2:46 pm, May 29, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 1

  • Glaring Omission
    Why doesn't the policy directive mention the Office of Special Counsel as an avenue where nat'l security whistleblowers may safely blow the whistle? For one, it is the only avenue that guarantees confidentiality and channels the disclosures to Congress and the National Security Advisor. Moreover, the directive directs the Director of National Intelligence to educate the workforce about their options. Many of them don't know what's out there (otherwise why would we have the Drake case or the Kiriakou case?) Tom Devine of GAP once told me, in CYA mode, that “Everybody knows that Title 5 [executive branch] employees can make classified disclosures to OSC.” Well either that's true, in which case this directive is not that groundbreaking (since it's largely redundant). Or, and this is more likely, OSC is being treated like the ugly and ignored step-child of the federal bureaucracy, once again, for the 35th year in a row. It seems it will remain obscure yet again, and the rights granted will be insufficient and inferior to what's already on paper. If only Devine was telling the truth then, or trying to make it come true now.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }