The "S" Word

Why hasn't anyone in the nutjobsphere worked themselves into a frothing, rabid snit over this example of free speech-chilling shenanigans?

On Sept. 15, 2005, the Alibi published a letter to the editor from [Laura] Berg, which we've reprinted here in full (see "Wake Up, Get Real"). Whether you agree with Berg's sentiments or not, the letter would seem to consist of boilerplate griping about the Bush administration, the same kind of opinion piece that can be found every day in publications all over the country.

Here's where this story takes a turn for the weird. Although Berg has chosen not to comment at this time, [ACLU attorneys] Bach and Kronen say that a few days after the letter was published, VA Information Security employees seized Berg's computer at the local VA hospital where she works. At the time, she was told this action occurred because of suspicions that she'd composed the letter to the Alibi on government time, on government premises, using government equipment.

According to Bach and Kronen, on Sept. 19, 2005, Berg's American Federation of Government Employees Union representative, Thomas Driber, informed Berg that her letter to the Alibi had been sent through "VA channels" to the FBI in Washington, D.C. The attorneys say this information was confirmed by one of the union's Washington lawyers during a conference call between Driber, Berg and the union lawyer. (Multiple phone messages left at Driber's office by the Alibi were not answered.)

As if that weren't creepy enough, the attorneys say Berg made further inquiries and eventually received a response from the VA's Chief of Human Resources, Mel R. Hooker, who, in a memorandum dated Nov. 9, 2005, allegedly admitted that the VA had no evidence the letter was written on Berg's office computer. Despite this, Hooker claimed the investigation was justified because the "Agency is bound by law to investigate and pursue any act which potentially represents sedition."

The government certainly has the right to investigate any non-work activity that employs the use of tax-payer assets. Would the FBI be the appropriate agency to investigate non-authorized use of tax-payer assets? Of course not.

And what about accusing dissenters of the "s" word? Before someone jumps in with a Loyalty Oath defense of this, The Hatch Act allows Federal employees to:

• register and vote as they choose
• assist in voter registration drives
• express opinions about candidates and issues
• participate in campaigns where none of the candidates represent a political party
• contribute money to political organizations or attend political fund raising functions
• attend political rallies and meetings
• join political clubs or parties
• sign nominating petitions
• campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances

If "dissent" now equals "potentially seditious," my logs indicate there are a bevy of federal employees reading "potentially seditious" material during work hours using tax-payer assets, as there are also federal employees leaving "potentially seditious" comments on this blog during work hours. Are you next?

See also: Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive: VA Nurse Investigated for “Sedition” for Criticizing Bush

Comments

[Faux Real]

Holy shit.

[JDC]

Alberto Gonzales: President John Adams authorized the pursuit of seditious acts on a far broader scale…

[David]

Trackback isn't working for me, so this is my trackback. I'm with you, this is really scary.