This post was written by GAP Homeland Security Director Jesselyn Radack for her Daily Kos blog.

A while back, I was riled up because the Obama administration objected to the release of Bush documents that describe the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees (specifically, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri) at secret prisons in Thailand. Why is it important to have documents that describe the videotapes? Because the 92 videotapes themselves were destroyed.

Now it turns out, courtesy of an ACLU FOIA request, that in 2005, Porter Goss, the former director of the CIA, blessed the decision, after the fact, by one of his top aides (Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr.) to destroy dozens of the missing torture videotapes. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/... After Rodriguez offered to "take the heat" (apparently realizing that he'd screwed up), and Goss laughed and said that, actually, he (Goss), would have to take the heat. I guess I don't get the joke, or how this is in any way funny.

Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA's clandestine service, did not clear the destruction before it happened with Goss. Nor with the CIA's top lawyer at the time, John Rizzo. Nor with the White House's Harriet Miers, who had asked to be advised before any action was taken.

Apparently, Rodriguez told Goss that the tapes would make the CIA

look terrible; it would be devastating to us.

That's a different, if more disgustingly honest, rationale that the three arguments previously posited that the videotapes would: 1) endanger national security, 2) benefit al-Qaeda's recruitment efforts, and 3) reveal "sensitive operational information" about interrogations. These first two reasons were purely speculative, non-legal arguments. The third reason was not really a valid reason, but rather an unapologetic cover-up of what might expose illegality--something that in and of itself is a crime called "obstruction of justice."

New questions are arising over a contract between the District of Columbia and a friend of DC Mayor Adrian Fenty that was picked to renovate DC parks and recreation centers. Mayor Fenty has been criticized in the past for the relationship between the mayoral office and his friends.

Banneker, owned by Fenty friend (and former fraternity brother) Omar Karim, received the lucrative contract, which included a $4.2 million management fee, as well as an unusual "consultant's markup," which would give the company 9 percent of fees charged by each of its subcontractors. The fee would likely add “more than $700,000 to Banneker's earnings,” according to the WaPo.

While administration officials continue to claim that the fees are "well within market," they were "unable to cite an example in which a project management team not involving Banneker has been awarded a flat fee plus a markup on subcontractors' charges." In addition, Banneker hired, as subcontractors, a company owned by the former field director for Fenty's campaign, who had never before overseen such work.

Procurement experts have commented that the extra fee is unusual, especially in a public works context.

Joanna Gualtieri, a prominent Canadian whistleblower who exposed wasteful spending by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, was finally able to settle her whistleblower retaliation lawsuit with the department after 12 years. Unfortunately, the laws that allowed Gualtieri (and other public servants) to rightfully sue the government after whistleblower retaliation have been since been changed.

Gualtieri currently serves as a member of GAP’s Board of Directors. During her ordeal, Gualtieri founded a group, Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform (FAIR) which supports Canadian government whistleblowers, and is a key international ally of GAP.

Gualtieri blew the whistle on what Toronto Sun columnist Greg Weston calls "taxpayer hell." From nearly the first day at her job in the Department of Foreign Affairs, she witnessed atrociously wasteful spending by Canadian diplomats. In one case, an official in Tokyo spent taxpayer money for an apartment that cost over $350,000 a year in rent, while an $18-million mansion owned by the Canadian government in the same city was allowed to stand empty for three to four years at a time.

When Gualtieri filed reports about the wasteful spending, higher-ups in Foreign Affairs began retaliating against her incessantly. Her reports were censored and she was no longer allowed to travel to inspect foreign embassies. After four years in the department, as Weston writes, "she was assigned a job with nothing to do." The retaliation eventually became so overwhelming that Gualtieri went on unpaid medical leave.

The Office of Special Counsel, the federal agency charged with protecting federal employees from retaliation for whistleblowing, has been without a leader for almost 18 months. This issue deserves more media attention, and it’s good that GovExec is recognizing that. Without a director, the agency has been unable to implement major policy changes or program initiatives, or support upcoming whistleblower protection legislation.

Several Government Accountability Project clients have found success with the OSC. Gabe Bruno, former Federal Aviation Administration Manager of the Orlando Flight Standards District Office, blew the whistle on certain failures of the FAA to promote security. The OSC informed Bruno in 2009 that it found his disclosures revealed a “substantial likelihood that serious safety concerns persist in the management and operation of the certification and management programs at FAA.”

Bogdan Dzakovic was a former leader of the FAA’s counter-terrorism unit ‘Red Team’ which, prior to 9/11, tested aviation security in airports around the world. The security systems failed around 75-90 percent of the time, but the FAA censored any written records of the failures, and banned retesting. After the attacks, the Red Team was grounded. Dzakovic filed a formal whistleblower complaint with the OSC, which eventually ruled in favor of his allegations, stating that the FAA executed its civil aviation security mission in a manner that “was a substantial and specific danger to public safety.”

ProPublica presents a list of involved people who are denying any knowledge of Lehman Brothers controversial usage of an accounting trick that allowed the company to hide its financial troubles before eventually filing for bankruptcy in 2008. Included is Lehman Brothers CEO, who claims that he didn't know about the issue because he doesn't use a computer and couldn't open attachments on his BlackBerry. The article has a nice video explaining the accounting trick.

