This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

The White House issued a National Defense Authorization Act signing statement, which circumvents whistleblower protection provisions for 12 million government contractors--yet another blot on Obama's atrocious war on whistleblowers (you can read about the government's Espionage Act prosecution of my client, CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, in yesterday's New York Times front-pager.)

To add insult to injury, the White House did not even have the courtesy to alert Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo), the key backer of the whistleblower protections. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), another strong advocate of the protections, issued a statement describing Obama's signing statement as "deeply disturbing."


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

It shows Obama's priorities (or lack thereof) when he devotes an entire paragraph of a 2.5-page signing statement--on a 680-page law--to gutting whistleblower provisions.

What's wrong with protecting 12 million employees of federal contractors from exposing fraud, waste, abuse and illegality within the federal procurement system? According to Obama,

I will interpret [the whistleblower protection] sections consistent with my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.
(Emphasis mine.) The language is creepy, but telling. It's all about controlling information, something at the heart of the twisted prosecutions of whistleblowers for espionage. After all, whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou blew the whistle on the highly-illegal domestic surveillance program and torture program, respectively, both of which the Bush and Obama administrations have claimed are classified, or even state secrets.

The whistleblower provisions would have protected contract employees precisely in the position of Tom Drake, who exposed the National Security Agency's (NSA) gross waste and mismanagement to the tune of billions of wasted dollars in the federal procurement system.

My learned colleague at the Government Accountability Project, Tom Devine, said the language of Obama's objections could have been much worse:

The president's expressions of concerns were a milquetoast version of traditional Pentagon fretting about whistleblowers . . . We all considered them so muted that it was almost like tacit support for making those rights, expanding those rights.
Huh?Tacit support for these provisions would have been to let them stand, rather than making them unenforceable.
Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.