Military whistleblowers are increasingly speaking out about the harm they are doing to the branch they proudly serve. Consider the story of Navy officer Lt. Ted Macie and Fort Liberty soldier George Lincoln (pseudonym).
In both examples, a high regard for the Constitution and a patriotic duty to the nation outweighed any concern for retribution and retribution. Of course, there are many others who are on the verge of taking the same step but don’t know where to start or what to expect.
Gateway Pundit said Lt. Col. Ryan Sweazey (USAF-Ret.), founder of the Walk the Talk Foundation, a group that supports and protects whistleblowers. A former F-16 fighter pilot who served as Inspector General (IG) in the Air Force warned of corruption in the Department of Defense (DOD) and the IG system that prevented many whistleblowers from coming forward.
In theory, Sweazey said, service members should be protected from speaking out about issues that could harm the military or its personnel. “The military doesn’t just say you have to, they promise you’ll be protected,” he said. But, he lamented, “Actually, that’s rarely done.”
“Actually,” he said, “the military doesn’t want you to speak against the institution, and they will often retaliate against those who do.” According to him, “there is a great contrast between theory and what is actually done.”
Crucial to the decision to come forward as a whistleblower was “man’s innate passion for country and defense,” Sweazey said.
“A whistleblower must set aside the potential personal or professional risks he may incur when he infiltrates,” he said, adding, “He does so because he chooses a higher goal than himself.”
Apologizing for sounding “a little blunt and a little harsh,” Sweazey called on former and current service members to take action: “If you think what you’re seeing is bad and harmful to the military, and you’re watching it happen without doing everything you can to stop it. , then you are complicit in allowing it to happen or continue to happen.
“If it harms the military and violates policy,” Sweazey said, “It’s a service member’s job to step in and intercede.” But to do this successfully, “we need real protection for whistleblowers because commanders are given extraordinary latitude through administrative processes that can damage the careers of service members, remove clearances, or go further to slander and damage people.”
Sweazey concluded, “Whistleblowers must weigh the greater good when weighing the costs of standing up and speaking out, and once they take that step, we must fight for the protection they deserve.”
Gateway Pundit also spoke with attorney R. Davis Younts, a retired Air Force colonel and former judge advocate general (JAG) officer who has represented several whistleblowers.
He said that while retribution and retaliation are possible, “there are systems in our government that are designed to protect military personnel and others (who want to blow the whistle) that must be followed.”
He explained, “The protection is not perfect, and reprisals and retribution are always a risk, but every service member takes an oath to support and defend the constitution, and there are times when that oath means that service members have an obligation to blow the whistle on military corruption.”
While encouraging service members to speak up, they offer several options to help protect them from retaliation and retribution. “Not just for the military, but across the government, I encourage whistleblowers to write congressional complaints,” he said, adding that no special language was required. “All you have to do is tell a representative and share a problem or concern—and that in itself is a protected communication.”
“This informal communication is a very important tool that provides protection from legal retribution,” he explained. “While there’s a great history of service members taking advantage of this, more recently, we’re seeing more formal communication.” In many of these examples, Congress has often stepped in, recognizing members of the military as whistleblowers and providing additional protections. “(This protection) is also free from retribution because service members come forward with information that could be part of a broader investigation.”
Whether the process is informal or formal, Younts said, “protected communication is important, and service members need to feel comfortable using that process.” In addition, he said, “There is a level of protection when you are in the public eye, and by doing due process, it gives you more protection from reprisals and retribution.”
“I have encouraged some of my clients to go public, but to do so discreetly, to protect themselves by using process and the public eye,” he said. “One of the biggest motivators for the military today is to avoid public scrutiny, so it’s important to keep their feet to the fire by exposing the truth of what’s going on behind closed doors.”
Whistleblowers are encouraged to reach out to Sweazey or Younts to learn more about protecting themselves and the information they want to share.
