BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
In the Matter of:
Dr. Anthony Kirkpatrick
OSC File No: DI-98-2181
WHISTLEBLOWING DISCLOSURE OF DR. ANTHONY KIRKPATRICK
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 1213 (b), Dr. Anthony Kirkpatrick resubmits his request that the Special Counsel order the Department of State to investigate and report on his disclosure of false or misleading statements concerning the consequences from a legislatively-imposed embargo on food, medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. Dr. Kirkpatrick encloses an affidavit with exhibits and attachments to this whistleblowing disclosure.
I. INTRODUCTION
Dr. Anthony Kirkpatrick's whistleblowing disclosure to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is through an affidavit evidencing that the State Department knowingly made false or misleading statements to Congress to obfuscate the agency's role in violating the most basic of international conventions governing human rights. Furthermore, by carrying out this deception repeatedly before the Senate and House of Representatives, the State Department has made a significant contribution in blocking legislation to restore shipments of food and medicine essential for the survival of Cuba's civilian population.
Dr. Kirkpatrick's disclosure demonstrates a substantial likelihood that the State Department has engaged in gross mismanagement and abuse of authority, has violated laws, and has caused substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. Dr. Kirkpatrick's belief is based upon research he carried out as part of his job in the Veterans Administration, as well as on additional facts and exhibits for the record on those issues. Even if there were not intentional deception, the evidence demonstrates that the Department's ongoing false statements constitute abuse of authority and gross mismanagement, as well as violations both of domestic law prohibiting false statements to Congress and international law protecting civilian populations.
His disclosure is organized into three proposed issues, as discussed below. The numeric footnotes generally refer to Dr. Kirkpatrick's affidavit and the enclosed exhibits, while the Roman numeral endnotes refer to attachments for this legal brief.
II. RECORD SUPPORTING DR. KIRKPATRICK'S DISCLOSURE
Dr. Kirkpatrick's Affidavit
The U.S. embargo arising from the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) includes restrictions that directly impede access to food and medicines both from the U.S. and other nations. Five months after the CDA's passage, this century's worst epidemic of neurological disease due to a food shortage became widespread in Cuba. More than 50,000 of the 11 million inhabitants suffered from optic neuropathy, deafness, loss of sensation and pain in the extremities, and a spinal disorder that impaired walking and bladder control. These symptoms were identical to those of American soldiers who were deliberately starved in Japanese prison camps during World War II. 1
As a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949, the U.S. government pledged never to participate in impeding the flow of food and medicine across borders, even in time of war. The CDA imposes numerous restrictions on the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba that are in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. For example, the Convention clearly prohibits the adversary in a conflict from carrying out on-site supervision of the distribution of medicines in the opposing country, a condition the U.S. explicitly imposes on Cuba under the provisions of the CDA. The CDA also bans the sale of food to Cuba from the U.S. or from any of its foreign subsidiaries in third countries. 2
Since February 1995, the State Department has been on notice by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS) that the CDA is in direct violation of international law, because it restricts Cuba's access to food and medicine. 3
On May 14,1997, the State Department published a "Fact Sheet" 4 that contained false and misleading information about the Cuban embargo. 5 The Fact Sheet was published in response to the 300-page report released by the American Association for World Health (AAWH). 6 The argument made by the State Department on its Fact Sheet for not lifting the restrictions on the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba can be reduced to three key assertions that were demonstrably false. The State Department asserted:
Assertion #1: The CDA does NOT deny medicines and medical supplies to the Cuban people, a conclusion adamantly asserted by the State Department (capitalized emphasis in original Fact Sheet). The document also asserted that "[t]he Cuban Democracy Act encourages the donation of humanitarian supplies to Cuba, including medicine, food, and medicine."Assertion #2: The CDA permits the U.S. to "routinely" issue licenses for the sale of medicines to Cuba, asserting that since the CDA was enacted 36 of 38 licenses have been approved. Assertion #3: The Cuban health system is bad because, according to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Cuba spends less on health care than other countries in the region.
In 1997, the State Department official who compiled the data for "Fact Sheet" with the intent of defending the legitimacy of the CDA did so without adequate verification of the data. When confronted with the inaccuracies and asked to verify conclusions in the Fact Sheet, he informed Dr. Kirkpatrick that it should be retracted from further publication. His supervisor Mr. Michael Ranneberger, State Department Coordinator of Cuban Affairs, refused to retract the document. 7
On July 29, 1997, Dr. Kirkpatrick sought the assistance of Harry Vanden, Past President of the South Eastern Council on Latin American Studies and Professor of Government and International Affairs at the University of South Florida. Together they wrote a letter to Secretary of State Albright. They provided her with copies of their recent articles published in peer-reviewed journals which contained data that could be easily verified by the State Department as accurate. 8 The information sent by them to Secretary Albright included articles published by the Canadian Medical Association 9 and the Latin American Studies Association 10, as well as the July 24 article published by the LA Times.11 They pleaded with Secretary Albright to "[p]lease take a close look at these articles." They also stated that in an enclosed report by the Los Angeles Times, "the State Department has agreed to set the record straight. When will this correction be forthcoming?" 12 In addition, they informed Secretary Albright that the CDA "is causing civilian deaths" and that, by refusing to withdraw the Fact Sheet once it became clear it was false and misleading, "the State Department is knowingly cloaking the disastrous effects of the embargo on the civilian population of Cuba". 13 And they said if Article 3 of the Genocide Convention is applied, one must conclude that the State Department is conspiring in the commission of genocide. The data in the articles presented to Secretary Albright went to the heart of the case made by the State Department in its Fact Sheet not to lift the restrictions on the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba. The three allegations against the State Department are outlined below. Each allegation is followed by a point-by-point response, based solely on the data provided to Secretary Albright on July 29. By this date, the author of the Fact Sheet, Mr. Vockerodt, had already concluded that the Fact Sheet should be retracted from further dissemination to the public. His supervisor, Mr. Ranneberger, tried to block his efforts. The State Department had publicly committed itself in the LA Times to reviewing the articles submitted to Secretary Albright and setting the record straight.
Although the State Department made modest changes and issued a revised Fact Sheet on August 5, 1997, the agency continues to disseminate its original May 14 version on the Internet, withholding the corrections to inaccuracies it has conceded.
The State Department continues to publish its revised August Fact Sheet knowing for a year that an independent analysis of Dr. Kirkpatrick's research by the Congressional Research Service confirmed the existence of inaccurate misleading conclusions in the document.
The State Department refused to respond to four Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from Dr. Kirkpatrick asking for documentation to support its August Fact Sheet. In December 1997 Congressman Torres asked for the same documentation in an "urgent" letter to Secretary Albright, because the Fact Sheet was being quoted by other Congressmen as a basis for rejecting his legislation to lift the restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. (Infra, at pp. 15-16, 27, 29) In response, the State Department made new false and misleading statements to Congressman Torres. In fact, when asked for documentation to support the State Department's claim that the PAHO says that Cuba spends little on health care, the agency's response was blatantly self-contradictory. Instead of admitting its misrepresentation of PAHO, it defended its position by citing a PAHO document that actually refuted its own assertion. (Infra, at pp. 27, 29-30)
Pursuant to a March 1, 1999 letter from the Deputy Associate Special Counsel for Prosecution, it is important to emphasize that the State Department's misleading statements are not just merely statements to the media. The duties of the Secretary of State are, inter alia, that he or she:
Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries; Informs the Congress and the American citizenry on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations. 14
Thus, even when the State Department releases a press announcement, the information is provided as part of its duties to inform the citizenry, and to inform Congress on the conduct of the U.S. foreign relations. In the current case the false and misleading information in the Fact Sheet was represented as accurate to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the nomination hearing of Assistant Secretary Designate James Rubin. 15 The false and misleading information was also delivered in a letter to Congressman Torres. 16
Verification Study
In order to strengthen Dr. Kirkpatrick's allegations, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) performed a comprehensive verification study, which independently proves that there is a substantial likelihood that Dr. Kirkpatrick's three allegations against the State Department (allegations) are accurate. Each expert mentioned below will be pleased to provide the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) with any additional information, meet or talk with OSC's representative, to further verify there is a substantial likelihood that Dr. Kirkpatrick is right.
On January 1999, the TransAfrica Forum led a fifteen-member delegation to Havana, Cuba. The delegation represented a wide cross-section of African-American society, and included representatives from academia, medicine, the media, the arts, and public policy. Randall Robinson, President, TransAfrica Forum, organized the fact-finding visit with the central aim of studying the human and material consequences of forty years of American hostility toward this island nation of eleven million people, located ninety miles from Florida. The report of March 1999 says:We heard heart-wrenching stories of children needing medicines or medical devices that only exist in the U.S. There are reported cases of deaths of children because of these situations (Dr. Johnnetta B. Cole). Access to medical care is a human right and preventing medical supplies from reaching Cuba is a social injustice directly damaging to the health of the country's citizens (Drs. Alvin and Tina Poussaint).i
Dr. Victor W. Sidel, who shared in a Nobel Peace Prize and is past President of the American Public Health Association, and the current distinguished University Professor of Social Medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, sent a letter to GAP saying: It is my opinion, based on knowledge of Dr. Kirkpatrick's work, on experience in Cuba and on expertise in public health, that there is a substantial likelihood that Dr. Kirkpatrick's three allegations are accurate.iiDr. Sidel has made three professional visits to Cuba since 1972, most recently under the auspices of the Pan American Health Organization.iii
Mr. Victor Vockerodt, former International Relations Officer, Office of Cuban Affairs at the State Department, who was recently nominated as International Officer in charge of reporting on Cuban Human Rights abuses, in Havana, Cuba, confirmed that: it is inaccurate to say that there is regular barge traffic between the U.S. and Cuba. Barges may sail to Cuba to sell medical supplies if they are granted a license by the Treasury. In the two years I have been working on the Cuban International Relations desk, no barges have been licensed, to my knowledge. I can only remember a single license being granted to a ship, not to barges.ivHis comments relate to a January 5, 1999 statement of Mr. Michael Ranneberger, State Department Coordinator of Cuban Affairs, that regular barge traffic between the U.S. and Cuba permits transport of life-sustaining resources.
Indeed, Ms. Kathleen G. Hower, Executive Director of Global Links affirms that Dr. Kirkpatrick accurately describes the difficulties caused by the Cuban Democracy Act for many US charities making or who would like to make medical donations to Cuba.v
Ms. Ellen Bernstein from the Inter-Religious Foundation for Community Organization has visited Cuba 16 times since 1993 as a leader of a broad variety of fact-finding delegations. She reports that Dr. Kirkpatrick's work on the impact of US policy for Cuban health is very reliable, and his current allegations are very accurate. We have chosen to use Dr. Kirkpatrick's writing extensively in our educational outreach, because his research directly exposes some of the international falsehoods, contradictions and misrepresentations with which the US government has tried to put a pretty face on its brutal blockade.vi, vii
Mr. Wayne S. Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, confirms that the State Department's "Fact Sheet" issued on May 14, 1997 with respect to food and medicines to Cuba, contained a series of false statements. Mr. Smith has been involved in observing US-Cuban relations for many years. He served at the US Embassy in Havana from 1958 until the rupture of relations in January of 1961, on the Cuban Desk from 1964 until 1966, as Director of Cuban Affairs from 1977 until 1979, and then as Chief of the US Interests Section from 1979 until 1982. Mr. Smith summarized: Having followed them now for almost 40 years, probably no one has any deeper background in Cuban affairs and in US policy toward Cuba than do I.viii,ix,xMr. Smith sent an additional support letter, to which he enclosed the Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1998. The report takes sharp issue with the unilateral U.S. embargo and especially with the inclusion of medicines.xi, xii
Dr. Gustavo C. Romano, FACP, FRSM, Professor of Medicine/ Neurology UTHSC at San Antonio was Chief of a team of scientists from the National Institute of Health. That went to Cuba to investigate the wide-spread famine in 1993. Dr. Romano wrote: I fully support his [Dr. Kirkpatrick's] claim that the U.S. Embargo on food and medicine to Cuba has had damaging effects on the health of the Cuban people.xiii, xiv
Ms. Jane Franklin, a writer and historian, has been studying Cuba-U.S. relations closely for two decades-that is, since 1979. She wrote: I have found the work of Dr. Kirkpatrick to be meticulously accurate, thoroughly logical, and quite valuable for anyone working in these areas.xv, #xvi, xvii
Mr. Richard Garfield, Professor of Clinical International Nursing, is a health researcher working in Cuba, among other countries, where he has access to Cuban Ministry of Health information on donations, finance, and purchase of goods. He confirmed that all of Dr. Kirkpatrick's conclusions are accurate. xviii, xiv
Dr. William T. Whitney, Jr. has made two trips to Cuba, in 1994 and 1996, both with a medical focus. In 1997, with Drs. Richard Garfield and Victor Sidel, he participated in the publication of a pamphlet on the adverse effects on health of the embargo against Cuba. Dr. Whitney supports Dr. Kirkpatrick's allegations against the State Department as well. xx
As a response to the State Department's "Fact Sheet" the Washington Office on Latin America published its own fact sheet, in which they demonstrate that the facts presented by the State Department are totally inaccurate. xxi
Another independent source to prove the accuracy of Dr. Kirkpatrick's allegations is the statement by Rep. Torres to the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade - Hearing on U.S. Economic and Trade Policy towards Cuba, May 7, 1998. xxii
Not only the State Department, but also the courts are implementing the CDA, and thus sent Mr. Carlos Fernandez to prison in 1998 with the charge of trading with Cuba. xxiii
In addition to Dr. Kirkpatrick's affidavit, the above verifications study demonstrates a substantial likelihood that Dr. Kirkpatrick's allegations are as solid as a rock.
