or to members of Congress outside his district.
These limitations - based on a ban, imposed on all federal air marshals, on speaking about their work without explicit permission - set off a feud last year between Mr. Terreri and the marshal service, part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Terreri, who was suspended from active duty in October after sending a personal e-mail message to another air marshal that was critical of a colleague, picked up his badge and gun Monday after being told that he would soon be back patrolling the skies.
Four days earlier, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Mr. Terreri's behalf in United States District Court in Riverside, Calif., claiming that the department was violating his free speech rights and jeopardizing public safety by preventing agents from serving as whistleblowers.
"He has serious concerns about policies that he believes threaten the effectiveness of the Federal Air Marshal Service that make us more vulnerable to another 9/11-type attack," said Peter J. Eliasberg, a civil liberties lawyer representing Mr. Terreri, 38, who lives in the Riverside area.
The case may end up serving as a test of restrictions imposed on workers throughout the Department of Homeland Security, whose rights to speak out publicly are often compromised, employee leaders say, because of excessive concern about the possibility that their comments might compromise public safety.
"They are abusing the power they have under the guise of national security," said Shawn Moran, vice president of National Border Patrol Council local in San Diego.
The rules given to air marshals are quite explicit. A 2002 employee policy statement says they may not "criticize or ridicule" the agency "by speech, writing or other expression," and they may not "address public gatherings, appear on radio or television, prepare any articles for publication" or release any information about the agency unless explicitly authorized to do so by management.
Limits on public comments by Border Patrol agents are not as well defined, but union leaders say that many agents fear they will be fired if they speak publicly.
David M. Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshals Service, said the restrictions were necessary because marshals work in plain clothes, ready to step forward only in the event of a hijacking or other emergency.
"Obviously there are certain perimeters [sic :rv] about discussing our policies in the media because of the need to ensure the safety of our work force and the flying public," Mr. Adams said.
Mr. Terreri's lawyer said his client had no interest in discussing matters that might compromise national security. In fact, the e-mail message that resulted in his removal from active duty criticized another air marshal who, with permission from management, had appeared in a People magazine article that disclosed operational details Mr. Terreri believed should not have been made public. The article reported that air marshals board the plane before passengers do.
Shortly before Mr. Terreri was removed from active duty, his employee group, the air marshals' division of the Federal Law Enforcement Association of Lewisberry, Pa., called for the resignation of Thomas D. Quinn, the agency director. In a statement released by an individual who does not work for the service, the group said that by requiring marshals to dress conservatively and cut their hair in a military style, and to identify themselves when checking into hotels to get a discount rate, the agency was compromising safety.
Mr. Adams said the complaints came from a small minority of air marshals. He also said that the decision to reinstate Mr. Terreri had nothing to do with the lawsuit.
"There is no longer any reason not to put him back into flight status at this present time," he said, adding that an investigation had been completed into the e-mail message.
Mr. Terreri's lawyer said his client was determined to pursue the lawsuit.
"Secrecy can be the enemy of accountability and security," Mr. Eliasberg said.
Frank Terreri is the president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association's (FLEOA) Federal Air Marshal Agency, and he cannot criticize another agent or the Department of Homeland Security IN ANY WAY without violating his employment agreement. Explicitly, no air marshall can do so. Essentiallly, anyone in the DHS who disagrees with the status quo could be punished for expressing his opinion -- publicly or personally. Bottom line: __IF__ someone wants to make us safer and their superiors don't like their advice, they could be out the door INSTEAD of improving national security.
Read this and discuss...
###
New York Times
Some U.S. Security Agents Chafe Under Speech Limits
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: April 26, 2005
WASHINGTON, April 25 - It would be natural to expect that as president of an employee association that represents more than 1,000 federal air marshals, Frank Terreri would be a reasonably outspoken guy.
But since Mr. Terreri became the association's president two years ago, he has been effectively prohibited by the rules of the Federal Air Marshal Service from speaking in public about airline safety matters. He has never been quoted in a newspaper article or written letters to the editor or to members of Congress outside his district.
These limitations - based on a ban, imposed on all federal air marshals, on speaking about their work without explicit permission - set off a feud last year between Mr. Terreri and the marshal service, part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Terreri, who was suspended from active duty in October after sending a personal e-mail message to another air marshal that was critical of a colleague, picked up his badge and gun Monday after being told that he would soon be back patrolling the skies.
Four days earlier, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Mr. Terreri's behalf in United States District Court in Riverside, Calif., claiming that the department was violating his free speech rights and jeopardizing public safety by preventing agents from serving as whistleblowers.
"He has serious concerns about policies that he believes threaten the effectiveness of the Federal Air Marshal Service that make us more vulnerable to another 9/11-type attack," said Peter J. Eliasberg, a civil liberties lawyer representing Mr. Terreri, 38, who lives in the Riverside area.
The case may end up serving as a test of restrictions imposed on workers throughout the Department of Homeland Security, whose rights to speak out publicly are often compromised, employee leaders say, because of excessive concern about the possibility that their comments might compromise public safety.
"They are abusing the power they have under the guise of national security," said Shawn Moran, vice president of National Border Patrol Council local in San Diego.
The rules given to air marshals are quite explicit. A 2002 employee policy statement says they may not "criticize or ridicule" the agency "by speech, writing or other expression," and they may not "address public gatherings, appear on radio or television, prepare any articles for publication" or release any information about the agency unless explicitly authorized to do so by management.
Limits on public comments by Border Patrol agents are not as well defined, but union leaders say that many agents fear they will be fired if they speak publicly.
David M. Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshals Service, said the restrictions were necessary because marshals work in plain clothes, ready to step forward only in the event of a hijacking or other emergency.
"Obviously there are certain perimeters [sic :rv] about discussing our policies in the media because of the need to ensure the safety of our work force and the flying public," Mr. Adams said.
Mr. Terreri's lawyer said his client had no interest in discussing matters that might compromise national security. In fact, the e-mail message that resulted in his removal from active duty criticized another air marshal who, with permission from management, had appeared in a People magazine article that disclosed operational details Mr. Terreri believed should not have been made public. The article reported that air marshals board the plane before passengers do.
Shortly before Mr. Terreri was removed from active duty, his employee group, the air marshals' division of the Federal Law Enforcement Association of Lewisberry, Pa., called for the resignation of Thomas D. Quinn, the agency director. In a statement released by an individual who does not work for the service, the group said that by requiring marshals to dress conservatively and cut their hair in a military style, and to identify themselves when checking into hotels to get a discount rate, the agency was compromising safety.
Mr. Adams said the complaints came from a small minority of air marshals. He also said that the decision to reinstate Mr. Terreri had nothing to do with the lawsuit.
"There is no longer any reason not to put him back into flight status at this present time," he said, adding that an investigation had been completed into the e-mail message.
Mr. Terreri's lawyer said his client was determined to pursue the lawsuit.
"Secrecy can be the enemy of accountability and security," Mr. Eliasberg said.
posted by rob v at 8:50 PM
1 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home