Misunderstandings Surround Whistleblower Definition and DOPSR Process in Efforts to Discredit Lue and Grusch

Understanding the Intricacies of Information Gatekeeping in Large Organizations

Many people often misunderstand the operational dynamics within large organizations, particularly government agencies. This misconception extends to how information is managed and disclosed, especially in cases involving sensitive or classified data.

Let’s delve into a scenario that may shed some light on this intricate process. Imagine working in a sprawling business enterprise with numerous departments. In such a setting, it’s common not to know everyone in the building or what their roles are. For instance, if you discovered that your manager was embezzling funds, the immediate course of action would be to report the matter to Human Resources (HR). Now, while HR might recognize your manager’s name and position, it’s unlikely they have a personal connection with them, nor do they condone the illegal activity.

In this context, you are essentially a whistleblower, flagging malpractice within your department to another segment of the company. Should this matter escalate to the media, the company’s legal team would likely scrutinize your statements to ensure no sensitive information is inadvertently revealed, potentially exposing the company to further liabilities.

You can still communicate with the media truthfully, yet tactfully avoid disclosing specifics that might cause additional harm or legal trouble for the company.

This scenario is reminiscent of how the U.S. government handles disclosures of classified information, particularly in fields shrouded in secrecy like Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) programs. When former intelligence officers, such as Lue Elizondo or David Grusch, wish to speak publicly about classified programs, they must first navigate a formal review process orchestrated by the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR).

DOPSR’s role is strictly administrative; they ensure that no classified information compromising national security is divulged. The focus isn’t on protecting secret UAP programs but rather safeguarding legally sensitive or classified data. For example, Elizondo’s book manuscript on his work in the Pentagon’s UAP programs underwent DOPSR review to certify that nothing within could jeopardize intelligence operations or military security.

Similarly, David Grusch, when attempting to discuss Special Access Programs (SAPs) allegedly involved in reverse-engineering UAPs, had his statements reviewed by DOPSR to prevent leaks of classified information. Crucially, if an attempt was made to suppress Grusch’s claims because they exposed unlawful programs, DOPSR would require a legitimate, security-based reason to justify the censorship.

For instance, if Grusch proposed statements like, "I believe there’s a secret SAP reverse-engineering UAP technology," and this was rebuffed by DOPSR, the office would need to specifically outline why this information was too sensitive for public dissemination. Blocking such disclosures can often result in unintended consequences, drawing more attention to the very programs they’re trying to keep under wraps and potentially appearing more suspicious than allowing the disclosure and later discrediting it.

The individuals at DOPSR reviewing these disclosures aren’t part of any conspiracy. They function as gatekeepers ensuring classified information remains sealed. Any active suppression of disclosures would need to be justified with a clear, national security-related rationale. Anything less would be hard to defend and could lead to increased scrutiny over the reasons behind withholding certain details.

Thus, much like in the corporate world, these review processes in government agencies are designed to protect sensitive information. They are not inherently structured to conceal deeper corruption or illicit activities. Often, unethical or illegal actions are hidden from those conducting these reviews.

By understanding these nuances, the operations of large organizations and their information management practices become clearer, highlighting the complexity and importance of these gatekeeping processes in maintaining security and integrity.