╌>

The Whistle-Blowers of 1777

  
Via:  Split Personality  •  5 years ago  •  29 comments


The Whistle-Blowers of 1777
The tension between protecting true national security secrets and ensuring the public’s “right to know” about abuses of authority is not new. Indeed, the nation’s founders faced this very issue.

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





In the winter of 1777, months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the American warship Warren was anchored outside of Providence, R.I. On board, 10 revolutionary sailors and marines met in secret — not to plot against the king’s armies, but to discuss their concerns about the commander of the Continental Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins. They knew the risks: Hopkins came from a powerful family; his brother was a former governor of Rhode Island and a signer of the declaration.

384

Hopkins had participated in the torture of captured British sailors; he “treated prisoners in the most inhuman and barbarous manner,” his subordinates wrote in a petition.

One whistle-blower, a Marine captain named John Grannis, was selected to present the petition to the Continental Congress, which voted on March 26, 1777, to suspend Hopkins from his post.




The case did not end there. Hopkins, infuriated, immediately retaliated. He filed a criminal libel suit in Rhode Island against the whistle-blowers. Two of them who happened to be in Rhode Island — Samuel Shaw, a midshipman, and Richard Marven, a third lieutenant — were jailed. In a petition read to Congress on July 23, 1778, they pleaded that they had been “arrested for doing what they then believed and still believe was nothing but their duty.”

Later that month, without any recorded dissent, Congress enacted America’s first whistle-blower-protection law: “That it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.”




Congress did not stop there. It wanted to ensure that the whistle-blowers would have excellent legal counsel to fight against the libel charges, and despite the financial hardships of the new republic, it authorized payment for the legal fees of Marven and Shaw.

Congress did not hide behind government secrecy edicts, even though the nation was at war. Instead, it authorized the full release of all records related to the removal of Hopkins. No “state secret” privilege was invoked. The whistle-blowers did not need to use a Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents to vindicate themselves. There was no attempt to hide the fact that whistle-blowers had accused a Navy commander of mistreating prisoners.

Armed with Congress’s support, the whistle-blowers put on a strong defense, and won their case in court. And true to its word, Congress on May 22, 1779, provided $1,418 to cover costs associated with the whistle-blowers’ defense. One “Sam. Adams” was directed to ensure that their Rhode Island lawyer, William Channing, was paid.

Nearly two centuries later, the Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas, praising the founders’ commitment to freedom of speech, wrote: “The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information.”

A 1989 law was supposed to protect federal employees who expose fraud and misconduct from retaliation. But over the years, these protections have been completely undermined. One loophole gives the government the absolute right to strip employees of their security clearances and fire them, without judicial review. Another bars employees of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency from any coverage under the law. And Congress has barred national security whistle-blowers who are fired for exposing wrongdoing from obtaining protection in federal court.

It is no surprise that honest citizens who witness waste, fraud and abuse in national security programs but lack legal protections are silenced or forced to turn to unauthorized methods to expose malfeasance, incompetence or negligence.

Instead of ignoring and intimidating whistle-blowers, Congress and the executive branch would do well to follow the example of the Continental Congress, by supporting and shielding them.



Stephen M. Kohn is the executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center and the author of “The Whistleblower’s Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Doing What’s Right and Protecting Yourself.”




Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Split Personality    5 years ago

Note:

The original article appeared as an OP/ED in the NYT in June of 2011 as a criticism of that Administration's crackdown on leakers and the

author's position is that they are whistleblowers with a rich history protected by law since 1778.

Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblower Center, first discovered the importance of this date to whistleblowers.  Fifteen years ago, while conducting research for an amicus brief filed by the NWC supporting the constitutionality of the False Claims Act, Kohn discovered a resolution passed by the  Continental Congress . The resolution, enacted on July 30, 1778, can be considered the world’s first whistleblower law.  Kohn then carefully researched why our Founding Fathers enacted the resolution, and learned the details of America’s first whistleblower case.  He reviewed the letters the whistleblowers wrote in jail pleading their case to the revolutionary Congress.  He obtained from the National Archives a copy of the check the Continental Congress wrote to Sam Adams, honoring Congress’ agreement to pay the costs of the whistleblowers’ defense. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1  seeder  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @1    5 years ago

To be clear, I am not endorsing leaking.  Leaking is not following the rules that have been laid out by Congress.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Split Personality @1.1    5 years ago

I don't know, depends on what is leaked. If it has to do with something serious, like treason, murder, etc...  But in general, yea, leakers are bad. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.2  seeder  Split Personality  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.1    5 years ago

most leaks are bad, some worse than others, lol

256

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2  MrFrost    5 years ago
Armed with Congress’s support, the whistle-blowers put on a strong defense, and won their case in court. And true to its word, Congress on May 22, 1779, provided $1,418 to cover costs associated with the whistle-blowers’ defense. One “Sam. Adams” was directed to ensure that their Rhode Island lawyer, William Channing, was paid.