III. ARGUMENT
Issue I
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ENGAGED IN ILLEGALITY, ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, GROSS MISMANAGEMENT AND PERPETUATED A SUBSTANTIAL AND SPECIFIC DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY MAKING FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WILLFULLY DENY FOOD AND MEDICINE TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CUBAN DEMOCRACY ACT.
The Merit System Protection Board has defined gross mismanagement as arbitrary and capricious management action or inaction that creates a substantial risk of significant adverse impact upon the agency's ability to accomplish its mission. 17 The Department of State defines its mission in its formal web site. Inter alia, it is mentioned that "[d]epartment employees are also guided by a set of values, as individuals and as an institution."18 One would expect the value of life, and humanitarian behavior toward a weak nation to be part of this "set of values." The State Department's web site also mentions the existence of administrative expertise in human rights and medical services. 19 Following this definition, letting the Cubans die from lack of medicine and food, as it is demonstrated in Dr. Kirkpatrick's affidavit, is not part of the Department's mission. On the contrary, the consequences of the State Department's behavior are adversely impacting upon the agency's ability to accomplish its humanitarian mission. Applying the above definition to Dr. Kirkpatrick's allegations, as will be shown below, the State Department has engaged in gross mismanagement.
On July 23, 1997, Dr. Kirkpatrick called the State Department to inform Mr. Vockerodt, the State Department official responsible for compiling the data for the Fact Sheet, it was still being published on the Internet. Dr. Kirkpatrick was informed that Mr. Vockerodt's supervisor, Mr. Michael Ranneberger, State Department's Coordinator of Cuban Affairs, wanted to speak with him. Mr. Ranneberger informed Dr. Kirkpatrick he was too busy to determine if the Fact Sheet should be retracted. 20 Dr. Kirkpatrick turned to the Los Angeles Times to help expose Mr. Ranneberger's unwillingness to set the record straight about the false and misleading statements in the Fact Sheet.
On July 24, 1997, the Los Angeles Times reported that Dr. Kirkpatrick's analysis "goes to the heart of the controversy surrounding the 36-year economic embargo, which Congress tightened in 1992 and 1996."21 In response, the State Department was quoted in the LA Times as stating "it is looking into Dr. Kirkpatrick's report. 'If there is an error,' a spokesman said, 'we'll correct it'." The State Department continued to publish its Fact Sheet.
The Secretary of State, Ms. Albright, was fully informed of the problems in a letter written by Dr. Kirkpatrick, which included exhibits. 22 Yet no action has been taken to correct the situation. The inaccurate fact sheet dated May 14, 1997 continues to be posted on the State Department's web site at http://secretary.state.gov/www/briefings/statements/970514.html. The problems documented in the attached affidavit adversely impact upon the agency's ability to carry out its mission. These actions and the inaction are gross mismanagement.
The Merit System Protection Board has defined an abuse of authority as an arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by a federal official or employee that adversely affects the rights of any person or that results in personal gain or advantage to himself or to preferred other persons. 23 There is nothing in the law limiting the scope of "any" to a person who is a U.S. citizen.
In November 1996, after three years of research, Dr. Kirkpatrick's findings on the devastating effects of the embargo on the health of Cuban citizens appeared in The Lancet and the media.24 His initial observations were subsequently corroborated and expanded in a 300-page report released in March 1997 by the American Association for World Health (AAWH), an affiliate of the World Health Association.25 The AAWH asked Dr. Kirkpatrick to support its study before the news media.26 Both studies were designed to provide scientifically verifiable data that isolated the direct, adverse effects of the CDA on the health of Cuban civilians from other factors, such as the loss of a major trade partner due to the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Dr. Kirkpatrick documented numerous examples where Cuba could not find an alternative source for the purchase of certain medical supplies. Even when the medical supplies were available, they were at a much higher price than if purchased directly from the U.S.27 He also documented numerous examples where a non-U.S. foreign company was suddenly blocked from continuing its sale of medical products to Cuba because it was acquired by a U.S. firm.28 He came to understand that even shipments of humanitarian donations have been severely impeded by the CDA. Donors complain that medical supplies are blocked from reaching Cuba because the CDA prohibits any ship that docks in Cuba from visiting U.S. ports for the following six months. 29 To this day, the CDA continues to deny food and medicine to the Cuban people. 30 Nevertheless, in the May 14 Fact Sheet, the State Department adamantly asserted that the CDA does NOT deny medicines and medical supplies to the Cuban people. (Capitalized emphasis in original Fact Sheet).
Another consequence that disturbed Dr. Kirkpatrick about the embargo was violating international human rights law. The Genocide Convention, as defined by the U.S. Government in 1989, outlaws acts that intentionally place a civilian population on a "starvation diet" or withhold "minimal medical services."31 Unlike any other, the U.S. embargo against Cuba includes food and medicine, and even the Clinton Administration itself has described the Cuban embargo as "the most comprehensive embargo the United States has against any country in the world." 32 Because of these developments at the State Department, Dr. Kirkpatrick felt obliged for the sake of the
Cuban people to provide evidence that would refute the agency's Fact Sheet.
