Rep.
Jackie Speier (D.-CA) has disclosed in an
op-ed in
The Hill that she will offer an amendment to the next National Defense Authorization Act requiring that Inspector General reports on misconduct by flag and general officers be released to the public within thirty days of completion. She is concerned that too often admirals and generals who misbehave get off with a slap on the wrist.
The underlying concern may be valid - no problem there. But, at what point does that concern trample privacy rights.
ReplyDeleteUnder current Navy rules, with which I'm more familiar, the results of nonjudicial punishment (Art. 15) can be published and often are - but without the persons name being attached. On the one hand this can have a salutary effect on others while at the same time showing that punishment will be meted out in appropriate cases.
Why should a senior officer be treated that differently than an enlisted person or a civilian employee, for example?
Public embarrassment serves no purpose than to publically embarrass. I fear this is the intent.
Each of the current Service regulations make IG reports protected documents for disclosure and "discovery" processes even.
What about the privacy of those who have been witnesses in the investigation? Do we risk them also becoming subject to public scorn and embarrassment?
Public release of IG investigations may also have the tendency to interfere with ongoing criminal investigations. It would not be unusual for an IG investigation to be ongoing with a parallel criminal investigation.
This seems more directed to public embarrassment for the sake of embarrassment than a real exercise of congressional oversight.
This is not good thinking IMHO.