I have been reading a couple of the books written in the last ten years by Chris Mooney, a science author, in which he is very critical of government reports that are altered so as to minimize and mislead regarding important information. Where that information is subsequently the basis for important decision making, to mislead and misrepresent, particularly where safety or security is involved should be strongly penalized, but instead in too many instances, at least in the 'Dubya' years, that was standard operating procedure -- make the reports fit the outcome that the administration wants, and the hell with fact or truth.
That is the essence of living in a "post-truth" society, that we either become so cynical we disbelieve everything equally, or we make peace with being gullible stooges. I rejcect both choices, and so should you.
We should ALL demand the truth, regardless of it being convenient or inconvenient, or ideologically consistent with our views or not. There is no point to teaching a controversy where there is no significant controversy, there is no point or value while replacing value with substantive risk, in allowing corporations OR government to lie to us.
From POGO:
According to the IG report, one Boeing employee told Conley in a sworn statement that there was “a covert technology library maintained by Boeing.” The employee told Pentagon criminal investigators that the Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management had sanctioned the library; however, according to reprisal investigators, she also told the criminal investigators that in the past she had said the program involved “stealing technology from Government customers.” Later, criminal investigations did not substantiate allegations of theft.
Conley completed a first draft of his report on the administrative inquiry in May 2002. His conclusions were modest, but suggested that it was possible Boeing was changing the labeling on classified documents or technology, potentially, for example, by removing a “Top Secret” marking on a document that required it. “DSS could make no assessment of the potential for covert improper technology transfer practices,” his draft stated in its conclusion, but “if improper technology transfer practices have included the remarking or the mis-marking of documentation or hardware,” then he said that experts would be required for further examination.
In a later interview with IG reprisal investigators, Conley said that what Boeing had been doing placed “advanced technologies and information at extreme risk.” According to Conley, this happened due to Boeing’s “systemic failure of following the proper DOD processes for the safeguarding and handling of compartmented information.”
DSS Senior Management Waters Down Conley’s Report
Conley’s draft made its way to Defense Security Service headquarters, but was returned to him at least twice. Each time, “there was a direction to remove supporting evidence/documentation,” according to a transcript of a 2010 IG retaliation investigator interview with Conley.
“My concern was that in removing that documentation, they were removing the supporting evidence,” Conley told reprisal investigators with the IG’s office. That evidence, according to Conley, “supported my finding that there was systemic and serious problems” within Boeing’s Phantom Works.
According to the interview transcript, Conley said the upshot of these changes, was “reducing a very serious administrative inquiry that should have gone on for consideration for potential civil and/or criminal follow up, to nothing more than minor administrative findings.”
The final report, which Conley refused to sign, was reduced from his original twelve pages to three.
That is the essence of living in a "post-truth" society, that we either become so cynical we disbelieve everything equally, or we make peace with being gullible stooges. I rejcect both choices, and so should you.
We should ALL demand the truth, regardless of it being convenient or inconvenient, or ideologically consistent with our views or not. There is no point to teaching a controversy where there is no significant controversy, there is no point or value while replacing value with substantive risk, in allowing corporations OR government to lie to us.
From POGO:
Whistleblower: Boeing Put Classified Information at Risk
Pentagon Watchdog Backs Up Retaliation Claim
By NICK SCHWELLENBACH
“Extreme Risk”According to the IG report, one Boeing employee told Conley in a sworn statement that there was “a covert technology library maintained by Boeing.” The employee told Pentagon criminal investigators that the Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management had sanctioned the library; however, according to reprisal investigators, she also told the criminal investigators that in the past she had said the program involved “stealing technology from Government customers.” Later, criminal investigations did not substantiate allegations of theft.
Conley completed a first draft of his report on the administrative inquiry in May 2002. His conclusions were modest, but suggested that it was possible Boeing was changing the labeling on classified documents or technology, potentially, for example, by removing a “Top Secret” marking on a document that required it. “DSS could make no assessment of the potential for covert improper technology transfer practices,” his draft stated in its conclusion, but “if improper technology transfer practices have included the remarking or the mis-marking of documentation or hardware,” then he said that experts would be required for further examination.
In a later interview with IG reprisal investigators, Conley said that what Boeing had been doing placed “advanced technologies and information at extreme risk.” According to Conley, this happened due to Boeing’s “systemic failure of following the proper DOD processes for the safeguarding and handling of compartmented information.”
DSS Senior Management Waters Down Conley’s Report
Conley’s draft made its way to Defense Security Service headquarters, but was returned to him at least twice. Each time, “there was a direction to remove supporting evidence/documentation,” according to a transcript of a 2010 IG retaliation investigator interview with Conley.
“My concern was that in removing that documentation, they were removing the supporting evidence,” Conley told reprisal investigators with the IG’s office. That evidence, according to Conley, “supported my finding that there was systemic and serious problems” within Boeing’s Phantom Works.
According to the interview transcript, Conley said the upshot of these changes, was “reducing a very serious administrative inquiry that should have gone on for consideration for potential civil and/or criminal follow up, to nothing more than minor administrative findings.”
The final report, which Conley refused to sign, was reduced from his original twelve pages to three.
No comments:
Post a Comment