Web Hosting Talk : Other Forums : Web Hosting Lounge : VA Nurse Charged with Sedition.

[BigBison]

The Sedition Act of 1918 has been secretly reinstated by the Bush administration, just as I've recently begun to suspect:

Laura Berg is a clinical nurse specialist at the VA Medical Center in Albuquerque, where she has worked for 15 years.

Shortly after Katrina, she wrote a letter to the editor of the weekly paper the Alibi criticizing the Bush Administration.

After the paper published the letter in its September 15-21 issue, VA administrators seized her computer, alleged that she had written the letter on that computer, and accused her of "sedition."

Here's what her letter said.

"I am furious with the tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence of this government," it began. "The Katrina tragedy in the US shows that the emperor has no clothes!" She mentioned that she was "a VA nurse" working with returning vets. "The public has no sense of the additional devastating human and financial costs of post-traumatic stress disorder," she wrote, and she worried about the hundreds of thousands of additional cases that might result from Katrina and the Iraq War.

"Bush, Cheney, Chertoff, Brown, and Rice should be tried for criminal negligence," she wrote. "This country needs to get out of Iraq now and return to our original vision and priorities of caring for land and people and resources rather than killing for oil. . . . We need to wake up and get real here, and act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.

Otherwise, many more of us will be facing living hell in these times."

After her computer was seized, Berg wrote a memo to her bosses seeking information and an explanation.

Mel Hooker, chief of the human resources management service at the Albuquerque VA, wrote Berg back on November 9 and acknowledged that "your personal computer files did not contain the editorial letter written to the editor of the weekly Alibi."

But rather than apologize, he leveled the sedition charge: "The Agency is bound by law to investigate and pursue any act which potentially represents sedition," he said. "In your letter . . . you declared yourself 'as a VA nurse' and publicly declared the Government which employs you to have 'tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence' and advocated, 'act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.' "

Berg, who is not talking to the press, is "scared for her job" and "pretty emotionally distressed," says Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU of New Mexico.

"We were shocked to see the word 'sedition' used," Simonson tells The Progressive. "Sedition? That's like something out of the history books."

In a press release, Simonson also said: "Is this government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of 'sedition'?"

The ACLU of New Mexico is working in Berg's behalf. It has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents relating to this incident. And it is asking "at the very least" that Berg "receive a pubic apology from Mr. Hooker to remedy the unconstitutional chilling effect on the speech of VA employees that has resulted from these intimidating tactics," according to a letter from the New Mexico ACLU to the VA's Office of Regional Counsel.

Hooker refused to return a phone call, and the VA's Office of Regional Counsel refused to comment but referred questions to public affairs.

"While VA does not prohibit employees from exercising their freedom of speech, we do ask that such activity occurs outside government premises and not during their official tour of duty," says Bill Armstrong, a public affairs specialist for New Mexico's VA Health Care System. "When we have reason to believe that this policy is not being adhered to, we have the obligation to review an individual's computer activity."

The VA in Washington also refused to comment on the sedition charge.

"We don't discuss internal personnel issues," says Phil Budahn, a VA spokesman in Washington, D.C.

http://progressive.org/mag_mc020806

This is nothing other than suppression of dissent:

In practice, the Espionage Act, as amended by the Sedition Act, was used to persecute individuals or groups who disagreed with presidential or congressional policy. Historically, these types of acts have been suggested and/or passed when a presidential administration or congressional majority has lost general public support and additional, judicial tools are necessary to minimize public dissent. The Sedition Act was the most recent attempt by the United States government to limit “freedom of speech,” in-so-much-as that “freedom of speech” related to the criticism of the government, or, more applicably, the political policies of the presidential administration or congressional majority.

The Espionage Act made it a crime to help wartime enemies of the United States, but the Sedition Act made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government.

...

The Sedition Act were repealed in 1921. Modern legal experts view the Sedition Act as being antithetical to the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Anti-governmental-defamation laws similar to the Sedition Act are still in place in some of the world's most repressive countries, including North Korea and Libya.

This isn't something which can just be glossed over as a "personnel issue". There is currently no such charge as "sedition" on the books -- the 1918 Act was repealed. The other side here, is it's actually illegal to advocate armed insurrection against the government. However, this is covered under the Espionage Act of 1917 and is not considered "sedition", which covers words not actions. It would make absolutely no difference whether she did this on her own time or the VA's, on government computers or not. There is no written law against sedition currently in effect. This represents reasonable grounds for termination, IMHO, but not federal charges of essentially treason.

Calling for peaceful revolution, or the "forceful overthrow" of government by voting against the Republicans, is supposed to be legal. What they've done here, is trumped up her call for "forceful removal" as somehow being a call for armed insurrection. I got the impression of a nurse venting some anger, not Ché Guevara. Surely, this action by the Bush administration tends to inhibit government employees from speaking their mind... sound familiar? YET? This is an ugly turn of affairs, when our government has embarked on a war which they admit could last for decades and intends to lock up anyone who speaks out against that.

[Disgruntled]

As seen at
http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm
under the Hatch Act:

These federal and D.C. employees may-
* express opinions about candidates and issues

These federal and D.C. employees may not-
* engage in political activity while:
o on duty
o in a government office

In this case "her computer" does not literally mean her computer. It's short for: her login and folders in the government's computer in her work area. The computer is government property, and TMS (Technology Management Service) can take any workstation computer and examine it at any time. A typical VA workstation computer does not have keylogging software. If the letter were saved as a file or sent from the employee's Outlook email it would probably be detectable. If it were printed from Word without saving to a file, it would probably not be detectable. If it were sent from Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, etc, the History and Cookies would probably show that access to those sites had occured, but would not show the content of what was done. The VA typically does allow recreational websurfing during lulls or breaks, so access per se would not be a violation. If the newspaper received an email from a Hotmail or Yahoo account that was accessed from a government computer, complete headers would include DNS numbers registered with ARIN to Department of Veterans Affairs. If A.C.L.U. were to sue the government, I don't know if this would open the doors to the V.A. getting a subpoena for the newspaper's records on this.

[BigBison]

An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than 30 days' suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the Board.

I said it's valid grounds for termination, which obviously means I agree with the action that was taken, and I'm not surprised there's a law to that effect. This isn't about the action that was taken, this is about the charges which result. Nowhere does the Hatch Act mention the word sedition, nor does it imply that the activities which it restricts are to be considered crimes against the state, which is what the use of the word sedition implies, quite strongly. "The Agency is bound by law to investigate and pursue any act which potentially represents sedition..." What law is that?

[BigBison]

In other words, I'm not against the fact that she was investigated. I'm saying it's ominous that the resulting charge is sedition, not just because that word was used, but because it was used to mischaracterize her message as a call for the forceful overthrow of government. There's nothing wrong with suspending or terminating someone for having used the office gear to make a political statement.

The problem arises when the charges are related to the content of that statement. The Hatch Act covers her use of government property (login, whatever) to make a political statement, without restricting her right to make political statements, nor the content of such statements. Her content was legal, yet the charges against her were based on that content, not the misuse of the computer. The accusation was quite direct, her voicing of her opinion was considered "criminally negligent".

[Disgruntled]

According to http://www.dictionary.com the definition of sedition is:
"Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state." Dictionary.com isn't a source of authority for bringing a criminal charge, but the government didn't do that. It could be relevant if ACLU were to claim that the employee was libeled by the use of the term. Her use of the fact of her position as a VA nurse in the content of her letter may not have put her over the edge of the Hatch Act, but she has no one but herself to blame for being uncomfortably close to the edge. In theory the burden of proof is on the government to take a personnel action. The government had enough cause to suspect to examine its own computer. If they take a personnel action based on the theory that a negative result is not proof of innocence, she would have a strong legal case. In theory the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) would jump to her aid. Reality may or may not match theory. Please don't tell me that AFGE are Republican stooges. In 2004 they officially endorsed Kerry. (There is a loophole in the Hatch Act that allows Federal employee unions to do this.) Real world performance of AFGE has been variable.
Anyway, I doubt that a judge would authorize the VA to go on a fishing expedition into the newspaper's records for a personnel action. If ACLU were to sue the VA demanding an apology and compensation for having investigated its own resources, the status as defendant might open more lines of investigation. Of course even if they got access to the newspaper's records, if a VA computer was never used, they would get a negative result. That would not necessarily win the case for ACLU, because it could be a tough sell that the VA was wrong to examine its own computer. However, if the ACLU's case led the VA to discover a positive result in the newspaper's records, that could create a problem for their client that would have been avoided by knowing when to quit while ahead with a negative result from the examination of the computer. It will be up to the ACLU lawyer and the employee to determine whether this kind of risk exists.

[BigBison]

OK, since you keep ignoring this point: SEDITION IS LEGAL. Unless you find me a law against it, what does dictionary.com's definition matter?

[Disgruntled]

In which news story was the employee actually charged with sedition?

[Fair Dinkum]

Originally Posted by Disgruntled

In which news story was the employee actually charged with sedition?

That is what I am missing in all of this as well. Has she been "charged" with sedition? And who is prosecuting the case? That will help bring light to the claim by BigBison that "The Sedition Act of 1918 has been secretly reinstated by the Bush administration".

[BigBison]

Originally Posted by TalkMilitary

That is what I am missing in all of this as well. Has she been "charged" with sedition? And who is prosecuting the case? That will help bring light to the claim by BigBison that "The Sedition Act of 1918 has been secretly reinstated by the Bush administration".