At the time that the State Department issued its Fact Sheet, it was well-aware that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS) had condemned the United States for violating universally recognized human rights by blocking shipment of food and medicine to Cuba through the implementation of the CDA. 33 In 1995, the State Department had generated an inter-departmental response to the OAS's condemnation of the U.S. blockade on food and medicine. 34 The State Department dismissed the OAS Commission on Human Rights saying it was in the "process" of investigating whether the OAS had any jurisdiction over this issue. 35,36 At the time that the State Department issued its Fact Sheet, it was well-aware of the 300-page report published by the American Association for World Health (AAWH) - a report which demonstrated the widespread disastrous effects of the economic blockade on food and medicine on the Cuban people. The Fact Sheet simply dismissed the 300-page AAWH report by stating that a group of "anonymous" Cuban exile doctors were "mystified" by the AAWH report. 37 Also, when the State Department published its Fact Sheet, Dr. Kirkpatrick's article published in The Lancet had been widely publicized, including an appearance as the lead story on the front page of the Miami Herald. 38
On July 29, 1997, the State Department was confronted in the U.S. Senate about the veracity of its Fact Sheet. The false and misleading information in the Fact Sheet was represented as accurate to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the nomination hearing of Assistant Secretary Designate James Rubin. 39
On September 5, 1997, Drs. Kirkpatrick and Vanden reiterated their concern that the State Department was conspiring to violate universally recognized human rights and asked Secretary Albright to provide documentation proving the agency's numbers are accurate and to provide documentation concerning its claims about PAHO's research on Cuba's expenditures on health care. 40
On September 15, 1997, Michael Ranneberger, on behalf of Secretary Albright, wrote: I take great exception to your assertion that the facts presented in the (revised) August 5 Fact Sheet are 'inaccurate,' 'false,' and 'misleading.' The Fact Sheet was carefully prepared in the most accurate possible way, based on the latest information available, and we stand by the facts as presented.41 .
From October 13 through 29, 1997, Drs. Kirkpatrick and Vanden filed three more FOIA requests with the State Department. All requests to the State Department for documentation to support their August 5 Fact Sheet were rejected. 42
On December 5, 1997, Congressman Esteban Torres wrote to Secretary Albright requesting the same documentation that Drs. Kirkpatrick and Vanden requested of the Secretary in their September 5 letter in regard to the August Fact Sheet. 43 Rep. Torres asked for documentation to support the agency's numbers on the Fact Sheet and documentation to support the agency's claims about PAHO's research on Cuba's expenditures on health care. The Congressman states that the "Fact Sheet" is obstructing his legislation because many of his colleagues are quoting the Fact Sheet (Aug. 5) as a basis for why his legislation (HR 1951) is not necessary. Rep. Torres states, .....I am concerned that U.S. Government's regulations and procedures strongly and deliberately deter U.S. sales in these area (medical supplies), and have created, in fact, a de facto ban on these sales by U.S. companies. Rep. Torres informed Secretary Albright that the Fact Sheet was deceptive because it failed to mention that the sale of food to Cuba is absolutely banned. He requested an "urgent" response from Secretary Albright.44
The deterrent effect that the State Department's August Fact Sheet has had on Rep. Torres' legislation is evident. For example, the Fact Sheet has been used as a basis for testimony before Congress, constituency correspondence, and for outside lobbying of lawmakers. There has been congressional Dear Colleague letters with the same language as the Fact Sheet.45
In late March 1998, Dr. Kirkpatrick received additional evidence through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that the State Department's denials of the embargo's ongoing nature were false or misleading. On March 26 records arrived from the Department of the Treasury which confirmed the deception was even worse than he imagined.46 After studying the documents, on March 26 he informed Mr. Eric Reuther of Rep. Torres' staff of his findings, and Rep. Torres' office scheduled a meeting for him the following week with the congressman. In a March 27 e-mail, Mr. Reuther stated, "I look forward to this meeting. You are correct, our Cuba policy is being justified with lies and falsehoods: time to expose the whole game."47 Congressman Torres' and other offices were interested in calling this bluff, because the State Department's "Fact Sheet" denying the embargo's ongoing effect on the flow of medicine and medical supplies had been used effectively to diffuse support for legislation lifting those particular restrictions.48
All the above actions of the State Department are evidence of the fact that the State Department has engaged in abuse of authority according to the definition of abuse of authority in 5 U.S.C. 1213 (b).
Dr. Kirkpatrick's affidavit provides information on the Department of State's violations of domestic and international law. Under the domestic law, the Fraud and False Statements Act 49 provides that: ...Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully- (a) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (b) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (c) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
The State Department has violated the Fraud and False Statements Act by insisting on the public record that "[t]he U.S. embargo does NOT deny medicine and medical supplies to the Cuban people." (Capitalized emphasis in State Department original). On July 29, Secretary Albright was presented with overwhelming evidence published in peer-reviewed journals that the CDA blocked the Cuban people's ability to purchase vital medical supplies.50 Any reasonable analysis of the data would lead to this conclusion. The data was well established, documented, verifiable and publicized for over six months. Secretary Albright was further reminded that the OAS had concluded the CDA was in violation of international law, because it makes some medical supplies "virtually unattainable" in Cuba. Moreover, Secretary Albright received notice in a July 29 letter that the American Public Health Association (APHA) had warned Congress in 1992 that passage of the CDA would lead to widespread "famines" in Cuba. Drs. Kirkpatrick and Vanden informed Secretary Albright that subsequent studies by Dr. Kirkpatrick and other health experts "have born out such dire predictions." The CDA contributed to a widespread epidemic of a neurological disease due to malnutrition and "is causing civilian deaths." Drs. Kirkpatrick and Vanden said that by refusing to withdraw the Fact Sheet once it became clear it was false and misleading, "the State Department is knowingly cloaking the disastrous effects of the embargo on the civilian population of Cuba." And if Article III of the Genocide Convention is applied, one must conclude that the State Department is conspiring in the commission of Genocide and, if convicted by tribunal, punishment is in order.51 The State Department refused to retract its claim. It continued to assert that the CDA does NOT deny medicine to the Cuban people and it simply dismissed the conclusions from the published data, stating "we stand by the facts as presented."52 Also, contrary to reality, the State Department asserted that "[t]he Cuban Democracy Act encourages the donation of humanitarian supplies to Cuba, including medicine, food, and clothing." As documented in the published reports presented to Secretary Albright on July 29, the CDA creates enormous problems for charitable organizations wishing to donate humanitarian supplies to Cuba.53 Thus the State Department has been in possession of information that would allow it to correct its false testimony before Congress and false assertions before the public about the effects of the CDA on flow of medical sales AND donations to Cuba for over two years. In fact, the State Department continued to testify before Congress that the CDA encourages medical sales AND donations to Cuba.54
Thus, over 19 months have passed since the State Department announced publicly in the LA Timesthat if there were an error on its Fact Sheet it would correct it. The State Department continues to cover-up the inaccuracies at every opportunity. In addition, on January 18, 1998, the State Department made new false and misleading statements to Congress in defense of its revised Fact Sheet when Secretary Albright was confronted by a member of Congress who was trying to pass legislation that would lift the restrictions on the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba. Thus, despite knowing that the revised Fact Sheet contains false and misleading statements and that, by obfuscating the truth before Congress, it is conspiring in violating the most basic of international conventions governing human rights. Congress delayed in acting on legislation lifting the embargo on food and medicine, in part because of the emphasis that the State Department and its allies in Congress continue to place on the veracity of the Fact Sheet.
