| Comment Number: | OL-10506318 |
| Received: | 3/11/2005 1:38:49 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
RE: FR/Vol 70 -- 2/14/05 -- Pg 7591, Par. 9901.712: I don't mean to sound paranoid, but if ever there was a turn of words that would make a person think that someone was trying to put something over on him, the first sentence of this paragraph is it. Listen to this; the sentence reads: "The Secretary has the sole, exclusive, and unreviewable discretion to identify offenses that have a direct and substantial adverse impact on the Department's national security mission." What's the purpose of using such words as "sole?"; "exclusive?"; "unreviewable?" Hey, why stop there? Why not add more words, like, "for Now and Forever", or "until the End of Time", "until the Heavens part and the Seas boil over".... The point I'm trying to make here is that usually, Government prose is couched in pretty tame language. For example, in the case of the above statement, I might normally expect to see something like the above sentence in a document like this, but without the phrase, "sole, exclusive, and unreviewable". I mean, nowhere else in this document does it say that anybody else has such power; therefore, these three words constitute unnecessary emphasis --- UNLESS, the person or agency promoting these Regulations has a special purpose in mind for this special discretionary power -- a purpose that will be permitted by the purposefully ambiguous prose of this document, but which those who are promoting this document do not wish to reveal at this time. ----- So call me paranoid, but I’d bet good money that there is some special and unpleasant purpose behind the use of such excessively strong language, which would vest the Secretary with "sole", "exclusive" and "unreviewable" (I dislike this last word most of all) powers to "identify offenses that have a direct and substantial adverse impact on the Department's national security mission." Just think of it! The Secretary will have the power to decide what is, and what is not, against the Law, and no one will have to power to stop him. I don't know about you, but the above quoted words -- and the concept which they promote -- really stinks. This sentence needs to be rethought and rephrased, keeping in mind the rights of the people of the United States, and not the personal aims of whomever happens to be the Secretary of Defense.