Talk:Robert MacLean

The ramifications if the Supreme Court REVERSES decision in favor the Department of Homeland Security
If the Supreme Court overturns the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision—that was UNANIMOUSLY in Robert MacLean's favor—Congress will have no choice but to pass new federal whistleblower protection legislation since ANY disclosure to CONGRESS or the public can later be designated with an executive agency UN-classified hybrid-secrecy label such as "Sensitive Security Information," "For Official Use Only," or "Law Enforcement Sensitive." MacLean's disclosure was retroactively designated as "Sensitive Security Information" years after the fact.

The Republican co-author of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act warned about this in his floor speech at the U.S. House of Representatives:

"First, agencies must not be allowed to circumvent whistleblower protections through so-called 'secrecy' regulations, such as a new category of information (labeled 'Sensitive Security Information') created by the Department of Homeland Security. Whistleblower law understandably already exempts from whistleblower protections information which is classified or 'specifically prohibited by law' from release. Classified information is information that is kept secret by Executive Order, not a hybrid category of information created by agency regulation like 'Sensitive Security Information.' Moreover, 'prohibited by law' has long been understood to mean statutory law and court interpretations of those statutes, not to agency rules and regulations.

If the Federal Circuit Court broadens the 'prohibited by law' exemption to include anything that an agency tries to keep secret under any of their regulations, a new loophole could be opened up that would substantially undermine Congressional intent in passing this bill. It is therefore important to once again make it clear: Prohibited by law' has long been understood to mean statutory law and court interpretations of those statutes, not to agency rules and regulations. Any exceptions to these rights must be created by Congress, and Congress must act with specificity. That has been the law since 1978, and it continues to be the law."

http://1.usa.gov/1jWyQVV

Some comments
I've just assessed this article per request, and thought I'd leave a few comments. Some of the section headers are a bit long, and quotations should typically be kept to a minimum. Once those are cleaned up, I think that this might be C-class. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is way too long. And it's obviously skewed towards his favor. It's been over a year since Drilnoth looked at this. *sigh* Crap like this makes Wikipedia look sloppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.16.114 (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is way too long, and obviously written by Mr. MacLean himself. Like the previous poster says how it's obviously skewed in his favor. Heck, there are people who are way more "famous" that don't have pages this long. Anyone have the time to straighten this up? 174.253.138.78 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article is long, but I think the case is extremely important. If this case is upheld, the government will be able to retroactively (back-date) anything it doesn't like said from a legitimate whistle-blower. In the Maclean case here, the TSA used one of its unclassified designation marks to fire him three years after the fact. I remember when this incident happened in 2003, it was headline news for weeks. Congress and the administration forced the TSA to cancel its plan before it ever became operational, thanks to Maclean's disclosure. Maclean even went to the inspector general only to be ignored. Please clean it up, but do not water it down. This case strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment when unsecured, unmarked, unclassified information can no longer be disclosed to Congress, the courts, or the public. If the government prevails, a government employee will have to consult with his bosses within his/her agency before making any potential whistle-blower disclosures. The implications will have a chilling effect on low-level government workers who witness wrongdoing firsthand. Wikipedia should assign a panel of experts to make any edits. Thank you very much!

Clean up per WP:MOS
I've gone through to adress some of the formatting issues with this article: There is more work to be done to bring this article in line with Manual of Style. Ground Zero | t 15:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have shortened the headings and fixed the capitalization per the comment above and WP:MOSHEAD
 * I have removed datelinks per MOS:SYL
 * I have remove some repeated links and links to plain English words per WP:OVERLINK
 * I have removed the excessive bolding and italicization, especially of quotations already formatted wit blockquote or cquote -- no additional formatting is needed with these
 * the title of books, magazines and TV programs are to be italicized, but the names of websites and TV stations are not to be italicized.

First Amendment and government mismanagement
This case is pretty amazing to me. At first I was believing the TSA's case against McLean until I started peeling away the layers. Worst case: McLean broke TSA's rules, but had VERY GOOD intentions to do so. Best case: McLean clearly tried to use his chain of command all the way up to the inspector general, only to be blown off. TSA blew its hotel budget to the point it could not cover 9/11-type flights for two months. Hard to call him a "whistle-blower" when he was a cop...cops don't "blow the whistle," they uphold the law. The eventually cancelled plan was clearly in violation of the congressionally enacted law on the books. Retroactive enforcement of any law or rule is clearly UNAmerican. His retroactive violation of TSA rules -- because he "should've known better" -- is not criminal, and the only way a federal whistle-blower cannot be protected is if he/she breaks the law, like releasing CLASSIFIED information, not undesignated open-source information. Wikipedia is a "1st Amendment garden," this case is a very clear violation of free speech rights. I'd rather read a long article about this case than one about "Snooki,"Lady Gaga," or "Honey Boo Boo..." Leave the article as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.95.2 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Start fresh from scratch
This article is way, way too long, has way, way too many sections, way, way too many quotations and relies on way, way too many primary sources. It basically needs to be rebuilt from scratch in encyclopedic summary style. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)