type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' October 10, 2012\n\n\n\nPRESIDENTIAL POLICY DIRECTIVE/PPD-19\n\n\n\nSUBJECT: Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to\n Classified Information\n\n\nThis Presidential Policy Directive ensures that employees\n(1) serving in the Intelligence Community or (2) who are\neligible for access to classified information can effectively\nreport waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified\nnational security information. It prohibits retaliation against\nemployees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse.\n\nTo ensure the timely and effective implementation of the goals\nof this directive, I hereby direct that the following actions be\ntaken:\n\nA. Prohibition on Retaliation in the Intelligence Community\n\nAny officer or employee of a Covered Agency who has authority to\ntake, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any Personnel\nAction, shall not, with respect to such authority, take or fail\nto take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a Personnel Action\nwith respect to any employee serving in an Intelligence\nCommunity Element as a reprisal for a Protected Disclosure.\n\nWithin 270 days of the date of this directive, the head of each\nIntelligence Community Element shall certify to the Director of\nNational Intelligence (DNI) that the personnel policies that\napply to that element provide a process for employees to seek\nreview of Personnel Actions they allege to be in violation of\nthis directive and that the review process is consistent with\nthe requirements of this directive. Such review process shall\napply to Personnel Actions that arise after the date on which\nthe department or agency (\xe2\x80\x9cagency\xe2\x80\x9d) head certifies the agency\nreview process. If the head of any Intelligence Community\nElement fails to make this certification or if the DNI disagrees\nwith the certification, the DNI shall notify the President.\n\nThe review process required by the above paragraph shall be\nconsistent, to the fullest extent possible, with the policies\n\x0cand procedures used to adjudicate alleged violations of\nsection 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code. The review\nprocess shall provide for the protection of classified national\nsecurity information and intelligence sources and methods. As\npart of the review process, the agency Inspector General shall\nconduct a review to determine whether a Personnel Action\nviolated this directive and may recommend that the agency take\nspecific corrective action to return the employee, as nearly as\npracticable and reasonable, to the position such employee would\nhave held had the reprisal not occurred. An agency head shall\ncarefully consider the findings of and actions recommended by\nthe agency Inspector General. To the extent authorized by law\n(including the Back Pay Act), corrective action may include, but\nis not limited to, reinstatement, reassignment, the award of\nreasonable attorney\xe2\x80\x99s fees, other reasonable costs, back pay and\nrelated benefits, travel expenses, and compensatory damages.\n\nB. Prohibition on Retaliation by Affecting Eligibility for\n Access to Classified Information\n\nAny officer or employee of an executive branch agency who has\nauthority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve\nany action affecting an employee\xe2\x80\x99s Eligibility for Access to\nClassified Information shall not, with respect to such\nauthority, take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to\ntake, any action affecting an employee\xe2\x80\x99s Eligibility for Access\nto Classified Information as a reprisal for a Protected\nDisclosure.\n\nWithin 270 days of the date of this directive, the head of each\nagency in possession of classified information shall certify to\nthe DNI, acting in his or her capacity as the head of the entity\nselected by the President under subsection 435b(b) of title 50,\nUnited States Code, and as the Security Executive Agent\ndesignated in Executive Order 13467 of June 30, 2008, that the\nagency has a review process that permits employees to appeal\nactions affecting Eligibility for Access to Classified\nInformation they allege to be in violation of this directive and\nthat the review process is consistent with the requirements of\nthis directive. Such review process shall apply to actions that\narise after the date on which the agency head certifies the\nagency review process. If the head of any agency fails to make\nthis certification or if the DNI disagrees with the\ncertification, the DNI shall notify the President.