Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (681905)	5/10/2005 2:16:15 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 769670

U.N. Preparing to Punish Whistleblower The saga of former United Nations intelligence analyst turned whistleblower William Church is far from over. There is evidence to suggest the UN is preparing to penalize Mr. Church for exposing faults with U.N. intelligence reports in the Congo, as evidenced by information provided to GPR by Church and U.N. Security Council Committee Resolution 1533: The Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1533 (2004) of 12 March 2004, was recently made aware of the existence of allegations pertaining to the work of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Committee noted with concern that these allegations appear to have been circulated in breach of contractual undertakings on confidentiality and with complete disregard for the security and safety of those involved with the work of the Group of Experts, undermining future investigations by the Group. The Committee thoroughly examined these allegations, which called into question the methodology of investigation and some of the findings of the Group of Experts. The Committee also carefully considered the response of the Group of Experts. So what sort of retribution might the U.N. have in store for Church? The mention of "breach of contractual undertakings" in the above resolution suggests the U.N. might pursue a simple breach of contract claim. Church portrays his situation more bleakly, stating to GPR that the U.N. is preparing to "sanction me with very severe penalties." It is unclear at this point what remedies are available to the U.N. given current international law, but you can be sure all options will be evaluated to avoid other potential whistleblowers in the organization. Regardless of what avenue the U.N. ultimately pursues, based on materials available to the public and information made available by Church himself, the U.N. is being disingenuous to say the least. For starters, Church never revealed any information in his correspondences with media outlets nor to this website that could endanger sources (i.e. witnesses) and thus hinder future investigations. The reality is that Church simply provided the basic details needed to show the U.N. Panel of Experts falsified their report involving Rwanda in the Congo, and nothing more. This distinction is well documented by the original BBC article and a subsequent follow-up by the Associated Press (the only two mainstream news articles on this topic). Contrary to the text of the U.N. resolution cited above, Church's allegations have not been adequately investigated nor has the evaluation of his findings been given satisfactory due process review. For instance, during an evaluation of his accusations by the U.N. Sanctions Committee, not one witness cited by Church in his report was interviewed. Furthermore, all proceedings were conducted behind closed doors without offering Church an opportunity to respond to accusations against his work or his character. The U.N. Panel of Experts, however, were given ample opportunity to clarify and substantiate their disputed findings. Does this sound like a thorough examination of the allegations? While mater-of-factly stating that the Committee is satisfied with the disputed work of the Panel of Experts, it should be noted that the U.N. has not provided any specifics on how they arrived at this conclusion. Nothing has been posted on their website nor was their a press release with even basic information undermining Church's allegations. As a self professed believer and supporter of the U.N., Church would not have gone public with his concerns unless the situation was severe enough to warrant such a course of action. Taking that first step towards being a whistleblower is a courageous step, and even more so when the major media outlets appear to be collectively against you. Making matters even worse is the fact that the U.N. does not appear to have a policy protecting whistleblowers. This is in stark contrast to many large multinational corporations and government institutions which have substantive programs in place to protect whistleblowers. Thus, Church and other U.N. whistleblowers are left to fend for themselves if they dare to even come forward in the first place. The treatment of Church by the U.N. is all but certain to discourage other potential whistleblowers at the world body. And everyone but the bureaucrats at Turtle Bay is worse off because of this. geopoliticalreview.com