Capt. Dan Hanley says S. 372 is "sorely lacking"
Captain Dan Hanley (center in photo) is the host of the Whistleblowing Airline Employees Blog Talk Radio Program and a leader of the Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association. He is a former United Airlines pilot, and succeeded in getting the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate improprieties in United's bankruptcy. When the Senate passed its flawed version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), S. 372, and the National Whistleblowers Center called on the House to fix the flaws, Capt. Hanley initially signed onto a letter urging NWC to support House passage of S. 372, as is. Now he has retracted his support of that letter. Here is what he says today through Facebook:
My overriding concern is the continued corruption that lies within the DOJ and all intelligence services, which will be exacerbated with passage of the bill in its present form. It is for these reasons that, although some improvements were achieved in specific areas, the overall bill is sorely lacking in areas of import to me and our association.
S. 372 would coral the whistleblower complaints of federal employees in the intelligence agencies to a panel run by the heads of those agencies. Capt. Hanley now rejects the idea that we can advance our cause with legislation that is "sorely lacking in the areas of import to me and our association."
.jpg)
How can the agency doing the investigation, also be the agency under investigation? Sounds like a HUGE conflict of interest to me.
We need more support for groups seeking the truth not less.
I say give the pilots whatever they want. They are the ones I trust my life to when I am in the air. They know what they need in order to fly a safe plane. Stop harassing them; listen to what they say.
Come on Get the Truth out to the people? I support my Pilots not an agency that's under investigation. Where's responsible Journalists on this??????
I support Don Hanley's efforts and his judgment, and I would like to see his concerns and his doubts about S. 372 attended to with serious consideration.