The State Department also violated international law. On February 3, 1995, Dr. Kirkpatrick was asked to provide testimony before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS) about the problems that the Cuban people were having in accessing health care due to the U.S. embargo against Cuba.xxiv He provided numerous instances involving children denied critical care because of the U.S. embargo. To document his conclusions, at the OAS hearing Dr. Kirkpatrick played a video of children with life-threatening conditions at various pediatric hospitals in Havana, Cuba. The U.S. embargo and specifically the CDA included restrictions that directly impeded access to food and medicines not only from the U.S., but from other countries as well.55 As a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949, the U.S. government pledged never to participate in impeding the flow of food and medicine across borders, even in time of war.56 The CDA imposes numerous conditions on the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba that are a direct violation of Fourth Geneva Convention. For example, the Convention clearly prohibits the adversary to a conflict from carrying out on-site supervision of the distribution of medicines in the other country, a condition the U.S. imposes on Cuba under the CDA.57 It did not seem conceivable to Dr. Kirkpatrick that his country would violate the most basic of international conventions governing human rights. On February 17, 1995, the OAS wrote a letter to the U.S. Government requesting that it end the restrictions on shipment of food and medicine to Cuba, calling them a violation of international law. The OAS charged that adequate medical resources are "virtually unattainable" in Cuba because of the "bureaucratic and other requirements which have to be met" in relation to the CDA.58 The Inter American Commission on Human Rights concluded in its letter that: it is aware that the Cuban Democracy Act contains provisions for such exemptions, however the Inter American Commission on Human Rights has been informed that the bureaucratic and other requirements which have to be met in relation to those exemptions render them virtually unattainable. Accordingly, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requests that the United States of America put in place Mechanisms to ensure that the necessary steps are taken for exemptions from the trade embargo in respect of medicine, medical supplies and basic food items are capable of effective and speedy implementation.59 Thus, in 1995, the U.S. Government was placed on notice by the human rights Commission for the entire Western Hemisphere of its blockade on food and its de facto embargo on medicine to Cuba.
The Genocide Convention, as defined by the U.S. Government in 1989, outlaws acts that intentionally place a civilian population on a "starvation diet" or withhold "minimal medical services".60 Unlike any other, the U.S. embargo against Cuba includes food and medicine. As was mentioned before, the Clinton Administration itself has described the Cuban embargo as "the most comprehensive embargo the United States has against any country in the world."61
The Merit System Protection Board has held, with respect to the category of substantial and specific danger to public health and safety in 5 U.S.C. 1213 (b) that "only disclosures of public health or safety dangers which are both substantial and specific are to be protected." 62 "In other words, revelation of a negligible, remote, or ill-defined peril that does not involve any particular person, place, or thing, is not protected."63 According to the Board, "general criticism by an employee of the Environmental Protection Agency that the agency is not doing enough to protect the environment would not be protected under section 2302 (b)(8). However, an allegation by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission engineer that the cooling system of a nuclear reactor is inadequate would fall within the whistleblower protection."64
It is clear from the Board's definitions that the provision is not limited to the American public. The Board only emphasized the notions "substantial" and "specific". However, the N.Y. Supreme court in Bampane v. Enzolabs,65 defined the notion "public", as "any public". While dealing with the prohibition of retaliatory personnel action by employers established in McKinney's Labor Law66 the court ruled that: "...health or safety is sufficiently important that a threat to any member of the public might well be deemed sufficient."67 Health and safety are so fundamental in the eyes of the court, that even one threatened member of the public is sufficient to be within the law's boundaries. According to this comprehensive conception, this threatened public member does not necessarily have to be an American, s/he can be any person endangered by U.S. government conduct. Moreover, the Cuban public is not just a random foreign public. It is directly mentioned in the U.S. legislation, and directly targeted by this legislation.68 Thus, the Cuban public should be included in the term "public", and hence be included in the phrase "substantial and specific danger to public health and safety." There is more than enough evidence of "substantial and specific danger to" Cuban "public health and safety", as a consequence of the State Department's behavior.
Moreover, for interpretation of statutes, legislative intent is a criterion that is most often recited.69 An overwhelming majority of judicial opinions considering statutory issues are written in the context of legislative intent. The reason for this lies in an assumption that an obligation to construe statutes so that they carry out the will of the lawmaking branch of the government is mandated by principles of separation of powers. According to the Plain Meaning Rule,70 if the legislature had intended otherwise it would have said so.71 Thus, if the legislature had intended to apply only to the American public it would have said so. Since it said only public it meant all members of the public, without restrictions limiting it to U.S. citizens.
Dr. Kirkpatrick's disclosure is specifically about the substantial danger to Cuban public health and safety. At the time that the State Department issued its Fact Sheet the widespread disastrous effects of the economic blockade on food and medicine were well established, documented, verifiable and publicized by Dr. Kirkpatrick, the OAS, the AAWH, and others. For example, the U.S. government ignored the American Public Health Association's warning, which was unfortunately vindicated by the worst epidemic of neurological disease this century, affecting 50,000 inhabitants of a n 11 million population. (Supra, at ___) In March 1997, the AAWH reported that "the U.S. embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering - even death - in Cuba."72 Similar concerns had been raised by the American Public Health Association.73
Issue II
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ENGAGED IN ILLEGALITY, ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, GROSS MISMANAGEMENT AND PERPETUATED A SUBSTANTIAL AND SPECIFIC DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY BY MAKING FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS APPROVED 36 LICENSE REQUESTS FOR THE SALE OF MEDICAL SUPPLIES TO CUBA PURSUANT TO THE CUBAN DEMOCRACY ACT.
