[brian]

A Veterans Affairs nurse in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was investigated for sedition after she wrote a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war. In her first broadcast interview, we speak with Laura Berg, as well as an attorney with the New Mexico chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

On Capitol Hill, the Senate has moved one step closer to renewing the Patriot Act. The Senate voted 84 to 15 on Wednesday to end a filibuster led by Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin. After Wednesday's vote, Feingold proceeded to read the Bill of Rights from the Senate floor. Feingold has long called on the Senate to add measures to preserve civil liberties.

Here in Albuquerque, a local Veterans Affairs nurse has felt the crack down on civil liberties firsthand. In September, shortly after Hurricane Katrina struck, Laura Berg wrote a letter to the Alibi, a local newspaper, criticizing the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war. Berg wrote, "as a VA nurse working with returning...vets, I know the public has no sense of the additional devastating human and financial costs of post-traumatic stress disorder." She urged readers to, "act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit."


Watch the the interview, listen to it or read the transcript in the link below...

Full Story: VA Nurse Accused of Sedition After Publishing Letter Critical of ... [Democracy Now,NY]

This story was also previously discussed here:
VA Nurse Investigated for “Sedition” for Criticizing Bush

[SFCardiacRN]

Though she does have a right to free speech, she doesn't understand the concept of "pooping in your own nest". It was the words "VA nurse" and "act forcefully" that got her in trouble. She could have gotten her point across without those eyebrow raising terms.IMHO

[Judee Smudee]

I got to respect her, she is not budging from her stance.

[SharonH, RN]

Originally Posted by SFCardiacRN

Though she does have a right to free speech, she doesn't understand the concept of "pooping in your own nest". It was the words "VA nurse" and "act forcefully" that got her in trouble. She could have gotten her point across without those eyebrow raising terms.IMHO

You don't get it do you? There is no reason why she has to separate her beliefs and opinions from her job. In fact, it's pretty clear that it is her job experiences which have helped her to form her opinions, and it was perfectly reasonable for her to frame her beliefs with her experiences. She made it clear in her letter that her opinions were her own and not those of the VA or the government. And identifying herself as VA nurse does not give them the right to accuse her of sedition, in fact it was downright absurd. Clearcut case of harassment. No wonder Bush supporters had a meltdown when he was forced to hear the truth for once at Coretta Scott King's funeral they are so used to punishing or silencing dissent.

[soliant12]

So wanting to forcefully remove a sitting President is fine in your eyes? Give me a break. All the nonsense at Mrs. Kings funeral was typical for Democrats which is a total lack of class and respect for someone else.

Originally Posted by SharonH, RN

You don't get it do you? There is no reason why she has to separate her beliefs and opinions from her job. In fact, it's pretty clear that it is her job experiences which have helped her to form her opinions, and it was perfectly reasonable for her to frame her beliefs with her experiences. She made it clear in her letter that her opinions were her own and not those of the VA or the government. And identifying herself as VA nurse does not give them the right to accuse her of sedition, in fact it was downright absurd. Clearcut case of harassment. No wonder Bush supporters had a meltdown when he was forced to hear the truth for once at Coretta Scott King's funeral they are so used to punishing or silencing dissent.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Laura Berg, from the interview:

"She is my director at the Albuquerque V.A. And she said, you know, you may express your opinion, but we prefer that you do not say you are a V.A. nurse. And so, I am saying I am a V.A. nurse. And some of my fire in writing this letter about Katrina in Iraq is from my experience as a V.A. nurse. I'm stepping -- I'm stepping, you know, off the edge here, and I do feel that there is some jeopardy to me and my position."

And here's the rub. She's violating the rules that protect her job and her freedom of speech. She knows she is. She says right here she is. Her manager told her not to. She understands the rules, not doubt about it, just doesn't care.

Deserves immediate termination. But, she's a federal employee, and they are difficult to fire. And that's why it breeds incompetence like this. And this is why nationalizing healthcare is such a bad idea.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by SharonH, RN

You don't get it do you? There is no reason why she has to separate her beliefs and opinions from her job. In fact, it's pretty clear that it is her job experiences which have helped her to form her opinions, and it was perfectly reasonable for her to frame her beliefs with her experiences. She made it clear in her letter that her opinions were her own and not those of the VA or the government. And identifying herself as VA nurse does not give them the right to accuse her of sedition, in fact it was downright absurd. Clearcut case of harassment. No wonder Bush supporters had a meltdown when he was forced to hear the truth for once at Coretta Scott King's funeral they are so used to punishing or silencing dissent.

In fact the reason is called the Hatch Act, and if you look in the other thread, it is a very real reason.

Civil Service is supposed to be different from the 'spoils system'. In other words, the sitting President isn't supposed to pick whoever to work whereever in the civil service. But there is a tradeoff.

His picks are limited, but the standing civil service must be, politically neutral, employment wise. If He can't replace them, then they can't use their positions to promote politics. That's a good compromise and it was designed to end the spoils system. The alternative is that the WH should be able to pick ALL federal employees to their own choosing. That's the alternative because that was exactly what was in place before.

The Hatch Act doesn't prevent Ms. Berg from having political opinions, or even from forcefully expressing them. It prevents her from associating those opinions with her federal employ. It prevents her from using the alias of her federal employ to give legitimacy to those opinions.

She was wrong. This firewall was purposely designed to protect her right to have an opposing opinion and keep her job. She attacks the very protections for herself, she alone is to blame when/if those protections don't hold up any longer.

And the King Funeral - the problem with that was that it was uncooth. They turned the country's respect for a civil rights leader into a negative ad campaign. There's a time and place for everything. And it's just sad that those that made the comments at King's funeral didn't understand that the respect owed was to Coretta King.

~faith,
Timothy.

[tencat]

Originally Posted by soliant12

So wanting to forcefully remove a sitting President is fine in your eyes? Give me a break. All the nonsense at Mrs. Kings funeral was typical for Democrats which is a total lack of class and respect for someone else.

Gee, but I suppose it was ok when the Republicans wanted to remove Clinton, who was a 'sitting' President'?

[SharonH, RN]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

In fact the reason is called the Hatch Act, and if you look in the other thread, it is a very real reason.

The Hatch Act doesn't prevent Ms. Berg from having political opinions, or even from forcefully expressing them. It prevents her from associating those opinions with her federal employ. It prevents her from using the alias of her federal employ to give legitimacy to those opinions.



~faith,
Timothy.

Where does it say that in the Hatch Act Timothy? I didn't see the other thread. As far as I know, she cannot represent her own opinions as being those of her employer which she did not do, but it does not say that she cannot identify herself as an employee of the Federal government. If she had stated, "I am a VA nurse and VA nurses believe that......" or "I work for the VA and at the VA we are taught that blankety-blank policy is bad" then you would have a case. But she did not do that. As I stated earlier, she is merely citing her experience as a VA nurse as part of the framework for her beliefs.

[SharonH, RN]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

There's a time and place for everything. And it's just sad that those that made the comments at King's funeral didn't understand that the respect owed was to Coretta King.

~faith,
Timothy.

LOL! You are the first of the complainers about the King funeral to even mention respect for Mrs. King as your primary (or even secondary or tertiary concern). All the rest of the whiners were just worried sick that Mr. Bush got his feelings hurt. LOL!!!!!!!!