OK, so long as we're on the same page. The ACLU isn't taking this case because of the Hatch Act, they're taking it because they want to know why her boss even mentioned the content of the message, let alone characterized it as a criminally negligent act of sedition. We don't know what the charges are, the gal still has her job and isn't talking, I'm just pointing out another attack on the First Amendment. We've seen in recent weeks, the credible instances at NASA and NOAA, of dissent being silenced. What other "directives" are out there that we don't know about?

Having this gal's superior, within the Executive Branch, call her constitutionally-protected free speech an act of sedition is nothing less than onerous. Her boss is severely misguided if he believes sedition is criminally negligent. Why would he even bring up the content of the message is a perfectly rational and fair question to ask. The purpose of such policies is to inhibit others in government from speaking out against the government, in violation of their rights. Any such instance is cause for concern, which is why this case merits our attention for more than 24 hours. If she gets any more than a 30-day suspension as a result of this we have reason to worry, IMHO.

In the meantime, as with Cindy Sheehan recently, it is worth noting that people are being accused of non-crimes in a way which tends to suppress dissent in a much broader fashion, even if no charges result. I mean, how would you like it if your boss pointed to one of your more ludicrous posts (hey, we all make 'em) and characterized it as sedition? You'd watch your mouth even if nothing resulted, but this is utterly wrong if the post was protected under legal freedom of expression. Your coworkers would toe the line a little more too, once they heard of it.

[Disgruntled]

Originally Posted by BigBison

If she gets any more than a 30-day suspension as a result of this we have reason to worry, IMHO.

You'd make a great shop steward, Big Bison. The VA gets a negative result when they examine the computer at her work station, and you're willing to plea bargain for a 30-day suspension.

[BigBison]

They've gotten a negative result on that, yes, while at the same time accusing her of criminal negligence, an issue which does not look to be settled. I'm not sure where you're coming from.

[Disgruntled]

Please re-read your own article:

"In your letter . . . you declared yourself 'as a VA nurse' and publicly declared the Government which employs you to have 'tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence' and advocated, 'act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.' "

It looks like Mr. Hooker is explaining why the government computer in her work area was searched, and he uses the expression "criminal negligence" only as an excerpt of her letter.

[Webdude]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...420EST0650.DTL

Havent searched "too" much, but this article makes me a little wary...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. government is relying on a seldom-used but powerful legal tool, an 18th-century law on sedition, to investigate the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

With roots in laws that date back more than 200 years, the statute gives the government great flexibility in assembling prosecutions against people who plan but don't carry out criminal acts against the United States.

The government suggested its approach in a perjury indictment last week. The federal grand jury that brought the case against an associate of two of the hijackers is investigating "seditious conspiracy to levy war against the United States," the indictment stated.

Federal prosecutors "appear to be right on the money" in using the sedition law to address possible terrorist collaborators, George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg said.

"To the extent a jihad" or holy war "is invoked against the United States, it's like an announcement that `I'm putting myself under this statute,"' Saltzburg said.

Prosecutors used the seditious conspiracy law to win convictions in a case against a Muslim cleric and co-defendants who plotted to blow up the United Nations.

Chicago attorney Jeremy Margolis successfully prosecuted four Puerto Rican nationalists for seditious conspiracy in the 1980s for planning to bomb a Marine training center and an Army Reserve facility.

The object of the conspiracy was to change the policies of the U.S. government "as opposed to doing a particular criminal act -- blow that up, take that down, shoot that person," Margolis recalled.

Law enforcement officials, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said prosecutors are examining other cases in which they might use the sedition law against people who did not carry out attacks but had been in various stages of planning.

The law imposes up to 20-year prison terms when two or more people "conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against them."

The U.S. law on sedition dates back to the 1790s when the Alien and Sedition acts of the John Adams administration targeted people who criticized the government. The acts expired and were not renewed amid a storm of criticism.

A new law passed during the Civil War served as the basis for the current statute.

There were Confederate sympathizers in the North and the law was passed to make it easier to punish people who conspired against the union, said University of Michigan law professor Richard Friedman.

The government used the sedition law after World War I to convict anarchists. In the 1950s, the Supreme Court upheld convictions of communists on sedition charges for teaching doctrines that were held to be subversive.

"These weren't people blowing things up; they were basically basement seminars where people would read Marx," said constitutional law professor Richard Primus of the University of Michigan.

"Teaching people that the government is bad in the abstract is a constitutional right, but once you go beyond to an agreement to commit crimes, that becomes clearly punishable," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.

[BigBison]

"Teaching people that the government is bad in the abstract is a constitutional right, but once you go beyond to an agreement to commit crimes, that becomes clearly punishable," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.

One problem here, is we already have laws against taking up arms against the state, advocating terror, etc. without this. If the President decrees by Executive fiat that ancient repealed laws will help fight the terrorists, then I guess the various Sedition Acts are back in play.

Head for the hills, Ma Barker!