The State Department asserted that 36 licenses had been approved since 1992 for U.S. companies to carry out commercial sales of medicine and medical equipment to Cuba.74 On July 29, Secretary Albright was presented with the Los Angeles Times report that stated that Dr. Kirkpatrick had sufficient documentation to conclude that, at most, only 19 licenses were issued for the sale of medical products to Cuba. Dr. Kirkpatrick would subsequently learn through documents obtained through FOIA requests to the Treasury and Commerce Departments that the falsehood was even worse. These documents show that only 8 licenses were issued and that none of the purchases were from the U.S., but from subsidiaries of U.S. companies located in third countries. The documents would further reveal that sales per year of food and medicine from U.S. companies has fallen from about $500,000,000 to under $75,000, plummeting to less than 0.02 percent of pre-CDA levels. On April 7, 1998, Dr. Kirkpatrick prepared a report based on the recent documents received from the Departments of Treasury and Commerce. The title of the report was "State Department Lies About Cuba: US Agencies and World Health Organization Misrepresented."75 Rep. Torres forwarded Dr. Kirkpatrick's report to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for an independent analysis. In its August Fact Sheet, the State Department claimed that the value of the medical sales to Cuba was $1,666,000 but the truth is that the value of the medical sales was only $357,000.
On April 17, 1998, the CRS released its conclusions to Rep. Torres substantially confirming the accuracy of Dr. Kirkpatrick's report.76 The CRS found that, at most, only 11 licenses were issued for medical sales to Cuba. Three of the 11 licenses listed as medical sales by the CRS were issued by the Commerce Department. Drs. Kirkpatrick and Vanden did not count these licenses as sales because Commerce did not compile a record of the actual shipment of these products to Cuba.77 Without such documentation, these licenses qualify as donations, not sales, to Cuba, as stipulated by the CDA.78
On April 24, 1998, the CRS report was released to the press in Washington DC.79 The news reporter for the article published in The Tampa Tribune contacted the State Department. The reporter wrote, A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the findings, since the agency has yet to receive a copy of the report. The State Department's figures were based on information provided by the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce and were as accurate as possible, the spokesman said.80 The above facts prove that the State Department has violated the Fraud and False Statement Act, and the Genocide Convention.81
Dr. Kirkpatrick demonstrates in his affidavit a substantial likelihood that the State Department has engaged in gross mismanagement regarding allegation II.82 On June 9, 1997, Dr. Kirkpatrick called the State Department. Mr. Victor Vockerodt identified himself as the State Department official responsible for compiling the data for the Fact Sheet. Dr. Kirkpatrick informed him that the data he compiled for the State Department's Fact Sheet conflicted with data that Dr. Kirkpatrick had been given by PAHO and the Departments of Treasury and Commerce. Mr. Vockerodt said he had no records available at the State Department to verify certain statistics in the Fact Sheet, i.e. the number of licenses approved and denied individually by Commerce and Treasury for the sale of medical products to Cuba. Mr. Vockerodt agreed to investigate the discrepancy and report back to Dr. Kirkpatrick.83
On July 16, 1997, after more than four weeks of investigation and nine telephone conversations with Dr. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Vockerodt informed Dr. Kirkpatrick on July 16, 1997, that he was unable to substantiate most of the key assertions in the State Department's Fact Sheet. He told Dr. Kirkpatrick that he had contacted the Departments of Treasury and Commerce and that he could confirm that only 18 licenses were approved by the Treasury for sale of medical supplies to Cuba, not 36 licenses as asserted in the Fact Sheet. Mr. Vockerodt said that one additional license may have been approved by Commerce. Thus, at most, only 19 licenses had been approved for sale of medical supplies to Cuba. Mr. Vockerodt said that he had come to the conclusion that the Fact Sheet was inaccurate and that it should be retracted from further publication by the State Department.84
On July 24, 1997, after reviewing Dr. Kirkpatrick's publications the Los Angeles Times aired his concerns that the "federal government has published 'cooked statistics' exaggerating the amount of medicines and medical equipment to Cuba." 85
On August 13, 1997, Michael Ranneberger responded on behalf of the Secretary of State to the July 29 letter from Drs. Kirkpatrick and Vanden by supplying them with a copy of a revised Fact Sheet dated August 5.86 Now the State Department claimed that 31 licenses were granted for the commercial sale of medicines, medical equipment and related supplies to Cuba since the CDA was enacted in 1992. The State Department continued to assert that PAHO reports that Cuba spends less on health care than other countries and that the CDA encourages humanitarian donations to Cuba and it continued to claim that the CDA does NOT deny medicines to the Cuban people.87
The problems documented in the attached affidavit adversely impact upon the agency's ability to carry out its mission. These actions and the inaction are gross mismanagement according to 5 U.S.C. 1213 (b).
Dr. Kirkpatrick also demonstrates in his affidavit a substantial likelihood that the State Department has engaged in an abuse of authority.88 In the May 14 Fact Sheet, the State Department falsely published that the CDA permits the U.S. "routinely" to issue licenses for the sale of medicines to Cuba, asserting that since the CDA was enacted 36 of 38 licenses have been approved.
On July 29, 1997, at the nomination hearing of James Rubin, the State Department informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "[t]he statement in the fact sheet that 36 licenses have been issued was inadvertently incorrect. A further review has documented that 33 licenses have been issued. These included 28 licenses for medical sales and 5 licenses to permit representatives of U.S. firms to travel to Cuba to promote the sale of their products." Actually to sell their products, these firms would have to apply for another license. The State Department continued to assert falsely before the Senate and the House the number of licenses approved for medical sales. 89
In his December 5 letter Rep. Torres asked the State Department how many of the licenses claimed as commercial sales under the CDA were actually pre-CDA licenses.90 The State Department claimed that only 3 licenses were pre-CDA.91 In fact, there were 9.