\n\nThe review process required by the above paragraph shall, to the\nfullest extent possible, be consistent with and integrated into\n\x0cthe policies and procedures used to review security clearance\ndeterminations under Section 5.2 of Executive Order 12968 of\nAugust 2, 1995, as amended. The review process shall provide\nfor the protection of classified national security information\nand intelligence sources and methods. As part of the review\nprocess, the agency Inspector General shall conduct a review to\ndetermine whether an action affecting Eligibility for Access to\nClassified Information violated this directive and may recommend\nthat the agency reconsider the employee\xe2\x80\x99s Eligibility for Access\nto Classified Information consistent with the national security\nand with Executive Order 12968 and recommend that the agency\ntake other corrective action to return the employee, as nearly\nas practicable and reasonable, to the position such employee\nwould have held had the reprisal not occurred. An agency head\nshall carefully consider the findings of and actions recommended\nby the agency Inspector General. To the extent authorized by\nlaw (including the Back Pay Act), corrective action may include,\nbut is not limited to, reinstatement, reassignment, reasonable\nattorney\xe2\x80\x99s fees, other reasonable costs, back pay and related\nbenefits, travel expenses, and compensatory damages.\n\nC. Inspector General External Review Panel\n\nAn employee alleging a reprisal who has exhausted the applicable\nreview process required by Section A or B of this directive may\nrequest an external review by a three-member Inspector General\npanel (External Review Panel) chaired by the Inspector General\nof the Intelligence Community (on behalf of the DNI, acting in\nhis capacity as the head of the entity selected by the President\nunder subsection 435b(b) of title 50, United States Code, and as\nthe Security Executive Agent designated in Executive Order 13467\nof June 30, 2008). If such a request is made, the Inspector\nGeneral of the Intelligence Community shall decide, in his or\nher discretion, whether to convene the External Review Panel,\nand, if so, shall designate two other panel members from the\nInspectors General of the following agencies: Departments of\nState, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Energy, and Homeland\nSecurity and Central Intelligence Agency. The Inspector General\nfrom the agency that completed the initial review shall not be a\nmember of the External Review Panel. The External Review Panel\nshall complete a review of the claim, which may consist of a\nfile review, as appropriate, within 180 days.\n\nIf the External Review Panel determines that the individual was\nthe subject of a Personnel Action prohibited by Section A while\nan employee of a Covered Agency or an action affecting his or\nher Eligibility for Access to Classified Information prohibited\n\x0cby Section B, the panel may recommend that the agency head take\ncorrective action to return the employee, as nearly as\npracticable and reasonable, to the position such employee would\nhave held had the reprisal not occurred and that the agency head\nreconsider the employee\xe2\x80\x99s Eligibility for Access to Classified\nInformation consistent with the national security and with\nExecutive Order 12968.\n\nAn agency head shall carefully consider the recommendation of\nthe External Review Panel pursuant to the above paragraph and\nwithin 90 days, inform the panel and the DNI of what action he\nor she has taken. If the head of any agency fails to so inform\nthe DNI, the DNI shall notify the President.\n\nOn an annual basis, the Inspector General of the Intelligence\nCommunity shall report the determinations and recommendations\nand department and agency head responses to the DNI and, as\nappropriate, to the relevant congressional committees.\n\nWith respect to matters covered by this directive, all agencies\nshall cooperate with their respective agency Inspectors General,\nthe Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, and\nExternal Review Panels and provide such information and\nassistance to their respective agency Inspectors General, the\nInspector General of the Intelligence Community, and members of\nExternal Review Panels as such Inspectors General may request,\nto the extent permitted by law.