Today that wouldn't even cover a one hour consult in a large metro area. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3  MrFrost    5 years ago

Whistleblower identity must be protected. It's no secret trump is irate that he doesn't know who it is because he is desperate to attack their character and come up with a snappy nickname. On the larger scale, I have no doubt that the whistleblower's physical well being would be in jeopardy if trump found out who they are. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.1  seeder  Split Personality  replied to  MrFrost @3    5 years ago

Exactly. There was a conversation on the news  the other night about putting the WB and an unknown amount of family members in Witness

Protection to hide them from the POTUS and others.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Split Personality @3.1    5 years ago

It's pretty damn sad when the government has to hide whistleblowers from itself.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.1    5 years ago

nicely put

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.2    5 years ago

Thanks, Iggy.  But I'll never have your way with words.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.3    5 years ago

Thanks, Iggy.  But I'll never have your way with words.

well , i must confess, i'm not like Trump, these words just don't let me "grab them",

but i do confess, in this way, i am like Trump as i am forced to pay these words, but not at the Trump rate of $130,00 per

so as, i'm allowed to get my way with them, but, i know no other way, to weigh the impact of words, spoken and written, as my scale is often to scale of how i see words weighed,

thus, when this POS potUS states via tweet, how his removal, would/could result in Civil War,

the weight of words should now be waited upon, as this is just the tip, 

that our waiter in Chief was charged with inserting into his facial orifice ,

As Put in was Putins'  member  him, 

that mater dee who bred Trump on the breeder  poll  taken by Fox, out of Trumps fat    ass  kin   to know if Trumps off spring on fall

nights, ever leave , any branches of our government not out on a limp limb,

stumped,

as i believe some can't see the gumption of D Forrest

for the  Treas     on  that which, like in Trumps own words that he never signs the lease for. As he may not own them before or after that sp;ecific chronological

i

ncrement, that which he thought they were required, and should be treated like spies of days gone buy   , bought to die for till   

Death   due US and he part

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4  seeder  Split Personality    5 years ago

Meanwhile, back at the IRS, there's a rumor of an IRS whistleblower, something to do with tax returns. jrSmiley_72_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
4.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Split Personality @4    5 years ago

I heard a sound byte about that on my am news.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.1.1  seeder  Split Personality  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1    5 years ago

The Treasury Dept has an IG who is going to investigate what happened to all of the House committees requests for different records and if they were handled properly or ignored.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6  seeder  Split Personality    5 years ago

Hopkins is revered for his raid on Nassau . Thus the statues.

Never the less.

Hopkins's commission was terminated by the Congress on 30 July 1778 for his part in the arrest of Richard Marven and Samuel Shaw , a pair of early whistle-blowers, due to their having reported his torture of British prisoners of war . Hopkins is single-handedly responsible for the resolution of Congress "That it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, all well as all other inhabitants thereof to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or other misdemeanours committed by any persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge."

Semper Fi, USMC Captain John Grannis, the first Whistleblower

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 years ago

This article was very enlightening. I never knew about this event, and it shows an integrity that seems to be lacking these days. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1  seeder  Split Personality  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7    5 years ago

I am older than I look and have a long memory, lol.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Split Personality @7.1    5 years ago

Who's your plastic surgeon. I want his name!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.1.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.1    5 years ago
Who's your plastic surgeon.

Here's some of Ivanka's plastic surgeons.

800

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8  Trout Giggles    5 years ago

Interesting story. Thanks, SP

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1  seeder  Split Personality  replied to  Trout Giggles @8    5 years ago

Technically Ben Franklin is listed as the first North American Whistleblower  while we were still British Colonies in 1773.

Franklin published some private correspondence he found which proved that the Governor of Massachusetts

was trying to mislead Parliament into sending more troops to the state.  The Governor was fired, censured and exiled.

This was in 1773, so in reality, the Governor was correct in his assessment of what was coming.

To Franklin this was just an early political move in the grand game of chess he was playing with the King and Parliament.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

Thanx for providing the historical evidence of the importance of whistle blowing.

800

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
10  cobaltblue    5 years ago

I never knew any of this! Great article, SP. Although I always thought the first whistleblower was Paul Revere. Word on the cobbled street is that he never made it to Concord. Nor did he yell "the British are coming." 

Although he didn't yell, "The British are coming!" Revere did manage to warn all of Lexington about the British invasion in the hours before he spurred a horse toward Concord. 

Of course, we can't forget the whistleblower's whistleblower: Linda Tripp. 

Ooh, ooh! And Serpico! 

After police officer Frank Serpico reports police corruption to his superiors for several years and no action is taken, he approaches The New York Times with a story that ultimately forces New York City mayor John Lindsay to establish a commission to investigate police corruption.
 
 

Who is online


71 visitors