Mr. Wayne S. Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in his May 10, 1999 letter: ...the Department stated that the U.S. has "routinely" issued licenses for the sale of medicines to Cuba since the promulgation of the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992. Indeed, it said, 36 of the 38 licenses requested since then have been approved, opening the way to the sale of some $1,666,000 worth of medicines. I knew this to be untrue and upon investigating further, found that fewer than 18 licenses had been issued and less than $380,000 medicines sold - less than $80,000 a year. That is hardly what anyone would call a "routine" process.92
The facts demonstrate that the State Department has engaged in abuse of authority according to the above definition of this legal term.
Issue III
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ENGAGED IN ILLEGALITY, ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, GROSS MISMANAGEMENT AND PERPETUATED A SUBSTANTIAL AND SPECIFIC DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY BY MAKING FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS THAT CUBA SPENDS LESS PER CAPITA ON MEDICAL CARE THAN OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE REGION, INCLUDING JAMAICA, COSTA RICA AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC.
Again, the State Department violated the False Statements Act.93 In its six-page Fact Sheet, the Department asserted that the shortage of medical supplies in Cuba is not a consequence of U.S. policy, but of the Cuban government's "continued adherence to a discredited communist economic model", one that demands an inordinate emphasis on military spending at the expense of other priorities. To support this claim, the State Department misrepresented research by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), saying the research showed that the Cuban government spends less on health care than Jamaica, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic.94 The articles presented to Secretary Albright on July 29 pointed out that when Dr. Kirkpatrick presented PAHO with a copy of the State Department's Fact Sheet, PAHO rejected this claim attributed to them by the State Department. PAHO's research concluded the exact opposite, i.e. Cuba spends more on medical care per capita than any of the other 48 countries in the Americas except Canada.95
For the same factual basis as just summarized, and for the reasons discussed above on the previous issues, Dr. Kirkpatrick demonstrates in his affidavit a substantial likelihood that the State Department has engaged in gross mismanagement here as well.96 On July 16, 1997 Mr. Vockerodt informed Dr. Kirkpatrick that he could not substantiate the claim in the Fact Sheet that, according to PAHO, Cuba spends less on health care.97 This fact had an adverse impact upon the State Department's ability to carry out its human rights mission by undermining its credibility.
In addition, Dr. Kirkpatrick demonstrates a substantial likelihood that the State Department has engaged in abuse of authority.98 In the May 14 Fact Sheet, the State Department said that the Cuban health system was bad because, according to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Cuba spends less on health care than other countries in the region. In Rubin's nomination hearing in July 29, 1997, the State Department continued to assert falsely before the Senate and the House that PAHO reported Cuba spends less on health care. The inaccurate statements undermine the human rights of Cuban civilians.
Rep. Torres also wrote to Secretary Albright requesting a reference to support the State Department's claim that PAHO's research indicates the Cuban Government spends little on health care compared to three other countries in the region.99 The State Department responded, citing two sources.100 Neither of the two sources cited by the State Department for the Congressman compared all four countries referenced in the State Department's Fact Sheet for the relevant health economics. In fact, one of the references cited by the State Department states that "health has been a priority of the (Cuban) Government for three decades."101
Mr. Wayne S. Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in his May 10, 1999 letter:
The "Fact Sheet" also asserted that the real problem with the Cuban health system is that the Cuban government does not allot enough funds for it. The State Department claims to base this assertion on a report issued by the Pan American Health Organization which alleges that Cuba spends less on health care than do neighboring countries. Again, I knew this to be untrue. I called representatives of the Pan American Health Organization who confirmed that their information indicated the exact opposite, i.e., that on a per capita basis, Cuba spends more on health care than does any neighboring country.102
IV. CONCLUSION
As indicated above, Dr. Kirkpatrick's three allegations meet the Merit System Protection Board's definitions of "gross mismanagement", "abuse of authority", "violation of any law", and "substantial and specific danger to public health and safety". He is open to working closely with Office of Special Counsel staff for other characterizations of his concerns that would meet the standards of section1213(b).The referenced disclosure verifies a substantial likelihood that the Department of State engaged in illegality, abuse of authority, gross mismanagement and perpetuated a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. Thus, the Office of Special Counsel has to use its authority in 5 U.S.C. 1213 (c), and transmit the information to the State Department and require that the Secretary of State will conduct an investigation.
Please do not hesitate to request any further specific record citations supporting the accuracy of these allegations, or the legal basis for applying specific categories of Whistleblower Protection Act misconduct to the record, or contacting any of the experts mentioned in this brief. Thank you for your efforts in reviewing this disclosure.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
Jasmin Keshet
Internation Law Fellow
Government Accountability Project
______________________
Tom Devine
Legal Director
Government Accountability Project
Counsel for Dr. Kirkpatrick
September 20, 1999
Footnotes:
See pp. 3-4 in Dr. Kirkpatrick's affidavit (pp.); endnotes xiii, xiv.
See p. 3.
See p. 19.
Initially the document was presented with a press release, but the State Department since has formally called it a fact sheet, and that is how it is identified on the web.
Nafus v. Department of the Army, 57 M.S.P.R. 386 (1993)
Overview of the Department of State <http://www.state.gov/www/dept/dept_mission.html>
id.
See p. 8; exhibit 25.
See p. 8; exhibit 21.
See pp. 8-14; exhibit 25.
D'Elia v. Department of the Treasury, 60 M.S.P.R. 226, 232 (1993).
See p. 3; exhibit 7-9.
See p. 3; exhibit 10, 11.
See p. 3; exhibit 11.
See p. 4; exhibit 7.
See p. 4; exhibit 7.
See p. 4; exhibit 7-11.
See p. 4; exhibit 16.
International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948, entry into force 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII. www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm; See p. 5; exhibit 23.
See p. 5; exhibit 7.
See p. 6; exhibits 5, 6, 19.
See p. 6; exhibit 19.
See p. 6; exhibit 19.
Mr. Bill Millen sent a fax to Dr. Kirkpatrick (exhibit 19) on behalf of United States Permanent Mission to the Organization of American States, U.S. Department of State, ARA/USOAS, writing that: "I am informed that the U.S. did not make a substantial reply to the February 1995 letter of IACHR. Hence, all I have to show is the press guidance....". The press guidance to this fax is enclosed.
See p. 6; exhibit 20.
See p. 6; exhibit 9.
See p. 14; exhibit 29.
See p. 15; exhibit 31.
See p. 15; exhibit 32.
See p. 15; exhibits 33, 34 and 35.
See p. 15; exhibit 31.