\n\nD. Policies and Procedures\n\nWithin 365 days of the date of this directive, the DNI shall, in\nconsultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney\nGeneral, and the heads of agencies containing Intelligence\nCommunity Elements, issue policies and procedures for ensuring\nthat all employees serving in Intelligence Community Elements\nare aware of the protections and review processes available to\nindividuals who make Protected Disclosures. These policies and\nprocedures shall to the extent practicable be publically\navailable, and shall provide:\n\n(1) guidance for individual officers or employees regarding\n what disclosures are protected;\n\n(2) guidance for potential recipients on the appropriate\n handling of Protected Disclosures, including for referral\n by the DNI or Inspector General of the Intelligence\n\x0c Community to appropriate agency officials of any Protected\n Disclosures unrelated to national intelligence; and\n\n(3) information regarding the review processes required by\n Sections A, B, and C of this directive.\n\nE. Review of Regulations Implementing Section 2303 of Title 5,\nUnited States Code\n\nWithin 180 days of the date of this directive, the Attorney\nGeneral, in consultation with the Special Counsel and Federal\nBureau of Investigation employees, shall deliver a report to the\nPresident that assesses the efficacy of the provisions contained\nin part 27 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations in deterring\nthe personnel practices prohibited in section 2303 of title 5,\nUnited States Code, and ensuring appropriate enforcement of that\nsection, and describes any proposed revisions to the provisions\ncontained in Part 27 of title 28 that would increase their\neffectiveness in fulfilling the purposes of section 2303 of\ntitle 5, United States Code.\n\nF. Definitions\n\nFor purposes of this directive:\n\n(1) The term \xe2\x80\x9cCovered Agency\xe2\x80\x9d means an executive department or\n independent establishment, as defined under sections 101\n and 104 of title 5, United States Code, that contains or\n constitutes an Intelligence Community Element, as defined\n below.\n\n(2) The term \xe2\x80\x9cEligibility for Access to Classified Information\xe2\x80\x9d\n means the result of the determination whether an employee\n (a) is eligible for access to classified information in\n accordance with Executive Order 12968 (relating to access\n to classified information), or any successor thereto, and\n Executive Order 10865 of February 20, 1960, as amended\n (relating to safeguarding classified information with\n industry), or any successor thereto; and (b) possesses a\n need to know under such orders.\n\n(3) The term \xe2\x80\x9cIntelligence Community Element\xe2\x80\x9d means any\n executive agency or unit thereof determined by the\n President under section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) of title 5,\n United States Code, to have as its principal function the\n conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence\n activities, including but not limited to the Office of the\n\x0c DNI, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security\n Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National\n Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National\n Reconnaissance Office. For purposes of this directive, the\n term \xe2\x80\x9cIntelligence Community Element\xe2\x80\x9d does not include the\n Federal Bureau of Investigation.\n\n(4) The term \xe2\x80\x9cPersonnel Action\xe2\x80\x9d means an appointment,\n promotion, detail, transfer, reassignment, demotion,\n suspension, termination, reinstatement, restoration,\n reemployment, or performance evaluation; a decision\n concerning pay, benefits, or awards; a decision concerning\n education or training if the education or training may\n reasonably be expected to lead to an appointment,\n reassignment, promotion, or performance evaluation; a\n decision to order psychiatric testing or examination; and\n any other significant change in duties, responsibilities,\n or working conditions.\n\nThe term \xe2\x80\x9cPersonnel Action\xe2\x80\x9d does not include the termination of\nan employee pursuant to section 1609 of title 10, United States\nCode. The term \xe2\x80\x9cPersonnel Action\xe2\x80\x9d does not include the\ntermination of an employee pursuant to section 102A(m) of the\nNational Security Act of 1947, section 104A(e) of the National\nSecurity Act of 1947, or section 7532 of title 5, United States\nCode, so long as the official authorized by those provisions to\nterminate the employee (and not his or her delegee)\n(i) determines that the alternative legal procedures to\nterminate the employee cannot be invoked in a manner consistent\nwith the national security and (ii) promptly notifies the\nInspector General of the employing agency. The term \xe2\x80\x9cPersonnel\nAction\xe2\x80\x9d does not include actions taken with respect to a\nposition that the agency head has designated, prior to the\naction as being of a confidential, policy determining,\npolicymaking, or policy advocating character. The term\n\xe2\x80\x9cPersonnel Action\xe2\x80\x9d does not include actions taken with respect\nto a member of the Armed Forces, as used in section 1034 of\nTitle 10, United States Code. The term \xe2\x80\x9cPersonnel Action\xe2\x80\x9d does\nnot include any actions taken prior to the issuance of this\ndirective.