A Congressional subcommittee has postponed until January hearings into whether government whistleblowers are being unjustly retaliated against. Whistleblowers’ groups are calling for additional witnesses to be added to the hearing.

The subcommittee said groups invited to testify at the hearing — such as the Project on Government Oversight and the Government Accountability Project — requested more time to gather information and prepare testimony.

The postponement, however, came a day after members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition sent a flurry of letters to the subcommittee saying their concerns and experiences will not be adequately represented by the witnesses scheduled to testify.

Coalition members asked that whistleblowers with first-hand experience having their security clearances revoked be allowed to testify. The subcommittee has not said whether it will change the witness list.

“It is dangerous to our national security and wasteful of taxpayer money to perpetuate the cover-up of wrongdoing in intelligence and law enforcement agencies,” wrote Sibel Edmonds, the coalition’s founder and director. “Congress’ continued failure to provide meaningful protection for national security whistleblowers gives opportunity and aid to our nation’s enemies.” . . .

Liberty Coalition founder Michael Ostrolenk said several organizations have become interested in supporting national security whistleblowers.

“We want real protections for national security whistleblowers,” he said. “It disturbs me that Congress would not want people who are real whistleblowers and have had the experience of being terminated or retaliated against to testify at these hearings.”

On Tuesday, eight organizations that are part of the Liberty Coalition sent a letter to the House Government Reform Committee requesting a meeting to discuss issues related to national security whistleblowing. In particular, the groups want committee Chairman Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., to meet with Edmonds.

The organizations — which include the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform and Gun Owners of America — said they are especially concerned that pending legislation does not provide protections to whistleblowers from national security and intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency.

The legislation in question is the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act (H.R. 3097).

“We are concerned that the bill does not provide protections to national security whistleblowers, and that this lack of protection will encourage fiscal irresponsibility and malfeasance in government,” the letter stated.

“The costs to citizens in taxpayer dollars, inefficiency and incompetence in national security agencies are especially difficult to determine, and without whistleblower revelations, there would be virtually no unvarnished glimpses into these areas at all,” the organizations added.

Republicans on the committee, however, defeated an amendment during a mark-up of the bill in September that would have extended protections to employees and contractors working at national security and intelligence agencies. Reps. Davis and Todd Platts, R-Pa., said they did not feel comfortable passing legislation that could affect the 1947 National Security Act, which falls under the jurisdiction of other committees. They also argued that the amendment would hurt the bill’s chances of winning the approval of the full House. — Government Executive

I’ll again ask for someone to shed some light on this. Why are the groups scheduled to testify insufficient to address the concerns here? Can’t they find anybody with firsthand experience of being retaliated against to testify for one of the groups already scheduled to appear?

Update: Sometimes if you read too fast, you miss important things. Edmonds had been fired for blowing the whistle on shoddy translation work and espionage in the FBI and sued the government. They stymied her case by claiming in court that it could not proceed without revealing national secrets.

Under the state secrets privilege, recognized by the Supreme Court 50 years ago, a lawsuit must be dismissed when there is no alternative to protect national security.

Edmonds, who was hired shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, had complained that important terrorism-related intelligence was being inadequately translated and raised allegations of espionage against a fellow linguist. — Chicago Tribune