Keeping America out of harm's way: from a national health-surveillance network to better whistle-blower protection, security experts provide their commonsense ideas for improving homeland security

0 Comments | Insight on the News, May 13, 2002 | by Sam MacDonald

Looking for defense ideas on the self-styled "progressive" left, INSIGHT spoke with William Hartung, a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute and an advisory board member at the Institute for Policy Studies. Hartung, who is concerned about proliferation of weapons to rogue regimes, says the government should establish a clearinghouse to analyze potential allies before arming them with modern weapons. "There is a tendency now to say we need allies, they need weapons, let's move on it," he says. "I think there should be some kind of process where human rights are part of the mix." Hartung notes that many of the weapons the Taliban used to capture and rule Afghanistan were provided by the United States when it supported rebels opposing the Soviet invasion of that country. "It has backfired," he says.

On homeland defense, Hartung also calls for better communication between federal agencies. "Somebody needs the authority to crack heads," he says. "I think that either Tom Ridge needs more authority or the president needs to form some sort of council, an intelligence council," to coordinate efforts by those concerned. Hartung does not support giving Ridge authority over the budgets of the various agencies involved, but would support giving him control over "incremental" funds that he could use as an incentive to fix the communication problems.

While several think-tank analysts suggest that Ridge could force reform from the top down, Tom Devine, legal director at the Government Accountability Project (GAP), thinks the best thing that could be done to improve the effectiveness of the national-security agencies would be to strengthen whistle-blower protection laws. "We don't need to erase the Constitution or spend billions" to improve homeland security, Devine says. "We just need to start listening to the hands-on experts ... and start heeding their warnings."

GAP has been pushing for better whistle-blower protection since 1977, but Devine says the tragedy of Sept. 11 has added urgency. He points to increased concern about airport security as an example. Earlier this year, for instance, Bogdan Dzakovic, a member of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) undercover "Red Team," made headlines when he revealed that security screeners regularly had failed to detect dangerous materials investigators attempted to smuggle aboard planes to test readiness. He revealed that rather than fix the problem, FAA administrators simply warned airports that investigators were on their way. GAP is working with Dzakovic to thwart FAA attempts to retaliate against him for blowing the whistle. "This isn't genuine national security," Devine says. "This is window-dressing national security." He says agencies typically demote or transfer people who speak out, or take away their power by rescinding their security clearances and assigning them to dead-end jobs. "Serious efforts throughout the federal government have been effectively silenced," he says.

According to Devine, whistle-blower protection measures already in place have been "so twisted and gutted ... that we warn people not to attempt defending themselves using these laws." He says several proposals, such as the Paul Revere Freedom to Warn Act, would strengthen protections and encourage people on the front lines of domestic security to speak out when leaders of vital agencies are asleep at the wheel. "It's unrealistic to expect whistle-blowers to defend the public if they don't have a fighting chance to defend themselves," Devine says. "It's time for Congress and the president to add some rights to their rhetoric."