\n\n(5) The term \xe2\x80\x9cProtected Disclosure\xe2\x80\x9d means:\n\n (a) a disclosure of information by the employee to a\n supervisor in the employee\xe2\x80\x99s direct chain of command\n up to and including the head of the employing agency,\n to the Inspector General of the employing agency or\n\x0c Intelligence Community Element, to the Director of\n National Intelligence, to the Inspector General of the\n Intelligence Community, or to an employee designated\n by any of the above officials for the purpose of\n receiving such disclosures, that the employee\n reasonably believes evidences (i) a violation of any\n law, rule, or regulation; or (ii) gross mismanagement,\n a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a\n substantial and specific danger to public health or\n safety;\n\n (b) any communication described by and that complies with\n subsection (a)(1), (d), or (h) of section 8H of the\n Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.);\n subsection (d)(5)(A) of section 17 of the Central\n Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403q); or\n subsection (k)(5)(A), (D), or (G), of section 103H of\n the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-3h);\n\n (c) the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance\n with regard to the violation of Section A or B of this\n directive;\n\n (d) lawfully participating in an investigation or\n proceeding regarding a violation of Section A or B of\n this directive; or\n\n (e) cooperating with or disclosing information to an\n Inspector General, in accordance with applicable\n provisions of law in connection with an audit,\n inspection, or investigation conducted by the\n Inspector General,\n\nif the actions described under subparagraphs (c) through (e) do\nnot result in the employee disclosing classified information or\nother information contrary to law.\n\nG. General Provisions\n\nThis directive shall be implemented in a manner consistent with\napplicable law, including all statutory authorities of the heads\nof agencies and Inspectors General, and does not restrict\navailable rights, procedures, and remedies under section 2302(b)\nof Title 5, United States Code.\n\nThis directive is not intended to, and does not, create any\nright or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law\n\x0cor in equity by any party against the United States, its\ndepartments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or\nagents, or any other person.\n\n\n\nBARACK OBAMA\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
Der Draufgänger ist ein deutscher Spielfilm aus dem Jahre 1931 unter der Regie von Richard Eichberg. Die Hauptrollen sind mit Hans Albers und Marta Eggerth besetzt.
 Handlung
 Hans Röder ist Hafenpolizist in Hamburg und wird aufgrund seines mutigen Einsatzes für Recht und Ordnung „Draufgänger“ genannt. Der amerikanische Millionär Patterson feiert ein großes Fest auf seiner Luxusyacht. Röder rettet während der Party ein Mädchen aus dem Hafenbecken. Kurz nach der Rettungstat wird er von einem Unbekannten niedergeschlagen und das Mädchen von diesem Mann auf einem Motorrad entführt. Hans Röder verfolgt den Mann und die Spur führt ihn ins zwielichtige Hippodrom. Polizist Röder erhält kurze Zeit später die Nachricht von einem Schmuckdiebstahl auf der Yacht des Millionärs. Da er für den Fall zuständig ist, führt ihn sein Weg erneut ins Hippodrom. Hier findet er auch das Mädchen wieder. Sie heißt Trude und arbeitet als Kunstreiterin; eigentlich möchte sie jedoch Sängerin werden. Hans verliebt sich in sie, obwohl der Verdacht des Diebstahls schwer auf ihr lastet. Für Röder ist das jedoch eine nur noch größere Motivation, den wahren Dieb zu stellen. Und sehr bald schon gewinnt er die Überzeugung, dass George Brown der Täter ist.
 Hintergrund
 Der Draufgänger ist der zweite Film von Richard Eichberg nach Der Greifer, bei dem Hans Albers einen tatkräftigen Polizisten mimte und damit sein Image als blonder Hans und früher Actionheld des deutschen Tonfilms festigte. Die Filmaufnahmen wurden an Originalschauplätzen am Hamburger Hafen gedreht. Die Uraufführung des Films fand am 26. November 1931 im Ufa-Palast am Zoo in Berlin statt.
 Kritik
 Kritik aus der Lichtbild-Bühne vom 27. November 1931: Das Publikum fiebert, bangt, fürchtet um den Helden des Films, als sei der gute Hans selber in Gefahr. Jede Wendung zum Guten, jede Rettung aus prekärer Lage wird donnernd applaudiert.
 Weblinks
 Filmtitel 1931
 Deutscher Film
 Schwarzweißfilm
 Kriminalfilm