See p. 15-16; exhibit 36.
See p. 16; exhibits 29,37, 37a, 37b, 37c, 37d.
See p. 17; exhibit 26.
See p. 17; exhibit 39.
See p. 16; exhibits 29,37, 37a, 37b, 37c, 37d.
18 U.S.C. 1001 (a)
See paragraph 12 at pp. 8-14 at Dr. Kirkpatrick's affidavit; exhibit 13, 14, 21, 25 at Dr. Kirkpatrick's affidavit (exhibit)
See p. 9; exhibit 23.
See paragraphs 12, 16 at pp. 14, 15; exhibit 32.
See pp. 3-9; exhibits 7-14; See endnote v.
See p. 14; exhibits 29, 37c and 38.
See p. 3; exhibit 2.
See p. 3; exhibit 3.
See p. 3; exhibits 2-4.
See p. 3; exhibit 5, 6.
See exhibit 5, which quoted from the letter to the US government.
See p. 5; exhibit 23.
See p. 5; exhibit 7.
Prescott v. Department of Health and Human Services National Institute of Child Health and Development, 6 M.S.P.B. 216 (1981).
Sazinski v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 73 M.S.P.R. 682 (1997).
Prescottsupra note 63.
Bampane v. Enzolabs., 608 N.Y.S.2d 989.
Chapter 31, Article 20, section 740.
Richard A. Givens, PRACTICES COMMENTARIES, Mckinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 30, Labor Law sec. 740, (1993 Pocket Part), at 67-68; Supra note 65 at 991.
The Cuban Democracy Act, 22 U.S.C. 6001-6010; and 22 U.S.C. 6021.
Norman J. Singer, SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, (Callaghan, Sands 4th ed., vol. 2A, sec. 45.05).
See the legal definition in Issue I, at paragraph 5.
See p. 14; exhibit 29.
See p. 15; exhibit 36.
See p. 16; exhibit 38.
See endnote viii.
18 U.S.C. 1001 (a).
See p. 9; exhibit 20.
See exhibit 13, 14, 24.
See legal definition under Issue I, section 1.
See p. 7-8; exhibit 25.
See legal definition in Issue I, section 5.
See p. 15; exhibit 36.
See p. 16; exhibits 38, 38a, 38b.
See p. 16; exhibits 38, 38a, 38b.
See endnote viii.
End Notes
Report of the TransAfrica Forum Cuba Delegation, Forty Years of Hostility: Consequences of the United States Economic Embargo on Cuba, March 1999.
Letter from Victor W. Sidel, MD, to GAP, April 16, 1999.
Dr. Sidel's biosketch and CV.
Fax from Mr. Vockerodt, July 30, 1999.
Support letter from Ms. Kathleen G. Hower, August 16, 1999, with enclosed materials about global links.
Supporting fax from Ms. Ellen Bernstein from the Inter-Religious Foundation for Community Organization, May 11, 1999.
A brief summery of relevant professional experience of Ms. Ellen Bernstein.
Support letter from Mr. Wayne S. Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, May 10, 1999.
Published Letter of Mr. Smith, Miami Herald, December 4, 1996.
Mr. Smith's CV.
Additional support letter from Mr. Smith, June 30, 1999.
Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1998, Volume II, which was enclose to Mr. Smith's June 30, 1999 letter.
Support letter from Gustavo C. Roman, MD, FACP, FRSM, April 28, 1999.
Article by Dr. Romano in the Medical Journal "Neuroepidemiology" titled Epidemic Neuropathy in Cuba: A Public Health Problem Related to the Cuban Democracy Act of the United States.
Support letter from Ms. Jane Franklin, April 23, 1999.
Enclosed article titled The Vaccine Embargo by Jane Franklin, and upcoming talks by Franklin.
Jane Franklin's CV.
Support e-mail message from Richard Garfield, April 16, 1999.
Mr. Richard Garfield's CV.
Support letter from Dr. William T. Whitney, April 16, 1999.
"Myths and Facts about the U.S. Embargo on Medicine and Medical Supplies", Oxfam America, WOLA.
Remarks and statement by Rep. Torres to the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade - Hearing on U.S. Economic and Trade Policy towards Cuba, May 7, 1998.
A file of a person who was sent to prison because of trading with the enemy (Cuba), January 30, 1998.
Hearing of Anthony F. Kirkpatrick, MD., Ph.D., University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida USA. Organization of American States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Washington DC, February 3, 1995; Anthony F. Kirkpatrick, MD., Ph.D., University of South Florida, College of Medicine, Adverse Effects of the US Economic Embargo on the Health of Cuba's Children, Presented at Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States (O.A.S.), February 3, 1995.
The ordeal of Dr. Anthony Kirkpartick, an anesthesiologist for the Veterans Administration, is a microcosm of the need to restore genuine rights to whistleblowers in the federal government. Dr. Kirkpatrick obtained approval as part of his duties to research the impact of the Cuban medical embargo on that nation. Through first hand observations he proved and then blew the whistle to his supervisors on the false statements by our government that the embargo was not harming the health of Cuban civilians. When his disclosures prompted political backlash, the VA lost its nerve and openly retaliated against him for exposing human tragedies caused by the embargo. This was tantamount to an admission of illegal retaliation. When Dr. Kirkpatrick exercised his rights, however, his case was thrown out on grounds that the Whistleblower Protection Act does not apply when an employee makes disclosures within government channels or to carry out his duties. In other words, freedom of speech does not apply if federal employees work within the system on the job, when it counts most for the public. In personal terms, Dr. Kirkpatrick's career has flourished since being exiled from the federal government, because that meant restoring his professional freedom. For the public, however, his experience also personifies why the public servants leave the government, and bureaucrats stay. It is unrealistic to expect that whistleblowers can defend the public, if they can't defend themselves.
Dr. Anthony Kirkpatrick (left) meets with doctors and nurses at
however, his case was thrown out on grounds that the Whistleblower Protection Act does not apply when an employee makes disclosures within government channels or to carry out his duties. In other words, freedom of speech does not apply if federal employees work within the system on the job, when it counts most for the public. In personal terms, Dr. Kirkpatrick's career has flourished since being exiled from the federal government, because that meant restoring his professional freedom. For the public, however, his experience also personifies why the public servants leave the government, and bureaucrats stay. It is unrealistic to expect that whistleblowers can defend the public, if they can't defend themselves. 