New court filings in the case of Federal Air Marshal whistleblower and GAP client Robert MacLean argue that MacLean's direct supervisor was engaged in “an illicit affair with a female subordinate, on whom he bestowed numerous professional favors.” However, the supervisor was protected from punishment for this violation of agency rules because he made a dirty deal to carry out the director of the air marshal program's instructions to fire MacLean. GAP legal director Tom Devine is quoted in the article, from the Orange County Register:

MacLean’s attorney, Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Project, responded to the government’s response: “The development about Mr. Donanti was not offered to impugn his character,” it says. “It demonstrates that he had a conflict of interest, because his professional survival depended on acting as the agency’s hatchet man against a problematic Federal Law Enforcement Officer’s Association (FLEOA) leader."

The article also discusses the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which would give whistleblowers many more rights and protections. The act was likely to pass the Senate by unanimous consent last year but two Republican senators (Jim Bunning and Kit Bond) put holds on the bill. Bunning has since removed his hold.

USA Today published an article on Monday detailing the numerous reasons that strong federal whistleblower legislation needs to be passed. GAP has been fighting to pass this legislation for a decade. The article, relying on GAP analysis, details current issues with three federal bodies with huge influence over whistleblower treatment – the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit System Protection Board, and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

The article also cites GAP client Robert MacLean as a prime example of the federal whistleblower experience. Lawmakers praised his actions when he came forward to report serious problems with the Federal Air Marshall program. However, MacLean was fired three years later, when the Transportation Security Administration retroactively labeled the information he reported with a “hybrid-secrecy” label – “sensitive security information.” MacLean fought back against the injustice, but four years later his claim is still stuck in a review process that often fails to protect whistleblowers. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) explains:

"Even if they're 100% right, they still kind of ruin themselves professionally." Because whistle-blowers are vital in exposing government misconduct, "there are a lot of whistle-blower protection laws out there, but the spirit of the law isn't always carried out."

However, key lawmakers and supporters believe that bills to strengthen protections for whistleblowers like Robert MacLean have a better chance passing now than in previous years. Bills currently in the House of Representatives and Senate would lift gag rules imposed by some national security agencies and strengthen rules against retaliation. The bills would provide the right for some whistleblowers to jury trials on retaliation claims.

Yesterday a story in the Politico newspaper reported that whistleblower and employee free speech protection groups, including GAP, are worried that the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, currently stalled in the Senate, will not adequately protect FBI whistleblowers.

GAP would like to take this opportunity to expand on what was reported in the story, to provide a clearer picture and set the record straight.

First, there is no disagreement between the White House and congressional staff, in the House or Senate, that the problem must and will be fixed before final passage of legislation to restore a credible Whistleblower Protection Act. Other serious issues remain disputed, some hotly, but this is not one of them.

Second, in our view, whistleblower supporters who deserve our trust, such as Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka and President Obama, have not let down whistleblowers or the American public on this issue. While we disagree with them on specific details, they have been public servants in their unqualified commitment to strengthening whistleblower protection. Senator Akaka has, time after time, proven his unqualified commitment to stronger whistleblower rights, illustrated by his quiet personal strength and stamina during this ten-year marathon to restore a viable Whistleblower Protection Act. His efforts are unsurpassed by any other member in Congress. With respect to President Obama, throughout his professional history and now through his White House staff, he has been a hero to whistleblowers. While many of us disagree on the extent of rights for FBI and intelligence agency employees, no President in GAP’s 32-year history has worked as hard to help and support whistleblowers to strengthen their rights. In fact, no other President has come close, and he is the first President to play it straight with us.

“Change we can believe in” and reform do not just happen: These two key offices have been walking the walk, doing the seemingly endless, unglamorous, hard work to earn genuine whistleblower rights for federal workers. Their efforts deserve recognition and credit.

This show came about because I read Jesselyn Radack's article, OPR: Torture Lawyers Get a Pass; I Get Referred for Criminal Prosecution and Bar Discipline. That inspired me to invite her on the show.

Then, she sent me a link to this article by Scott Horton, Justice's Vendetta Against a Whistleblower: Six Questions for Jesselyn Radack, and that inspired me to invite Scott back, to again be a guest on the show, this time for a three way conversation with Jesselyn.

This post was written by GAP Homeland Security Director Jesselyn Radack for her Daily Kos blog.

Recently cleared of professional misconduct by Justice Department bureaucrat David Margolis, torture memo author John Yoo contends in the Wall Street Journal that his irresponsible lawyering and depraved advice regarding interrogation techniques are actually a "gift" to President Obama.

Well, I hope Yoo included a gift receipt, because no U.S. President who values the Constitution and separation of powers should want a "gift" of power from any extreme unitary executive theorist who passes his ideas off as mainstream legal thinking and authorizes torture and cruel and inhumane treatment in the U.S.'s name.

Yesterday, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee grilled James E. Lentz, president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., for more than two hours about Toyota's decision-making. During his testimony, Lentz admitted that fixing the floor mats and sticking acceleration pedals may not fix all the problems with the cars, and acknowledged that the issues may have to do with electronics. From WaPo:

"Do you believe that the recall on the carpet changes and the recalls on the sticky pedals will solve the problem of sudden, unintended acceleration?" Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) asked James E. Lentz III, president of Toyota Motor Sales USA.

"Not totally," Lentz replied.